Premarital sex-- any logical arguments against it?

[Flappycat]

The first guy I had sex with (nearly 13 years ago) is still one of my best friends. I would say that formed a pretty good bond...

I don't think it's the same thing, though. However, I'm still a bit of an infant on how the chemistry of this works.

 

[!Fluffy!]

You surprise me, Moon Woman, I had you pegged for a Libertine for sure. Your comic book anaolgy is way off, as many comics writers far surpass novelists in terms of intellect and storytelling artistry, but nonetheless, your stand on pre-marital sex is very brave. Few there are who would say what you have said and the way you said it, and even fewer would use the word "Fornication" doing it.

Alright already about the comic books you guys. Substitute Kool-Aid and fine French champagne, okay? (You are all so cute. I knew when I posted that there would be a comment or two about it).

Alas, a former shameless godless libertine Godlike so your instincts were not far off.

As for the usage, thanks for the compliment. Brave or not, I tend to ignore connotations. As a literalist I make no apologies about using the most accurate word for an idea, no matter how it has been hijacked and perverted by others who would sully the language with their own bias.

Personally, I can readily admit as a man and a former Catholic, that I have always inwardly desired extra-marital sex, sex devoid of commitment, selfish sex. It's difficult being a young fantasist, but I used this perception of my own wants to teach myself many valuable lessons as I abstained from sex altogether (and still do to this very day).

That said, I would deny no-one their "fun". I cannot say whether extra-marital sex is inferior to wedded union, as you claim...I doubt it, but moral relativity has made such fornication a symbol of freedom and consummation in its own right, so right or wrong, it can't be changed as an aspect of society now.

Whatever. I'll take my own advice from another thread and limit my comments to my own experience then. Some would argue sexual liberation isn't all it's cracked up to be for women, no doubt a man's experience might be different.

 

[Sunstone]

But it's true, in a sense, that premarital relationships are "less" than lifelong partnerships. Vasopressin plays a role in memory formation, and it also seems to play a large role in the formation of timeless relationships. I think that this part of the chemistry of relationships takes time to completely develop.

IF I remember correctly, vasopressin tends to kick in with males after the male feels he's in a secure, committed relationship. If his partner in that relationship doesn't commit to him, then vasopressin is far less likely to kick in. In a stable, committed relationship, it can take a year or two before it kicks in.

Vasopressin doesn't work with males the same way that oxytocin works in bonding. The oxytocin bond is a sort of warm and fuzzy one. But vasopressin tends to work as a bonding chemical by making the male more rational, and less impulsive, in who he mates with.

From what I've read, vasopressin probably doesn't play a large role in bonding females to their partners.

 

[Sunstone]

Testosterone tends to work against oxytocin. Is it possible that this is part of the reason that gay men tend to have shorter term relationships outside of lifelong commitments?

I think you might be right. Testosterone does several things in humans, but one of them is to create a desire to "hit the road", rather than stay in a relationship.

 

[Inky]

I think the question of whether premarital sex is "good" needs some unpacking. Unless we're talking morals, something is generally good because it fulfills a particular goal. A granola bar is "better" than chocolate when the goal is eating filling and nutritious food; chocolate is "better" when the goal is eating something sweet for pleasure and entertainment. (I'm not comparing marital sex to granola; this is just an example of word use.) So, different kinds of sex will be better or worse based on what purpose you're trying to achieve. The two that come to mind are pleasure and bonding. If we're going to rate pleasure as a "lower" goal than bonding, there needs to be some kind of value-based framework which explains why purposes have specific worths and how to decide which ones are worth more than others.

I'm surprised by the dichotomy of premarital sex as pure pleasure and marital sex as commitment. It's possible to sleep with someone as an expression of love and devotion and still acknowledge that your relationship may not be permanent. It's also possible for a married couple to have sex with each other just for the pleasure and not because it's a bonding experience. I'd say a better division is casual (one-time sex with a friend or stranger) and committed (sex with someone who you're in a romantic relationship with, whether it be dating or marriage).

 

[Scott1]

If someone can give me a logical argument that doesn't involve the Bible or any religious text against it, I'll rethink my views on it.

I'm not sure if a Catholic view will count as not being "religious"...., but I'll toss out our perspective anyhow.

