Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Study: 95 percent of Americans have had premarital sex

Study: 95 percent of Americans have had premarital sex (Page 5)
Thread Tools
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by bojangles View Post
I agree completely.

Then why is suicide illegal? Or if you don’t like that, why is speeding illegal? How about cocaine abuse? Underaged drinking? Prostitution? The list goes on and on.

A government “for the people” and “by the people” has the responsibility to protect its citizens, and our government exercises that responsibility every day. Furthermore, every decision we make—good or bad, right or wrong—affects others around us, even if only by example. If I were to commit suicide, where would that leave my wife and kids? It’s bigger than just you or me, Snow.

Actually, what the Founding Fathers created was a government based on individual rights and individual accountability: that every one of us has, as you say, “the right to decide what makes [us] happy,” but that consequences—laws—would be in place, to prevent behavior that is at odds with that happiness. To use my earlier example, it’s illegal to snort coke. Why? Well, it can kill you, it can enslave you, and it can make you miserable—the exact antithesis of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Is it possible to snort cocaine without unhappiness? Perhaps, but the government has stepped in, anyway. How do you explain that?

The bottom line is that we’re not going to abolish all law just because somebody thinks s/he’d be happier without it. That’s not the Founding Fathers’ ideal; that’s just anarchy.
-Suicide is not illegal in the US anymore.
-Speeding? You put others in unneccesary risk by doing so.
-Prostitution? Increases the transmission of STDs to unknowing partners, and later to consensual partners of that person. It also has adverse effects on neighborhoods.
-Drugs cause violence.

What if my happiness is different from yours? What if having alot of sex with alot of consenting people makes me happy?
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 04:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
-Speeding? You put others in unneccesary risk by doing so.
Germany seems to be okay for the most part.

-Drugs cause violence.
*cough* Alcohol *cough*
     
Doofy
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Vacation.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 05:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What if my happiness is different from yours? What if having alot of sex with alot of consenting people makes me happy?
What if spending ten bucks a month at an offshore poker room makes you happy? What if driving 100 mph along a deserted desert highway makes you happy? What if having five wives and a crate of AK47s makes you happy?

'Tis about time you fellas realised that you don't actually live in "the land of the free"*. The only way to get such a thing is to vote libertarian. 'Tis un-American to do otherwise.

(* More free than the hole I live in, but still not as free as the Spangled stuff makes out.)
     
bojangles
Senior User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lafayette, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 09:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by Doofy View Post
What if spending ten bucks a month at an offshore poker room makes you happy? What if driving 100 mph along a deserted desert highway makes you happy? What if having five wives and a crate of AK47s makes you happy?

'Tis about time you fellas realised that you don't actually live in "the land of the free"*. The only way to get such a thing is to vote libertarian. 'Tis un-American to do otherwise.

(* More free than the hole I live in, but still not as free as the Spangled stuff makes out.)
“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never tell if they’re attributed to the right person.”
—Abraham Lincoln
     
bojangles
Senior User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lafayette, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Suicide is not illegal in the US anymore.
As I said, it depends on where you live.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Speeding? You put others in unneccesary risk by doing so.
…and yourself.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Prostitution? Increases the transmission of STDs to unknowing partners, and later to consensual partners of that person.
You just proved my point.
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Drugs cause violence.
Yep.

Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
What if my happiness is different from yours? What if having alot of sex with alot of consenting people makes me happy?
This is exactly what I’m saying: the family—and by extension, every one of us—is in jeopardy because an apparent majority (95%, if this highly debatable survey is to be believed) have chosen selfishness over lasting happiness. There should never be law against someone’s belief, but when a person’s actions are in direct opposition with the principles of happiness on which our nation is founded, the government—which should ideally be an extension of the will of the people—is in place to help correct that anomaly. And if history has taught us anything, it’s that a society begins the spiny path towards implosion, when the will of the people becomes at odds with those principles.

(Of course, questionable statistics notwithstanding, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that even a bare majority of the people support extramarital sex—at least on principle. You’d never know it from TV and movies, but most of America feels that Hollywood is so out of touch as to be laughable.)
“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never tell if they’re attributed to the right person.”
—Abraham Lincoln
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 10:15 AM
 
Is there a difference between extramarital and premarital sex?

