[Laminar]

I hate hats of nearly any form on girls. The Castro hats, berets, whatever...they almost always look stupid. Some girls can pull off the baseball cap, but besides that hats are a no-go for me.

[cjrivera]

I've always been a sucker for a girl in a baseball cap.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Bought a new vest. See pic above.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

That provided me with a serious LOL moment. I haven't seen that one before; I think it's better than the Picard face-palm one.


Oh, and shif, keep the hat and ditch the vest.

[shifuimam]

I really like the vest. The hat's what I was waffling on.

Damn.

Also, as a side note: I think it's lame that as a girl it would be bad for me to post pics. If I were a dude, it wouldn't be a problem. Stupid sexism.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Also, as a side note: I think it's lame that as a girl it would be bad for me to post pics. If I were a dude, it wouldn't be a problem. Stupid sexism.

Correct. If you were a dude, pics would not be a problem on the MacNN forums. Men have only one really sexualized body part whereas women have two of them. The world just doesn't see men's breasts as sexualized objects (unless you're a tranny or a lady-boy). Sorry!


PS: You do have a Flicker account where you can post pics, don't you? It's just a thought.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Also, as a side note: I think it's lame that as a girl it would be bad for me to post pics. If I were a dude, it wouldn't be a problem. Stupid sexism.

pm me

[shifuimam]

What's interesting, though, is that breasts aren't nearly as sexualized in other cultures. Reproductive organs are sexualized, given that they are necessary for the act of sex/procreation.

Breasts, however...it's just in the United States that they've become so taboo. Even in Western Europe you will find topless beaches commonplace; I've been told that even publicly available advertising (TV commercials, magazine ads, etc) can show breasts without someone making a federal case out of it.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

What's interesting, though, is that breasts aren't nearly as sexualized in other cultures. Reproductive organs are sexualized, given that they are necessary for the act of sex/procreation.

Breasts, however...it's just in the United States that they've become so taboo. Even in Western Europe you will find topless beaches commonplace; I've been told that even publicly available advertising (TV commercials, magazine ads, etc) can show breasts without someone making a federal case out of it.

True. I should have been more clear in my reply by stating I thought this attitude about sexualization of women's breasts was more common/prevalent in the US. But that is part of our culture's overall schizophrenia about individual identity. As a general rule we are an uptight, repressed country in regards to our attitudes about sexuality, the human body, and issues related to reproduction. Yet, at the same time we are so repressed about sexuality we are also the world's largest producer of pornography and have some of the highest rates of sexuality-related problems like teen pregnancy, STD prevalence, and rape as a crime. Not too mention the cultural attitudes about women's roles in society. Look at some of our European counterparts and their attitudes towards sexuality and their number of women in government or as national leaders. In this country how many women have we had in major roles of national leadership, whether it be in politics, business, or the arts? While "we have come a long way, baby" I think we've got much further to go to be level with our peers in the rest of the developed nation's of the world. Certainly I don't think we can lay claim to any kind of leadership in the area of women's rights when socially conservative countries like Ireland have had a female head of state before us.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

PS: You do have a Flicker account where you can post pics, don't you? It's just a thought.

I checked yesterday. Nothing...yet.

[shifuimam]

Yeah, it's funny how these things work.

We've got some weird ideas on what's good and bad when it comes to sex ed. I can say firsthand that the super conservative route of pretending sex doesn't exist just fails miserably. You end up with girls who don't know what sex is or how pregnancy happens and go off to college, end up having sex, and get pregnant because they had no idea how to prevent it.

People are oversexualized in general, I think - not just certain parts of bodies. I think that much is clear from the fact that kids are sexually active at younger ages than ever before - no thirteen-year-old should be sexually involved with someone.

There's definitely a happy medium between "don't touch a member of the opposite sex until three months after you're married" and "have sex with as many people as you possibly can".

[Laminar]

Is there merit to abstinence before marriage?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Is there merit to abstinence before marriage?

I think it depends on the rationale. I think things become complex with the religious preach abstinence based on religious dogma. If abstinence were advocated purely for pragmatic reasons, I think the results would be much different.

[shifuimam]

I don't really think so, no.

Marriage is stressful enough as it is, especially with how young some people (usually the ones who are abstinence champions) are when they get married.

When you compare guys to girls in terms of sex, consider this: It's *really* easy for a guy to, shall we say, get what he's looking for when it comes to sex. It's much more difficult for most girls. If you're already freaking about being married and all that, it's not going to help that the husband enjoys sex but the wife doesn't, because she has no idea what to do and has no idea what she likes. Suddenly, on top of the oppressive realization that this is the person you're spending the rest of your life with and you're going to have this person in your life until you die (theoretically, at least), you also have to deal with the fact that sex isn't remotely what you expected it to be.