Chastity is expressed notably in friendship with one's neighbor. Whether it develops between persons of the same or opposite sex, friendship represents a great good for all. It leads to spiritual communion..... because I do believe if people spent less time trying to gratify their sexual urges and spent more time trying to befriend those of the opposite sex and really giving of their time and emotions, the world would be a better place.... call it based on religion and toss it out, but I believe that to truly love thy neighbor, most of us would be better off not to look at our fellow man as potential sexual partners before all else.

Scott

 

[Inky]

I believe that to truly love thy neighbor, most of us would be better off not to look at our fellow man as potential sexual partners before all else.

So do I. I also think, though, that premarital sexual relationships can be conducted just as respectfully, reservedly and intelligently as sex inside of marriage. You don't have to choose between not having intercourse at all and letting obsession with sex run your life.

 

[Flappycat]

Now, one interesting concept, Sunstone, is that this might also explain some of reasons behind the trend of "consensual infidelity" in gay relationships, even strongly cohesive ones. If they're not as affected by actual sexual intercourse, then extra-marital sex wouldn't be as harmful to the integrity of their relationship. This might not be quite the case, but it's interesting to contemplate. It's also interesting that you suggest that the effects of vasopressin are stronger in men, given that gay men don't seem, as far as I can tell, to have any difficulty in holding together a devoted relationship once they've gotten over the hurdle of getting started. I don't know how much there is to all this speculation, but it's interesting.

 

[Ciscokid]

I'm not much against pre-marital sex, but I do strongly encourage people to hold off for a while. I have no problem admitting to people that I don't have sex with women until after I get to know them a bit.

Now when I was younger I had sex as soon as possible. When it comes to being serious about finding a mate....sex can really make a mess of things.

Two people find each other and decide to date...the next thing you know they're in bed exchanging fluids. As Sunstone stated, there are things that happen at the chemical level in the brain due to this union. People are easily fooled into thinking that they're in love.

So they start acting like they're in love and start diving into a relationship only to find out months later [not in every case but many] it was a big mistake and they weren't compatible!

I personally won't have sex with a woman until I feel a connection with her in a non-physical sense. I don't want sex muddying up my real feelings and making me think and say things I don't honestly mean.

 

[SoyLeche]

http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/soc.htm

Those who have had premarital sex are more likely to have extramarital affairs as well.
Premarital sexual attitudes and behavior do not change after one marries; if a woman lives with a man before marriage, she is more likely to cheat on him after marriage. Research indicates that if one is willing to experience sex before marriage, a higher level of probability exists that one will do the same afterwards. This is especially true for women; those who engaged in sex before marriage are more than twice as likely to have extramarital affairs as those who did not have premarital sex. When it comes to staying faithful, married partners have higher rates of loyalty every time. One study, done over a 5-year period, reported in Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles indicates 90% of married women were monogamous, compared to 60% of cohabiting women. Statistics were even more dramatic with male faithfulness: 90% of married men remained true to their brides, while only 43% of cohabiting men stayed true to their partner (Ciavola 1997). In another study published in the Journal of Marriage and the Family researchers analyzed the relationships of 1,235 women, ages 20 to 37, and found that women that had cohabited before marriage were 3.3 times more likely to have a secondary sex partner after marriage (Forste and Tanfer 1996:33-47). It was also found that married women were "5 times less likely to have a secondary sex partner than cohabiting women" and that "cohabiting relationships appeared to be more similar to dating relationships than to marriage."

http://fcs.okstate.edu/health/Divorce.htm (emphasis mine)

This educational article will identify some factors that contribute to marital distress and eventual divorce, the effect of divorce, and provide suggestions to prevent divorces. Factors that contribute to divorce can be divided into three categories: individual, couple, and contextual.
(a) Individual factors or traits include: general impulsiveness and a tendency to hurriedly marry because of the “love at first sight, or before someone else gets there”, low self esteem, depression, poor communication skills, neurotic behaviors, anger/hostility proneness, and dysfunctional beliefs about marriage, e.g. my spouse will be the same or better than my father, mother, former lover; or getting a divorce will be the solution to my marital problems. (b) Couple factors include: dissimilarity, short pre-marital acquaintance; premarital sex – especially having a lot of experiences with several partners, premarital pregnancy, cohabitation, poor communication skills and lack of conflict-resolution skills. (C) Context or factors surrounding the marriage include: young age at marriage, family-of-origin, parental divorce or chronic marital conflict, parental or friends’ disapproval, pressure to marry, little education, cultural acceptance of divorce, ease of obtaining a divorce and lack of premarital education.
Factors that contribute to marital satisfaction and longevity are also divided into individual; couple and contextual. (a) Individual traits include, high self esteem, flexibility and ability to welcome or adapt to change and newer situations, assertiveness and sociability. (b) Couple traits include: Similarity, long acquaintanceship prior to marriage, good communication and conflict resolution skills and styles. (c) Context factors include: being older before marriage, healthy family-of-origin experiences, happy parental marriage, parental and friends approval, significant education and career preparation.