I think there is, and we're not talking about the former in this thread.
     
bojangles
Senior User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lafayette, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 10:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
If you have no experience with premarital sex, on what basis do you blame the breakdown of families on it? I would argue that the breakdown of families contributes to premarital sex, but not vice versa.
Premarital sex, by definition, leads to unmarried parents and bastard children. Since the great majority of these innocent children aren’t being adopted (since the general selfishness of society now claims a two-parent family to be optional), that leads to an increase in broken homes.

Furthermore, I have several friends that have had premarital sex, and every one of them wishes he or she hadn’t. The intense connection I have with my wife—made that much stronger by our decision to “save ourselves” for each other—just isn’t there, for my repentant friends. Sure, there’s still a deep connection, but they each have that knowledge, deep in the back of their respective minds, that they can’t fully erase the ramifications of past indiscretions. (I have the same feelings about certain unfortunate acts I committed, in my younger days.) It’s like I said before: you can choose what you do, but you can’t choose the consequence of your actions.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Secondly, I don't want to overgeneralize here, but government is bad at everything; how do you know my relationship with my girlfriend isn't so important that I don't want the government * it up? Three, your proposal boils down to encouraging people to get married so they can have sex (above board); don't you think that's a bad way to encourage commitment? You'd think this strategy would just have the effect of weakening the connection of marriage with commitment.
That’s not what I’m suggesting at all. As I thought I made quite clear in my previous post, I’m saying that an intense commitment is a necessary prerequisite for marriage. Marriage is a legal commitment, not an emotional one. However, it’s also an outward expression of the prerequisite emotional commitment, and until you’re both legally and emotionally committed, you’re less than fully committed.

Also, I’m honestly curious here…. How would the government be able to screw up your relationship with your girlfriend?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Finally, this reeks of an unenforceable law. How many Americans are going to allow the hymen police to barge in and rummage through their unmentionables? This idea is about as feasible as the War on Drugs, IOW an utter disaster. Passing laws which obviously can't be enforced only serves to weaken the general rule of law.
You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, but I wholeheartedly disagree. To use my earlier examples, speed limits are “unenforceable”—just watch the majority of the people on the road—but the laws still exist. Heck, CSI-type shows notwithstanding, even most murderers still go unpunished! There’s no way to enforce any law, 100% of the time, but even the very existence of a law communicates societal expectations to the otherwise unknowing individual.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
Oh yeah, if you guys are still talking about definitions, then if 95% of people are having premarital sex, that by definition makes those who wait until marriage the aberrations. Describing premarital sex as "aberrant" is pretty ironic.
If the 95% figure is even vaguely accurate, that might be true, but that wasn’t the conclusion of the original article; the conclusion was that since ‘obviously, everybody’s doing it,’ we might as well ignore the fact that it’s probably not the best idea.

On a related note, historical records indicate that more than 99% of certain ancient civilizations were engaged in the same type of activities we’re discussing. By your argument, the remaining 1% were the aberration, but when we look back on those societies, they’re still viewed as “aberrant.” The number of people involved doesn’t matter; it remains a minor, aberrant ‘blip’ on the face of human history—a history primarily predicated on the same principles of happiness we’ve been talking about.
“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never tell if they’re attributed to the right person.”
—Abraham Lincoln
     
bojangles
Senior User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lafayette, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 10:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar² View Post
Is there a difference between extramarital and premarital sex?

I think there is, and we're not talking about the former in this thread.
returning to Tiger‘s Dictionary widget:

extra-
prefix
outside; beyond ; extracellular | extraterritorial
• beyond the scope of : extracurricular

ORIGIN: via medieval Latin from Latin extra ‘outside’

Thus, premarital sex is a subset of extramarital sex.
“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never tell if they’re attributed to the right person.”
—Abraham Lincoln
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 11:11 AM
 
Originally Posted by bojangles View Post
returning to Tiger‘s Dictionary widget:

extra-
prefix
outside; beyond ; extracellular | extraterritorial
• beyond the scope of : extracurricular

ORIGIN: via medieval Latin from Latin extra ‘outside’

Thus, premarital sex is a subset of extramarital sex.
Exactly, subset. Poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.

We're talking premarital here, not extramarital. It's an important difference.
     
bojangles
Senior User
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lafayette, IN, USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 11:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by Dakar² View Post
Exactly, subset. Poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles.

We're talking premarital here, not extramarital. It's an important difference.
Of course there’s a difference, but I’m not quite sure why it’s pertinent to the discussion. Thoughts?
“The trouble with quotes on the Internet is that you can never tell if they’re attributed to the right person.”
—Abraham Lincoln
     
Dakar²
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The Annals of MacNN History
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 17, 2007, 12:01 PM
 
Title of thread, perhaps?
     