That part is a big player, too. I dated a virgin once, and I came close to dating another, except that he freaked out about the fact that I wasn't one. Both of these guys had a very distorted view of sex. They both believed that sex was this incredible, holy, metaphysical, spiritual experience that somehow would make a marriage more than just a marriage. Both of them were very inexperienced with women (we're talking 24 years old and never having gotten a hand up a girl's shirt before) and knew very little about the realities of sex and all things related to sex.

I'm not saying you should hump anything that moves, but I don't think it's healthy to put sex on a such a pedestal.

If anything (and I'm speaking from the perspective of someone raised in a conservative Protestant Christian home who attended a Christian school K-12), conservative types don't spend nearly enough time educating kids and young adults on the emotional part of relationships. Instead, they're wholly obsessed with flat-out telling kids "don't think about sex, don't ask about sex, and don't have sex".

Anyone here who has been in a serious relationship - or become infatuated with someone only to have it abruptly and cruelly end - knows that the emotional part of a relationship is the part that can leave lasting scars. When you spend every waking moment with someone, believe they're your soul mate, and invest 100% of your heart and soul into the relationship, it hurts a lot when it ends.

When all you've done is have sex with the person for a few months, when it ends you just notice that you have some more money in your wallet because you're not buying condoms as frequently. I mean, obviously sex isn't completely meaningless and empty - if all your sexual encounters are like that, you probably have bigger issues that need to be handled - but it's also not the end-all, be-all "ultimate expression of love" that the conservative types want you to believe it is.

My issue with kids having sex has a lot less to do with sex before marriage and a lot more to do with sex before you're prepared for it. I remember what I was like in high school, and I have a pretty good idea of what guys are like in high school. At that age, guys just want to get off as much as possible. Girls are much more emotional, and a fourteen-year-old giggly girl is likely to get prematurely emotionally involved with a guy, have sex with him, and be destroyed when he doesn't immediately want to become her lifelong soul mate. A fourteen-year-old guy, however, is going to find a girl willing to sleep with him, and just be really pumped that he'll have a story to tell his friends and someone else to get him off besides his hand and a bottle of lotion.

When you're both adults and have reached a certain level of maturity, you both can handle the situation much better - although even then, people are guilty of one night stands where there isn't a mutual understanding that it's not going to be anything more than "just sex", and someone ends up getting hurt.

The not getting preggers and not getting STDs part of abstinence is pretty easily avoided. It's not that hard to not get pregnant. Birth control is insanely cheap (mine is like $5 a month), and condoms work wonders. Same with STDs - if you don't have the foresight to make sure someone doesn't have herpes, you're probably not really mature enough to be jumping into bed with them.

This is a lot longer than you were probably wanting, but it's an issue I've given a lot of thought (particularly as a more conservative/religious type, which more or less still describes me), and I think a lot of people (esp. conservative types) are going about it all wrong.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Is there merit to abstinence before marriage?

For those who can do it, who are comfortable with that approach to their sexuality, absolutely.

But, I think this is where the problem lies with that particular attitude towards pre-marital sex. Namely, those who think this is the appropriate approach to take have no interest in providing any other types of information to our youth regarding sexuality. So, we get a situation like what shif suggests, people knowing nothing about sexuality and reproduction giving into their desires and winding up young, with child, and a much-more-complicated life than necessary.

If I say anything else I am going to get this thread moved to the PL and I don't want that. Suffice it to say, my general attitude about sexuality education (Notice I didn't say "sex" education) is that it should be thorough (starting at a young age with instruction on body parts and what they do), comprehensive (teaching abstinence along with how to decide whether or not to be sexually active and how to practice safe sex) and to be guided/structured by parents (parents who have religious objections to teaching their children certain matters related to sexuality should not be forced to have their religious schools teach their children these messages in contravention of their faith's teachings on the matter*).

*Though, parents who have religious objections to teaching their kids about sexuality yet have their kids in a public school instead of a private, religious school shouldn't be allowed to restrict their kids access to this instruction. If you want a religious environment in which to raise your kids, then do so. But don't try and force that religious environment into the public sphere.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

This thread has taken a sharp turn for The Worse™

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I don't really think so, no.

Marriage is stressful enough as it is, especially with how young some people (usually the ones who are abstinence champions) are when they get married.

When you compare guys to girls in terms of sex, consider this: It's *really* easy for a guy to, shall we say, get what he's looking for when it comes to sex. It's much more difficult for most girls. If you're already freaking about being married and all that, it's not going to help that the husband enjoys sex but the wife doesn't, because she has no idea what to do and has no idea what she likes. Suddenly, on top of the oppressive realization that this is the person you're spending the rest of your life with and you're going to have this person in your life until you die (theoretically, at least), you also have to deal with the fact that sex isn't remotely what you expected it to be.