 

[Inky]

I'd have to question the validity of that study until I knew more about their research methods. Here are some issues I noticed:

Did they accomodate for the fact that most people consider cheating on a spouse as worse, and so are less likely to be truthful about it?

The language in the study makes no distinction between someone cheating on a partner and someone who has full permission to be polygamous. People with less traditional views on sex would be more likely to start before marriage and to be all right with nonmonogamous spouses, which could cause a correlation between premarital and extramarital sex. Also people in dating relationships are more likely to be OK with nonmonogamy, which could explain the connection between premarital sex and multiple partners.

Last, since the study used gender-neutral language for cohabiting partners, it's safe to assume they included same-sex couples, which wouldn't show up in the stats on married people. It's already been noted that gay men are more likely to be comfortable with polygamous relationships, so that could skew things a bit.

 

[Scott1]

I also think, though, that premarital sexual relationships can be conducted just as respectfully, reservedly and intelligently as sex inside of marriage.

Ehhh.... I guess I could see your point... but my view of sex dictates that even your "respectfully, reservedly and intelligently" conducted premarital sex pales in comparisson to the awesome union of man and wife who both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh....this sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such and I think it is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. (cf. CCC 2311-2400)

Premarital sex just don't stack up to that.

Scott

 

[Quoth The Raven]

Having unfortunately experienced both, I would have to say fornication is to full on married sexuality what comic books are to great literature.

Fun maybe, but not really in the same league (and at its worst, devastating for those involved in unequally-vulnerable type couplings of which there are too many).

There are plenty of marriages that are unequally vulnerable type couplings...that isn't restricted to people indulging in unmarried sex.
Personally, I've also experienced both, and I've had some GREAT premarital sex. I'd say it's like comparing a novel and a biography: different genres, but both as good as each other.

 

[cardero]

moon woman writes: Having unfortunately experienced both, I would have to say fornication is to full on married sexuality what comic books are to great literature.

Noirhaired writes: So um, what does that mean?

YES, WHAT INDEED DOES THIS MEAN!?!?!?!

 

[Kcnorwood]

Sex is a huge part of being married! I think sex with a partner before you get married is good, especially if you’re thinking about marrying this other person. What if you don’t like the same things in bed?
Then more in likely one or the both of you are going to cheat. No ifs & butts about it.
Its fact ask anyone who wasn’t getting what they felt like they needed at home.
There is no study for this it is just a fact.
Like the old saying would you buy a car without driving it? :no:

 

[Ðanisty]

This educational article will identify some factors that contribute to marital distress and eventual divorce, the effect of divorce, and provide suggestions to prevent divorces. Factors that contribute to divorce can be divided into three categories: individual, couple, and contextual.
(a) Individual factors or traits include: general impulsiveness and a tendency to hurriedly marry because of the “love at first sight, or before someone else gets there”, low self esteem, depression, poor communication skills, neurotic behaviors, anger/hostility proneness, and dysfunctional beliefs about marriage, e.g. my spouse will be the same or better than my father, mother, former lover; or getting a divorce will be the solution to my marital problems. (b) Couple factors include: dissimilarity, short pre-marital acquaintance; premarital sex – especially having a lot of experiences with several partners, premarital pregnancy, cohabitation, poor communication skills and lack of conflict-resolution skills. (C) Context or factors surrounding the marriage include: young age at marriage, family-of-origin, parental divorce or chronic marital conflict, parental or friends’ disapproval, pressure to marry, little education, cultural acceptance of divorce, ease of obtaining a divorce and lack of premarital education.
Factors that contribute to marital satisfaction and longevity are also divided into individual; couple and contextual. (a) Individual traits include, high self esteem, flexibility and ability to welcome or adapt to change and newer situations, assertiveness and sociability. (b) Couple traits include: Similarity, long acquaintanceship prior to marriage, good communication and conflict resolution skills and styles. (c) Context factors include: being older before marriage, healthy family-of-origin experiences, happy parental marriage, parental and friends approval, significant education and career preparation.

