Should couples have sex before marriage or not?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Premarital sex isn't a problem.

You're going liberal on us, dear!

 

[HonestJoe]

Can pre-marital sex be equated to post-marital sex?

I’m don’t think actually getting married is the controlling factor but a wider change in living arrangements and personal commitment to each other. Though marriage is traditionally the marker of that change, but many people change their living arrangements and make such commitments without getting married (and in some cases get married without the commitment). Also, while this is obviously more apparent in recent generations, I’m not convinced it was as uncommon in the past as some people would like to imagine.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

life is too short to make sex complicated with "morality". As long as it's is consensual, have sex with people you enjoy spending your time with and enjoy life. We are animals and we have needs and it is wrong to sentimentalise our sexual desires as a prelude to life long monogamy as psychologically humans don't really work that way. We may have lasting relationships but that is not the same as "till death do us part" as it is based on mutual feeling rather than legal arrangements. Sexual repression is more trouble than it's worth. Abstinence is a myth as we all masturbate so rather than society making us feel guilty about our desires we should embrace them and enjoy them. It's not a sin to want to sleep with another person. Why should we turn the ecstasy of an orgasm into the enemy?

Well said.

Wow, I'm really not cut out for Catholicism, apparently. Oh, well. I guess my attraction to it is more psycho-sexual, like your attraction to totalitarianism. Oops. Lol.

 

[Laika]

Well said.

Wow, I'm really not cut out for Catholicism, apparently. Oh, well. I guess my attraction to it is more psycho-sexual, like your attraction to totalitarianism. Oops. Lol.

Acceptance of our own sexual desires is the step towards authentic self-love. When society indoctrinated us to hate our own sexuality in the belief it is "sinful", it's was asking for some pretty dark self-examination. There is no shame in it because that level of self knowledge will make us better in actual relationships as we can cut through the **** and just enjoy ourselves.

 

[BSM1]

Hey everyone. This is a subject I am interested in. Should couples have sex before marriage or not? People of various religions such as Christianity or Islam would say that couples should not have sex before marriage because it is a sin. However, there is another side to the story which says that couples should have sex before marriage. One of the reasons to have sex before marriage is to know whether or not you are sexually compatible with your significant other or not. Also, you may not know about different sexual issues such as premature ejaculation before you have sex with your significant other. Here are a couple of articles which argue why couples should have sex before marriage.

http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/why-sex-marriage-moral-thing-do

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/26/sex-before-marriage_n_3333073.html

So, what do you think? Should couples have sex before marriage? Why or why not?

You mean with each other. Right?

 

[Quintessence]

If the parties involved are asexual, they should most assuredly not.
If the parties involved are sexual, but don't really care that much about sex, it doesn't really matter.
If the parties involved are hypersexual or obsessed with sex, then it would be a terrible, misguided idea not to (and probably impossible not to).

 

[Akivah]

One of the reasons to have sex before marriage is to know whether or not you are sexually compatible with your significant other or not.

I concur that it's up to the couple.

But what does "sexually compatible" mean? Tab A fits into Slot B. Any other differences would be discovered and worked through by the couple as part of their binding (marriage).

 

[roger1440]

Should couples have sex before marriage or not? It depends on who they are having sex with.

 

[Luciferi Baphomet]

Hey everyone. This is a subject I am interested in. Should couples have sex before marriage or not? People of various religions such as Christianity or Islam would say that couples should not have sex before marriage because it is a sin. However, there is another side to the story which says that couples should have sex before marriage. One of the reasons to have sex before marriage is to know whether or not you are sexually compatible with your significant other or not. Also, you may not know about different sexual issues such as premature ejaculation before you have sex with your significant other. Here are a couple of articles which argue why couples should have sex before marriage.

http://www.alternet.org/sex-amp-relationships/why-sex-marriage-moral-thing-do

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/26/sex-before-marriage_n_3333073.html

So, what do you think? Should couples have sex before marriage? Why or why not?

To me their is nothing wrong with having sex before marriage. Sex before marriage should not be a sin. I mean a book telling people that they should not have sex before marriage is insane.
My husband and I had sex before marriage and nothing bad happened. We are still together.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But what does "sexually compatible" mean? Tab A fits into Slot B. Any other differences would be discovered and worked through by the couple as part of their binding (marriage).

It's things like being into the same stuff, sexual chemistry, and being able to be sexually fulfilled and satisfied with your partner. Such as, for me, I need someone who is adventurous. In public places, bondage, pain, dom/sub - the Plain Jane doing it missionary in the bedroom is sometimes ok, but I easily get bored with it, and I want someone who is going to leave nail and teeth marks and occasionally draw some blood. I sometimes even get sexually aroused when I get a piercing. And my first time was even in a public place.
For me, someone that has no sexual compatibility with me is the "lights off, missionary style" type. If he's not into toys, oils, and foreplay, it's not going to be much fun for me. If he doesn't like getting rough, my mind is likely to wonder.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

It's things like being into the same stuff, sexual chemistry, and being able to be sexually fulfilled and satisfied with your partner. Such as, for me, I need someone who is adventurous. In public places, bondage, pain, dom/sub - the Plain Jane doing it missionary in the bedroom is sometimes ok, but I easily get bored with it, and I want someone who is going to leave nail and teeth marks and occasionally draw some blood. I sometimes even get sexually aroused when I get a piercing. And my first time was even in a public place.
For me, someone that has no sexual compatibility with me is the "lights off, missionary style" type. If he's not into toys, oils, and foreplay, it's not going to be much fun for me. If he doesn't like getting rough, my mind is likely to wonder.