That part is a big player, too. I dated a virgin once, and I came close to dating another, except that he freaked out about the fact that I wasn't one. Both of these guys had a very distorted view of sex. They both believed that sex was this incredible, holy, metaphysical, spiritual experience that somehow would make a marriage more than just a marriage. Both of them were very inexperienced with women (we're talking 24 years old and never having gotten a hand up a girl's shirt before) and knew very little about the realities of sex and all things related to sex.

I'm not saying you should hump anything that moves, but I don't think it's healthy to put sex on a such a pedestal.

If anything (and I'm speaking from the perspective of someone raised in a conservative Protestant Christian home who attended a Christian school K-12), conservative types don't spend nearly enough time educating kids and young adults on the emotional part of relationships. Instead, they're wholly obsessed with flat-out telling kids "don't think about sex, don't ask about sex, and don't have sex".

Anyone here who has been in a serious relationship - or become infatuated with someone only to have it abruptly and cruelly end - knows that the emotional part of a relationship is the part that can leave lasting scars. When you spend every waking moment with someone, believe they're your soul mate, and invest 100% of your heart and soul into the relationship, it hurts a lot when it ends.

When all you've done is have sex with the person for a few months, when it ends you just notice that you have some more money in your wallet because you're not buying condoms as frequently. I mean, obviously sex isn't completely meaningless and empty - if all your sexual encounters are like that, you probably have bigger issues that need to be handled - but it's also not the end-all, be-all "ultimate expression of love" that the conservative types want you to believe it is.

My issue with kids having sex has a lot less to do with sex before marriage and a lot more to do with sex before you're prepared for it. I remember what I was like in high school, and I have a pretty good idea of what guys are like in high school. At that age, guys just want to get off as much as possible. Girls are much more emotional, and a fourteen-year-old giggly girl is likely to get prematurely emotionally involved with a guy, have sex with him, and be destroyed when he doesn't immediately want to become her lifelong soul mate. A fourteen-year-old guy, however, is going to find a girl willing to sleep with him, and just be really pumped that he'll have a story to tell his friends and someone else to get him off besides his hand and a bottle of lotion.

When you're both adults and have reached a certain level of maturity, you both can handle the situation much better - although even then, people are guilty of one night stands where there isn't a mutual understanding that it's not going to be anything more than "just sex", and someone ends up getting hurt.

The not getting preggers and not getting STDs part of abstinence is pretty easily avoided. It's not that hard to not get pregnant. Birth control is insanely cheap (mine is like $5 a month), and condoms work wonders. Same with STDs - if you don't have the foresight to make sure someone doesn't have herpes, you're probably not really mature enough to be jumping into bed with them.

This is a lot longer than you were probably wanting, but it's an issue I've given a lot of thought (particularly as a more conservative/religious type, which more or less still describes me), and I think a lot of people (esp. conservative types) are going about it all wrong.

Well said, I couldn't agree more!

Shif, let's dig a little deeper (if you are willing), why is it that you think the conservative religious types think that sex prior to marriage is some sort of abomination? Are Christians that take a more contemporary interpretation of the bible a minority?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This thread has taken a sharp turn for The Worse™

Here you go. This ought to get the thread back on to its original topic. (i.e.: boobies)
(And I'm outta here. I've been waiting for the rain to stop so I could go for a run. It's stopped; I'm going running.)

[shifuimam]

When I was in high school, I was a strong supporter of abstinence-only education. I believed that since you wouldn't, for instance, tell your kid how to drink and cover up being drunk in case you got caught, you shouldn't tell your kid how to have sex and not get pregnant.

It's a flawed argument, obviously. If you drink as a minor and get caught, at most you'll pay a fine, do some community service, and have the mark permanently expunged from your record when you turn 18.

If you have sex and get preggers - or contract a variety of incurable STDs, like HIV or herpes - that is going to impact you for the rest of your life. There are much higher consequences at stake, so it's much more important to educate people.

It's like gun education. I think it's very important for people in general to have a basic understanding of handguns and other easily-acquired guns. If you handle a gun incorrectly and it ends up going off, you could kill someone, even if it's only an accident.

There are pretty logical reasons to not have sex as a teenager, if you ask me. But a lot of those reasons go away as you mature and become an actual adult.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

When you compare guys to girls in terms of sex, consider this: It's *really* easy for a guy to, shall we say, get what he's looking for when it comes to sex. It's much more difficult for most girls. If you're already freaking about being married and all that, it's not going to help that the husband enjoys sex but the wife doesn't, because she has no idea what to do and has no idea what she likes. Suddenly, on top of the oppressive realization that this is the person you're spending the rest of your life with and you're going to have this person in your life until you die (theoretically, at least), you also have to deal with the fact that sex isn't remotely what you expected it to be.

This operates under the assumption that you're stuck at a certain skill level forever. With proper open, honest communication it's entirely possible to get much better. And even then, it's quite possible to find out what your partner likes before marriage without actually having intercourse. Abstinence doesn't mean you never even talk about sex.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Also, as a side note: I think it's lame that as a girl it would be bad for me to post pics. If I were a dude, it wouldn't be a problem. Stupid sexism.