What this article is essentially saying is that people who come from broken homes can never find happiness. That's absurd. My husband's mother was an abusive drunk and his father was a workaholic that avoided her as much as possible. We had sex before we got married (for a whole year actually) and got married when he was 18 and I was 20. I don't know anyone even close to my age that has as good a marriage as mine. Everyone I know fights all the time and they do and say hurtful things...even people who waited to get married. A marriage is as good as the partners are willing to make it. I'd wager to say that people from a broken home understand marriage better than those who came from ideal homes...they know what makes a marriage fall apart, they know what the commitment is supposed to be, they know the pain it will cause if they don't really try hard enough.

Ehhh.... I guess I could see your point... but my view of sex dictates that even your "respectfully, reservedly and intelligently" conducted premarital sex pales in comparisson to the awesome union of man and wife who both give themselves definitively and totally to one another. They are no longer two; from now on they form one flesh....this sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such and I think it is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. (cf. CCC 2311-2400)

Premarital sex just don't stack up to that.

Scott

Well, certainly all premarital sex isn't like what you describe, but I've had these strong bonding experiences before marriage. Why isn't it possible for people like yourself (not that there is anything wrong with your views) to see that maybe this applies to you, but not necessarily everyone? Perhaps you can't experience this kind of bond outside of marriage, but other people can. What is best for one person is not going to be best for everyone. I can tell you the exact moment I first had this kind of bonding experience with my husband and it was before we were married.

 

[Booko]

Like the old saying would you buy a car without driving it? :no:

Here's another saying for you:

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

This is the saying women especially should keep in mind. They have a bad habit of wasting productive years of their lives on fools thinking "oh, they're just not ready to commit yet". Pfft.

SoyLeche, I see, has already mentioned some of the reasons for not having sex outside of marriage, though I can't say I'm surprised to see the rationalizations that pop up in response to it.

Isn't in interesting that children born out of wedlock are much more likely to live in poverty? Why would you want to do that to your children?

And please don't tell me about birth control preventing children -- it's not 100%.

Also, there is the issue of STDs. Try this thought experiment: No one has sex outside of marriage. What would the STD transmission rates look like? Hm...STDs would be virtually unknown in a few generations. It would be just one generation if some STDs weren't transmitted during birth.

Now, of course, this isn't, and never will be, the case that people keep it at home with their spouses -- people are not perfect and will cheat. But to the extent we can live up to the ideal, we eliminate a significant (and even deadly sometimes) health problem.

 

[Inky]

Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?

This saying has always irked me. It assumes that sex is a commodity women give to men in exchange for something they actually want, that women only have sex with men they want to marry, and that men will only marry in exchange for sex. If someone dating me would think of the relationship as a waste if we didn't get married eventually, I'd want to know that from the start so I could decide whether I could commit to their expectations. In the same way, if someone was only going to marry me because I'd stop withholding sex from them, I'd probably break up with them if I found that out.

Isn't in interesting that children born out of wedlock are much more likely to live in poverty? Why would you want to do that to your children?

The correlation is there, but that doesn't mean that one caused the other. People living in poverty are more likely to have children out of wedlock; that doesn't mean that the child caused the poverty.

Also, there is the issue of STDs. Try this thought experiment: No one has sex outside of marriage. What would the STD transmission rates look like? Hm...STDs would be virtually unknown in a few generations. It would be just one generation if some STDs weren't transmitted during birth.

While promiscuity is spread through STDs, this has more to do with people who have sex with a large number of strangers, since that's the situation where the partners are less likely to tell the truth about their health. Sex within a committed dating relationship is unlikely to spread STDs since you probably don't want to lie and give a disease to someone you care about and are attached to.

 

[Scott1]

Well, certainly all premarital sex isn't like what you describe, but I've had these strong bonding experiences before marriage.

"Well for ME it's DIFFERENT.".... so what? I'm trying to explain the teaching about premarital sex not being the ideal situation and you bring up your personal experience? Oy vey.

Why isn't it possible for people like yourself (not that there is anything wrong with your views) to see that maybe this applies to you, but not necessarily everyone?

Hehe.... yep, you make it personal and then try to apply your thinking to me.... nope, that dog don't hunt. I'm talking about the ideal philosophy of sexual interaction between all people.... just because you can't see past your bedroom door don't hold me to that standard, please.

In Christ,
Scott

 

[Inky]

I'm talking about the ideal philosophy of sexual interaction between all people

I think Danisty's point was that your ideal philosophy is based in your own personal experience and opinions, and so can't be applied to "all people".