Damn, too bad you're in a different state.

 

[VioletVortex]

Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with having sex. It's pleasurable. It doesn't hurt anyone either, provided that the people involved use contraception.

I also thing "age of consent" laws are ridiculous. They are based on religion, and I do not think religion has a place in government. I don't think it's within the government's right to tell two people how they can touch each other if it's not harming anyone.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Absolutely. There's nothing wrong with having sex. It's pleasurable. It doesn't hurt anyone either, provided that the people involved use contraception.

I also thing "age of consent" laws are ridiculous. They are based on religion, and I do not think religion has a place in government. I don't think it's within the government's right to tell two people how they can touch each other if it's not harming anyone.

Age of consent laws have nothing to do with religion. They're about protecting minors from sexual abuse and exploitation, at least in the West. It's not as if religions like the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism have historically been against child marriage and sex with children in the first place. Laws protecting children from abuse have always been rather counter-religious since most very religious people (except for religious progressives and humanists who reject the conservative forms of their religion) have been opposed to things like banning corporal punishment and such.

Or do you honestly believe that an adult should be able to have sex with a 10 year old or a 5 year old under the law?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Damn, too bad you're in a different state.

It just sucks living here in period. Every body here are a bunch of prudes, with a bunch of moral prudes running things like city councils.

Age of consent laws have nothing to do with religion.

While I'm not against the idea of some laws preventing abuse, I think we need to rethink our approach to the age of consent. 16, 17, or 18, it's foolish to think teens will wait. Really, I think each person should get to decide on their own when to start having sex. But I also think sex education is very important, and for it all to work we'd have to get over the perceived embarrassment of parents and their children talking about sex. However, I do think it would essential to study if an age-ceiling may be appropriate, if it were to be found that too many older and more experienced people were taking advantage of those who are still youthfully naive but also sexually curious. Perhaps a better law would be have sex when you're ready, just not with anyone over 21.

 

[rusra02]

I believe marriage is God's arrangement, and therefore Jehovah rightly determines what is good and bad in relation to marriage. His standard is: "Let marriage be honorable among all, and let the marriage bed be without defilement, for God will judge sexually immoral people and adulterers." (Hebrews 13:4) Consider just some bad effects from premarital sex:

- Unwanted pregnancies. Who is to care for the unexpected results of experimental immorality?
- STDs
- emotional pain of jilted sex partners who fail to meet expectations

 

[VioletVortex]

Age of consent laws have nothing to do with religion. They're about protecting minors from sexual abuse and exploitation, at least in the West. It's not as if religions like the Abrahamic religions and Hinduism have historically been against child marriage and sex with children in the first place. Laws protecting children from abuse have always been rather counter-religious since most very religious people (except for religious progressives and humanists who reject the conservative forms of their religion) have been opposed to things like banning corporal punishment and such.

Or do you honestly believe that an adult should be able to have sex with a 10 year old or a 5 year old under the law?

Hell no. An adult should not be able to have sex with a ten year old . What I meant is, I think it's okay for two 14 year olds to have consensual protected sex. Okay, I probably should have worded that differently. What I meant is, it's illegal for teenagers under 16 or 18 (depending on the state) to have consensual sex and that's ridiculous. It should be illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor under a given age. The laws are designed to protect minors from abuse by adults, not to put them in prison for having sex.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hell no. An adult should not be able to have sex with a ten year old . What I meant is, I think it's okay for two 14 year olds to have consensual protected sex. Okay, I probably should have worded that differently. What I meant is, it's illegal for teenagers under 16 or 18 (depending on the state) to have consensual sex and that's ridiculous. It should be illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor under a given age. The laws are designed to protect minors from abuse by adults, not to put them in prison for having sex.

Oh, okay. In that case, I agree. Just checking.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Acceptance of our own sexual desires is the step towards authentic self-love. When society indoctrinated us to hate our own sexuality in the belief it is "sinful", it's was asking for some pretty dark self-examination. There is no shame in it because that level of self knowledge will make us better in actual relationships as we can cut through the **** and just enjoy ourselves.

In some contexts I agree, but self love isn't a panacea. In fact people who accept their sexual desires sometimes still cannot love themselves because of society's rejection, so there is more to it.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

As long as no one is getting hurt, what's the harm?
And people are free to hate it because of the bible and the Quran or accept it as a normal human need or see it as moral from the point of the Holy Gita, but when one dares to enforce their beliefs on others, then that needs to be defeated.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The practice was called "bundling", and it was practiced by the New England Puritans and their descendants. In some rural New England areas, it was still in practice as recently as the 1920s. There were several variations on how it was practiced. Typically, though, it involved allowing a man and woman to sleep together in the same bed albeit the woman (and sometimes the man) were sewn into cloth bags with only her (or their) head(s) protruding. Occasionally, a board was placed between them, as a further precaution against intercourse. The two were supposed to spend the night talking, but there is ample evidence that many couples found ways to circumvent the cloth bags and boards and have intercourse.

In my teens I lived on a farm in Wales. Bundeling was still common in country districts.
Though a sheet was folded between the couple it rarely was used. The female alwasys slept on the ground floor.and acess was easy and contrived. Bundling ceased when the girl became pregnant and the engagement announced.

when told that the next farms daughter was engaged, my mother said "she does not look pregnant"