You have two choices.

1. Continue to perpetrate this view, or
2. Do your part to break down these barriers.

It's up to you.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Back on Track™

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This operates under the assumption that you're stuck at a certain skill level forever. With proper open, honest communication it's entirely possible to get much better. And even then, it's quite possible to find out what your partner likes before marriage without actually having intercourse. Abstinence doesn't mean you never even talk about sex.

It's not that you can't learn; it's that it adds a whole ton of unneeded stress to an already very stressful and emotionally charged situation.

And most people who push abstience-only also push the idea that masturbation is a mortal crime. So a girl is never going to figure out what she likes, because she's taught that finding out is sinful and dirty. Guys are going to masturbate no matter what - it doesn't take a lot to figure out how to do it. For girls, however, unless someone actually tells you what's what down there, you're not just going to randomly figure it out while you're in the shower.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's not that you can't learn; it's that it adds a whole ton of unneeded stress to an already very stressful and emotionally charged situation.

It doesn't have to be stressful - it's all about the attitude with which you approach it. Some people would rather have a willing accomplice than an experienced guide - it's all about the journey and the adventure.

And most people who push abstience-only also push the idea that masturbation is a mortal crime. So a girl is never going to figure out what she likes, because she's taught that finding out is sinful and dirty. Guys are going to masturbate no matter what - it doesn't take a lot to figure out how to do it. For girls, however, unless someone actually tells you what's what down there, you're not just going to randomly figure it out while you're in the shower.

tee hee

[shifuimam]

It's almost inevitably going to be stressful, at least if you were raised in a conservative Christian home.

Kids are raised to believe that sex is something dirty and sinful, and that all things related to sex are equally dirty and sinful. It is very difficult to suddenly switch your attitude into thinking that sex is something holy and beautiful, when you've had it bashed into your skull for twenty-odd years that sex is disgusting and vile and should be avoided at all costs.

So when a girl is raised to believe that finding out what gets her off is sick and dirty, she's going to have a really hard time figuring it out once she's married. Her husband, if he's as virginal as she is, is going to have an even harder time, since her vagina is going to be the first he's actually seen, outside of illustrations in his anatomy textbook in high school. And, since the idea that masturbation is a sin doesn't change within the confines of marriage, she's stuck only letting her husband figure out what works, since figuring it out on her own is considered wrong.

There is a detrimental snowball effect that comes from this attitude that all things sexual are dirty and evil, until you get married - at which point it suddenly becomes wonderful and okay. I mean, Christian teenagers are encouraged to not even kiss a member of the opposite sex until they're married. There's this idea that any physical contact whatsoever will immediately and inevitably segue into sexual intercourse.

And, when you stop and think about it, it's the one thing that Christians have two such opposite views on. Sex is evil and dirty before marriage, but after the government says you're married, it's suddenly beautiful and spiritual and holy and the ultimate expression of love.

I mean, really. What the crap. I'm not seeing anything in the Bible - explicitly or implicitly - that says "sex is wrong until your governmental structure says you're married". I mean, we're talking about people who were still operating under the arranged marriage method of family generation!

And by trying to make it into other things - like sex is only for procreation - you open up a whole other can of worms. I mean, my mom truly believes that the government should define marriage as between a man and a woman because marriage is for children, and marriage protects families. By her logic, it would be morally wrong for me to get married, because I will never have children. So if sex is only for procreation, then we are morally obligated to abstain from sex unless we intend on creating a baby from it - which means that a young couple who knows they don't have the resources to raise a child should abstain from sex, even though they might already be married. If sex is the ultimate expression of love, then why is it constrained to marriage? You can be madly in love with someone without choosing to get married. Look at Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell - they've been together for decades, but haven't gotten married. By conservative Christian logic, it is sinful for them to live together and have sex, even though they are very obviously committed to each other.

Casual sex is like casual anything - there's not any commitment behind it, so it has less intrinsic meaning. But does that mean that in having a causal friend who I just catch up with over coffee every few months, I'm sinning because I'm not committed enough to that friendship? If you have two adults who agree together that they want to hook up (for a variety of reasons; it's not always just exclusively for selfish indulgence), how is that different than two adults who agree together that they want to go to Europe, or make cookies, or sit in the same pew at church?

Sex is JUST SEX. It's a carnal act that is usually pretty gross, messy, and noisy. In fact, I'd much rather end up hooking up with someone than going through what I went through this summer, when I completely fell in love with someone only to have it implode in my face. That was a lot harder to deal with than the guy I slept with for no real reason when I was 19.

[Kenneth]

What is this all about?

