Sex without the nasties

[Mathematician]

If we were to rid ourselves of every type of STD and make pregnancy impossible while using BC, would there be no standing arguements against people having sex just for the heck of it? If there are more side-effects from eating meat than having sex, what basis would people of certain religous convictions have by claiming sex outside of marriage is dangerous?

 

[Djamila]

A cynic might say the only change would be one of God's punishments for the immoral would be a thing of the past.

 

[astarath]

I would stand firm that if it is an act of lust it is sinful.
If it is an act of love between a man and woman joined by God free from the risk of adultery then yes I would be for it.

 

[Comprehend]

If we were to rid ourselves of every type of STD and make pregnancy impossible while using BC, would there be no standing arguements against people having sex just for the heck of it? If there are more side-effects from eating meat than having sex, what basis would people of certain religous convictions have by claiming sex outside of marriage is dangerous?

The primary reason the LDS church does not allow sex outside of marriage has nothing to do with any of these reasons. It is not allowed because sex outside of marriage is against God's commandment. The power of creation is the most Godlike gift we have on this earth and it should not be taken lightly. The diseases and everything else are secondary.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Since the argument of STDs being God's way of punishing the sinful would no longer exist, the only other argument would be the typical "your going to hell."
For the more down-to-earth people who believe it to be sin, as others have stated, the views would not change.

 

[Bishka]

The primary reason the LDS church does not allow sex outside of marriage has nothing to do with any of these reasons. It is not allowed because sex outside of marriage is against God's commandment. The power of creation is the most Godlike gift we have on this earth and it should not be taken lightly. The diseases and everything else are secondary.

What he said!

 

[Sunstone]

If we were to rid ourselves of every type of STD and make pregnancy impossible while using BC, would there be no standing arguements against people having sex just for the heck of it? If there are more side-effects from eating meat than having sex, what basis would people of certain religous convictions have by claiming sex outside of marriage is dangerous?

Under those circumstances, I might get into recreational sex. However, I don't think I'd stay very long with any one partner because I wouldn't want to form too much of a bond with them. Marriage and such is fine for younger folks, but at my age, it's not necessarily the most desireable thing.

 

[dawny0826]

If we were to rid ourselves of every type of STD and make pregnancy impossible while using BC, would there be no standing arguements against people having sex just for the heck of it? If there are more side-effects from eating meat than having sex, what basis would people of certain religous convictions have by claiming sex outside of marriage is dangerous?

I wonder if it would be as fun.

 

[astarath]

I wonder if it would be as fun.

yeah like my health teacher used to say it's no fun unless someone loses

I suppose the sex game goes like dodgeball...get hit with an STD and your out

 

[Ðanisty]

I don't htink there's a good argument against people having sex just for the heck of it right now...

 

[Moni_Gail]

I don't htink there's a good argument against people having sex just for the heck of it right now...

I'm going to have to go with Danisty on this one. In an odd and twisted way, many religion's villianization of sexuality is rather sad to me.

 

[Booko]

I don't recall reading a religious text forbidding sex outside of marriage because of STDs.

It appears to be more a recognition of the emotional damage that can happen, and that potential remains very real even if there were no STDs or accidental pregnancies.

 

[michel]

I don't htink there's a good argument against people having sex just for the heck of it right now...

There is a social one - the spread of stds.

For some reason, the young here in England -at any rate - don't bother with contraception. If they do, the girl is on the pill.

I have no interest whatsoever in "recreational sex", but then that's just for me. We are part of the animal world, and our primary drive is sex.

I understand the Religious aspect, and admire anyone who can live by that standard. However, to me, demonising sex before marriage has the danger of either screwing people up (no pun intended) or just making it sound even more "interesting".

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't recall reading a religious text forbidding sex outside of marriage because of STDs.

I think that view arises from conservatives claiming STDs are a form of divine punishment to the sinners.

 

[Random]

Have as much sex as you like, people: you will anyway.

 

[Ðanisty]

There is a social one - the spread of stds.

No, that's an argument against having promiscuous, unprotected sex...not an argument against having sex for the heck of it.

 

[Booko]

However, to me, demonising sex before marriage has the danger of either screwing people up (no pun intended) or just making it sound even more "interesting".

I agree, michel. I don't think returning to the days of ignorance and repression is a good way to go either.

But there's ample precedent for putting limits on some parts of life. No one cries "foul" at the suggestion that it might be questionable to drop your drawers and take a dump on the neighbor's front lawn, for example. We recognize that certain things have a proper place in life, and thankfully we don't demonize taking a dump.

I don't think demonizing sex is the right way to go either -- the results can be truly tragic (anyone seen the movie "Kinsey"?). But it's possible to recognize that sex is a powerful drive in human existence, and we're better off keeping it in its proper place. There will always be differences of opinion about what's a proper place, naturally.

 

[Booko]

I think that view arises from conservatives claiming STDs are a form of divine punishment to the sinners.

Yes, well blame that on the people doing the poor interpretations of religious texts and not on the texts themselves.

Hm, although if I remember right, being stricken with hemmoroids was a divine punishment for touching the Ark of the Covenant. :cover:

 

[Mavrikmind]

I'm going to have to go with Danisty on this one. In an odd and twisted way, many religion's villianization of sexuality is rather sad to me.

I feel the same way. Number one, who says a person will suffer emotional damage. If thats what they are into, then so be it.
I do agree though that the best way to avoid STDs is by not having sex. Although people are gonna hve sex, despite the outcome.
In saying that, why make something bad out of sex before marriage when you know people are gonna do it anyway. Thats like calling people thieves if you plant a apple tree in a public park .

 

[lilithu]

It appears to be more a recognition of the emotional damage that can happen, and that potential remains very real even if there were no STDs or accidental pregnancies.

As Martin Buber would say, casual sex just to satisfy lust results in an "I-it" relationship where the partner is an object, rather than an "I-thou" relationship.

But there are positive ways to lift up an I-thou relationship rather than to simply prohibit an I-it relationship.