Gossamer
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: "Working"
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2007, 12:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by bojangles View Post
This is exactly what I’m saying: the family—and by extension, every one of us—is in jeopardy because an apparent majority (95%, if this highly debatable survey is to be believed) have chosen selfishness over lasting happiness. There should never be law against someone’s belief, but when a person’s actions are in direct opposition with the principles of happiness on which our nation is founded, the government—which should ideally be an extension of the will of the people—is in place to help correct that anomaly. And if history has taught us anything, it’s that a society begins the spiny path towards implosion, when the will of the people becomes at odds with those principles.

(Of course, questionable statistics notwithstanding, I think you’d be hard pressed to show that even a bare majority of the people support extramarital sex—at least on principle. You’d never know it from TV and movies, but most of America feels that Hollywood is so out of touch as to be laughable.)
I fail to see how having premarital sex is directly in contrast with what our nation was founded on.
Also, I think if you were to actually survey most of America, they'd say you should wait until love, or the right moment, or until you know that's a special person to have sex, not marriage.

I don't think anyone should have sex until they're ready to accept the consequences of what might happen. My 15 year old cousin had sex with a 21 year old guy and got pregnant...oops, there goes her future. She's now trying to make it through high school with a son to take care of and his father in prison for what he did. She's lucky her parents are so supportive.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 18, 2007, 05:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by bojangles View Post
Premarital sex, by definition, leads to unmarried parents and bastard children. Since the great majority of these innocent children aren’t being adopted...
Whoa there, buckaroo. You don't consider that families can exist outside of marriage (not counting common-law marriage, which I doubt you are)?

Furthermore, I have several friends that have had premarital sex, and every one of them wishes he or she hadn’t.
So it's based on second hand anecdotes. That's fine, but something tells me the people you choose to be friends with are not an unbiased sampling of Americans to begin with, and that's not even counting whatever influence you might have on them directly, nor the logical filter information seems to go through on the way from your ears to your brain. Meanwhile I have a group of friends, myself included, who have no regrets about premarital sex. Color me unconvinced.

but they each have that knowledge, deep in the back of their respective minds, that they can’t fully erase the ramifications of past indiscretions.
Seems to me the problem is that you think of all premarital sex as an indiscretion. If you just ignore that misperception (as I and many others do), the whole rest of your problem goes away.

I’m saying that an intense commitment is a necessary prerequisite for marriage.
Our high divorce/annulment/unfaithfulness/remarriage rates disagree with you. Now I'm curious, would you seek to outlaw divorce as well? What about a requirement to prove your commitment before being issued a marriage license?

I think this is the heart of the issue, you're targeting the symptoms, not the disease. You want people to show more commitment (in general), but you're casting about outlawing the side-effects of lacking commitment (sex without marriage etc) without any strategy to increase commitment itself. Pressuring people to pretend to be commited will not make them more commited.

Marriage is a legal commitment, not an emotional one. However, it’s also an outward expression of the prerequisite emotional commitment, and until you’re both legally and emotionally committed, you’re less than fully committed.

Also, I’m honestly curious here…. How would the government be able to screw up your relationship with your girlfriend?
Your first paragraph here answers your second one (internal contradictions notwithstanding). I don't need or want a legal commitment, and I certainly don't want anyone implying that we stay together because it's the law to do so. On top of that I don't need the government injecting errors into my relationship the way they did on my car's title and my driver's license and my residency status and a million other SNAFUs every day (Situation Normal: All ****ed Up). No thanks.

There’s no way to enforce any law, 100% of the time,
You misunderstood. How would you enforce a "no sex" law...ever? The problem of policing people in their own homes is the one weakness of the Drug War, and we all know that has been an abysmal failure.

If the 95% figure is even vaguely accurate, that might be true, but that wasn’t the conclusion of the original article; the conclusion was that since ‘obviously, everybody’s doing it,’ we might as well ignore the fact that it’s probably not the best idea.
And you connected the dots from "not the best idea" to "rape and murder." Are there no gray areas in your world?

On a related note, historical records indicate that more than 99% of certain ancient civilizations were engaged in the same type of activities we’re discussing. By your argument, the remaining 1% were the aberration,
I wasn't trying to make that argument, I was making fun of your oft-used "by definition" argument. Sorry for the confusion.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:25 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,