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

This operates under the assumption that you're stuck at a certain skill level forever. With proper open, honest communication it's entirely possible to get much better. And even then, it's quite possible to find out what your partner likes before marriage without actually having intercourse. Abstinence doesn't mean you never even talk about sex.

Not knowing what you're talking about makes it *kind of* useless, though.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Kenneth 

What is this all about?

It started with me posting that I did what I said I was going to do several months ago, segued into a short discussion about the sexualization of breasts in Western cultures, and has since mutated into a discussion about sex outside of marriage, due in part to the fact that I've become extremely crabby in the last hour and a half.

[Spheric Harlot]

It's all good.

(I like the hat, btw.)

[brassplayersrock²]

ya know what would get rid of that crabbyness shït f uck it mam? (don't hateme, that's just how i've always read your user name)

[shifuimam]

I don't know. You tell me.

[brassplayersrock²]

nice long walk, crowd gaze. try to make up stories of why people are where you see them. gets your mind off the crabbyness and it usually stays away.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

SNIPPED

Sex is JUST SEX. It's a carnal act that is usually pretty gross, messy, and noisy. In fact, I'd much rather end up hooking up with someone than going through what I went through this summer, when I completely fell in love with someone only to have it implode in my face. That was a lot harder to deal with than the guy I slept with for no real reason when I was 19.

Yes. It would seem that you have gotten beyond your upbringing in developing a more healthy (IMO) attitude towards sex and sexuality but you are probably a bit of an exception for a woman raised in a conservative Christian household. As for attitudes that say women should not be taught about their bodies, I think they are terrible. Not so much because such an attitude doesn't allow women to learn the full range of sensations and pleasures associated with their sexual organs--women need to know how things feel "down there" for health reasons as much as pleasure reasons--but because on a more fundamental level this attitude equates ignorance with sanctity. This attitude equates willful desire to not pursue knowledge as worthy of praise. Women who are raised to be ignorant of their bodies are given the message that ignorance should be valorized, that lack of knowledge, especially self-knowledge, is not only acceptable but commendable. It is that attitude I find so disheartening and sickening: Religious faith is used to promote and laud ignorance.



On a side note, I just wanted to quibble with one point you made in the part I SNIPPED above. Namely the assumption that sexual intercourse becomes OK for Christians after it has been sanctioned by the government. For most Christian belief systems the government sanction of marriage is irrelevant to the religion's own sanctioning of it. Most Christian belief systems really do think that their blessing of a particular union makes intercourse acceptable for the parties of that union. Because in the intellectual framework of most Christian belief systems, a religious union blessed by God suddenly removes some of the taint of sin associated with sexuality. Hence, once that taint of sexuality is removed then intercourse becomes acceptable. Of course, most Christian belief systems still think sex for non-reproductive purposes is dirty or sinful but sex for non-reproductive purposes within the context of a marriage, while dirty and sinful, is much less dirty and sinful than sex for non-reproductive purposes outside of a marriage.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Sex is JUST SEX. It's a carnal act that is usually pretty awesome, messy, and noisy.

Fixinatored™

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

It's almost inevitably going to be stressful, at least if you were raised in a conservative Christian home.

Kids are raised to believe that sex is something dirty and sinful, and that all things related to sex are equally dirty and sinful. It is very difficult to suddenly switch your attitude into thinking that sex is something holy and beautiful, when you've had it bashed into your skull for twenty-odd years that sex is disgusting and vile and should be avoided at all costs.

This depends on how you define "conservative." My parents attend church weekly and participate in other church activities like teaching Sunday school, etc. They voted for Bush and McCain based on the issues of gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research. I'd consider that the cliché conservative American Christian. But never have they nor the churches we've attended told us that sex is a dirty, terrible thing. In fact, the church I attended the first three years of college is quite open and honest about it, even to kids as young as middle school. The idea is that in its proper context, sex is a wonderful thing, but outside of that context it's often used in the wrong way.

So when a girl is raised to believe that finding out what gets her off is sick and dirty, she's going to have a really hard time figuring it out once she's married. Her husband, if he's as virginal as she is, is going to have an even harder time, since her vagina is going to be the first he's actually seen, outside of illustrations in his anatomy textbook in high school. And, since the idea that masturbation is a sin doesn't change within the confines of marriage, she's stuck only letting her husband figure out what works, since figuring it out on her own is considered wrong.

The idea that masturbation is wrong is awful - there's nothing in Scripture to back that, just a few verse that can be twisted to look vaguely like that's what they're saying. But even "the Great Satan" Dr. James Dobson thinks masturbation is okay. But honestly, I think it's all about boundaries set as a couple - figure out how far each of you are comfortable with going before marriage.

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

On a side note, I just wanted to quibble with one point you made in the part I SNIPPED above. Namely the assumption that sexual intercourse becomes OK for Christians after it has been sanctioned by the government. For most Christian belief systems the government sanction of marriage is irrelevant to the religion's own sanctioning of it. Most Christian belief systems really do think that their blessing of a particular union makes intercourse acceptable for the parties of that union. Because in the intellectual framework of most Christian belief systems, a religious union blessed by God suddenly removes some of the taint of sin associated with sexuality. Hence, once that taint of sexuality is removed then intercourse becomes acceptable. Of course, most Christian belief systems still think sex for non-reproductive purposes is dirty or sinful but sex for non-reproductive purposes within the context of a marriage, while dirty and sinful, is much less dirty and sinful than sex for non-reproductive purposes outside of a marriage.

Agreed.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

shït f uck it mam? (don't hateme, that's just how i've always read your user name)

-t

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Of course, most Christian belief systems still think sex for non-reproductive purposes is dirty or sinful but sex for non-reproductive purposes within the context of a marriage, while dirty and sinful, is much less dirty and sinful than sex for non-reproductive purposes outside of a marriage.

Absolutely. And, since Christians tend toward the angle that sin is sin (i.e. all sin is equal) in the eyes of God, one would have to come to the inevitable conclusion that sex without the specific intention of procreation is sinful, and that sex that specifically avoids procreation (any form of birth control whatsoever) is equally sinful.

The problem is, any Christian with two ounces of common sense knows that once you legitimize sex for the purpose of pleasure (rather than procreation) within marriage; it's a very small step to making it okay without marriage.

Marriage is pretty much meaningless these days, even in Christian circles. Marriage is nothing but recognition by the government of the union of two people. Lifelong commitments are rare, and unless you know for a fact you're going to be with your spouse until death, sexual intercourse is sinful. At least, that's what I'm seeing from the Christian perspective on sex.

The attitude we always got from school and church was that sex is dirty until you're married, at which point it magically becomes not dirty. In our sex ed class (which was called CPR+ and had nothing to do with sex), they told us about the steps of affection. It went something like this:

holding hands
side hugging
full body hugging
closed-mouth kissing
open-mouth kissing
contact over the clothes
contact under the clothes
"the underwear zone"
intercourse

Notice the disconnect there? It's as though if someone touches you in your dirty bits, you will have sex with them. It's the only natural next step.

Of course, anyone with any real experience in this field knows that there's a wide range of steps between "hand in the pants" and "tab A in slot B". But what the conservative types really push is the idea that once you start, you cannot and will not stop.

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The idea is that in its proper context, sex is a wonderful thing, but outside of that context it's often used in the wrong way.

That's just it, though - anything can be used in the wrong way if used in the wrong context. Morphine can be a wonderful painkiller for people in extreme physical distress. But in the wrong context, morphine can be abused and even addicting.

Television can be a nice escape or some entertainment, but in the wrong context, it can be used to avoid reality altogether. And, outside the realm of various addictions, spaking your child can be used as an effective punishment - but taken in the wrong context, spanking can turn into flat-out physical abuse.

To me, sex being used in the wrong context is sex being used to manipulate or control - rape, coercion, blackmailing, etc. Sex between two adults who simply want to enjoy that particular company of each other seems to me to be in the acceptable context of sex.

The idea that masturbation is wrong is awful - there's nothing in Scripture to back that, just a few verse that can be twisted to look vaguely like that's what they're saying. But even "the Great Satan" Dr. James Dobson thinks masturbation is okay. But honestly, I think it's all about boundaries set as a couple - figure out how far each of you are comfortable with going before marriage.

I don't know about Dobson condoning masturbation; the general philosophy is that it's wrong. I've heard the argument that it's wrong because it's pure selfish indulgence, and Christians are called to resist selfish impulses.

But at the end of the day, how is masturbation different from eating a Snickers bar? You don't need a Snickers to survive as a human being. It's purely the indulgence of your desire for chocolate, nuts, and caramel.

There are plenty of good, logical reasons to not have sex. However, none of them are universal or imply that all sex in any context specifically outside of marriage is wrong or even a bad idea.

I mean, many of the same Christians who push such a hard line against sex have no problem with "responsible alcohol consumption". There's no specifc reason why being at least 21 years old (at least, in the United States) suddenly means it's okay for you to imbibe, except that it's what the law says. There's nothing in the Bible about it. In fact, I imagine that even children consumed wine in Biblical times.

It's just with sex - which, like alcohol, food, and pretty much anything else, has benefits and risks - that Christians are so terrified of it. I know that some Christians have a more open attitude about it, but my family, my church, my school, and the kids I hung out with when I was underage all accepted the idea that sex is 100% taboo until you're married. Taboo meaning that you don't think about it, you don't talk about it, you don't wonder about it, and you definitely don't do it.

Cohabitating is another issue that Christians go ballistic over without any good reason. It's the same kind of thing - we've developed this very constrained, very specific idea of what relationships and families are supposed to be, and anything that strays from that idea is seen as dirty, immoral, and wrong. I'm not even talking about the obvious (homosexuality) stuff. I'm talking about such ideas like the trend that says dating is wrong because you might not marry the person. If our sole purpose in life is to marry and have children, then perhaps I have a moral obligation to end my life now, since I intend on doing neither.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Cohabitating is another issue that Christians go ballistic over without any good reason. It's the same kind of thing - we've developed this very constrained, very specific idea of what relationships and families are supposed to be, and anything that strays from that idea is seen as dirty, immoral, and wrong. I'm not even talking about the obvious (homosexuality) stuff. I'm talking about such ideas like the trend that says dating is wrong because you might not marry the person. If our sole purpose in life is to marry and have children, then perhaps I have a moral obligation to end my life now, since I intend on doing neither.

I can see this, though. There's evidence to suggest that couples that cohabitate before marriage are more likely to divorce.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

If our sole purpose in life is to marry and have children, then perhaps I have a moral obligation to end my life now, since I intend on doing neither.

Please don't. One suicidal person in the Lounge in enough.

I would take bpr² advice to get out and go for a walk. You have already said you are feeling crabby today and the tone of your posts have gotten more angry as the day has progressed. So, maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard and go out and do something for yourself.



(And just to be absolutely crystal clear, I am in no way trying to be dismissive of you or trying to diminish the concerns you articulated in your posts. But, now you are repeating things you said earlier in the day but with a much sharper tone. This makes me think this conversation is getting you more upset, not less. I say you call up a friend, head out on the town and just hang out. If you do go out, have fun and don't think about us here for a while.)

[shifuimam]

Huh. What I'm seeing is that more and more couples are getting married before they're ready, which ends in divorce.

I'm not seeing any logical reason why cohabitation correlates to an increase in divorce. What are the reports or conclusions on these statistics? Is the increase in divorce really directly related to an increase in cohabitation, or is it more to do with how our views on marriage and relationships in general have changed?

If I love someone and want to spend the rest of my life with them, living with them shouldn't change that. The only reason why marriage might make you stay together is because you don't want to end up another divorce statistic - but if you need a marriage license to force your commitment to someone, your relationship certainly has bigger problems, don't you think?

It may very well be that people cohabitate too quickly, figure they might as well get married since they're already living together, and it all goes to sh!t a few years later. But in that case, I'm talking about people like this couple I met who, after dating for less than six months, were already living together. The entire attitude toward relationships is the problem - not the act of sharing a living space.

I would never consider marrying someone without living with them first. But I'd never live with them after only a few short months of dating. If anything, it would take several years before I'd be willing to take that step.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy 

Please don't. One suicidal person in the Lounge in enough.

Hah - if I kill myself, I'm not going to post online about it first, believe me.

I would take bpr² advice to get out and go for a walk. You have already said you are feeling crabby today and the tone of your posts have gotten more angry as the day has progressed. So, maybe it's time to step away from the keyboard and go out and do something for yourself.

It's rainy and, factoring in wind chill, below freezing out. I'm not sure that my toes would like me walking around out there.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Huh. What I'm seeing is that more and more couples are getting married before they're ready, which ends in divorce.

I'm not seeing any logical reason why cohabitation correlates to an increase in divorce. What are the reports or conclusions on these statistics? Is the increase in divorce really directly related to an increase in cohabitation, or is it more to do with how our views on marriage and relationships in general have changed?

Google around, there's plenty of stuff out there.

If I love someone and want to spend the rest of my life with them, living with them shouldn't change that. The only reason why marriage might make you stay together is because you don't want to end up another divorce statistic - but if you need a marriage license to force your commitment to someone, your relationship certainly has bigger problems, don't you think?

Definitely. But there are plenty of couple out there that went through a rough spot, stayed together because of the marriage license, but worked through it and are happy again. Divorce is never pretty, especially if there are kids involved, which is very often the case. One could argue that oftentimes divorce is better than an eternally loveless marriage, and that sometimes is the case.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Hah - if I kill myself, I'm not going to post online about it first, believe me.

As long as you post pics of...well, you know...first. KIDDING

It's rainy and, factoring in wind chill, below freezing out. I'm not sure that my toes would like me walking around out there.

Take the new Hyundai for a spin. I realize that it's no Ford Contour, but I'm sure it must have a redeeming quality or two.

[besson3c]

All this talk about having sex makes me want to have sex. Anybody want to cyber?

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Definitely. But there are plenty of couple out there that went through a rough spot, stayed together because of the marriage license, but worked through it and are happy again. Divorce is never pretty, especially if there are kids involved, which is very often the case. One could argue that oftentimes divorce is better than an eternally loveless marriage, and that sometimes is the case.

I think I'd put more value in a couple who went through a rough spot, and stayed together even though they didn't have a marriage license to complicate things.

I've read articles before on the evils of cohabitation, but a lot of what I read in them is either religious FUD or stuff that I've seen apply just as much to marriages. For instance, a lot of couples get married, yet keep their incomes and finances separate. Husband covers the mortgage, wife covers the food and shopping, each cover their own vehicle expenses, etc.

I mean, some of this stuff doesn't really have any specific relation to the act of cohabitation:

Ambert observes that some individuals choose cohabitation because it does not require sexual fidelity. Evidence indicates that the experience of a less committed cohabitation shapes subsequent marital behavior, she notes.

If a person is already not interested in being monogamous (or not cheating on their partner), cohabitation is not going to change that, nor is marriage. In fact, it seems to me that it would be easier to cheat when you're not living together, since you don't have to account for your whereabouts nearly as often.

This makes more sense, if you ask me:

While couples who cohabit prior to marriage have historically exhibited higher divorce rates, Stevenson and Wolfers observe that there is research showing that pre-marital cohabiting may be more common among those with greater uncertainty about either their compatibility or the benefits of marriage. Thus it may be that divorce-prone couples cohabit, rather than that cohabiting causes divorce. In fact, without cohabitation, divorce may be even more likely, as living together allows couples to "test" their relationship before heading to the altar.

A lot of couples I've met who live together start doing so long before they're really ready. That kind of strain on a relationship that's only lasted for a few months is obviously suicide. But I've known other people who were together for a year or more, moved in together, and got married a few months or a year later - and that timeline didn't negatively impact their relationships.

And:

In the USA, 8.1% of coupled households are made up of unmarried, heterosexual partners. Although many European countries have higher cohabitation rates, divorce rates in those countries are lower, and more children grow up with both biological parents, even though the parents may not be married, Popenoe says.

The USA has the lowest percentage among Western nations of children who grow up with both biological parents, 63%, the report says.

I'd say that our culture is a bigger culprit here than the simple act of living with a significant other before legally marrying them.

"Couples who get married without an intervening period of cohabitation have gotten early signals that they have a very good match," says Steven Stern, professor of economics at U.Va. and one of the co-authors of the new study.

"Others use a cohabitation period to learn more about their partners," Stern says. "If, once they've learned more, they find they have a good match, they marry; otherwise, they separate without incurring large divorce costs. On average, their matches are not as good and they have higher divorce rates."

"But it's not cohabitation that causes divorce," Stern emphasizes. "Rather, the people who cohabit are simply different from those who marry right away; their matches overall tend not to be as good. In fact, our study suggests that if there were less of a stigma associated with cohabitation and more people lived together before marriage, the divorce rate would fall because everyone would learn more about their partners' annoying habits before tying the knot."

I'm not saying cohabitation is universally good - but I'm not going to agree that's objectively bad, either. There are many more factors at work in the statistics than whether or not you shared a house before you got married.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Take the new Hyundai for a spin. I realize that it's no Ford Contour, but I'm sure it must have a redeeming quality or two.

I live in a college town. Unless Fry's has magically appeared on S.R. 26, there's nowhere to go.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'm not saying cohabitation is universally good - but I'm not going to agree that's objectively bad, either. There are many more factors at work in the statistics than whether or not you shared a house before you got married.

But sharing a house also implies that you're sharing a bed, which implies that you're having sex, which we've already established is naughty and dirty.

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I live in a college town. Unless Fry's has magically appeared on S.R. 26, there's nowhere to go.

The whole point of a spin is that you don't go anywhere, you pop a CD into that fancy CD player and waste some gas.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

But sharing a house also implies that you're sharing a bed, which implies that you're having sex, which we've already established is naughty and dirty.

Good point, although I do find it amusing. I was with this guy Mike for more than two years. We carpooled to work, so we spent the night at each others' places most nights. My mom always spoke about it as though we must be humping like bunnies because we were sleeping in the same bed.

I doubt she would have believed me had I ever pointed out that, in the last 3/4 of our relationship, we actually boned exactly twice.

The whole point of a spin is that you don't go anywhere, you pop a CD into that fancy CD player and waste some gas.

Maybe I'll just booze up and get on IRC. Meet me on #macnn in ten minutes.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Good point, although I do find it amusing. I was with this guy Mike for more than two years..... I doubt she would have believed me had I ever pointed out that, in the last 3/4 of our relationship, we actually boned exactly twice.

My mind just exploded. You spent two with a guy, and slept with him twice in the last 18 months? My mind just exploded. Exploded.

Maybe I'll just booze up and get on IRC. Meet me on #macnn in ten minutes.

I've fulfilled one of those requirements... I suppose I've seen worse excuses to actually get an irc client.....

greg

[shifuimam]

Well, Comcast is being a bitch, and I still can't connect to any IRC server over 6667...and MacNN's IRC server has no alternate ports.

Guess that means you're stuck IMing me if you're that desperate to talk to me. BOO.