candela wrote:
Colonial wrote:And it's "inherently wrong" ... because?
You wouldn't feel bad after premarital sex? Not at all? Then I guess I having nothing to argue against you with.
I mean, if a psychopath doesn't feel bad about stealing things, what good sort of reason can you give him to stop doing it if he gets away with it every time?
trol hard dude troll hard!!
candela wrote:
Colonial wrote:And it's "inherently wrong" ... because?
You wouldn't feel bad after premarital sex? Not at all? Then I guess I having nothing to argue against you with.
I mean, if a psychopath doesn't feel bad about stealing things, what good sort of reason can you give him to stop doing it if he gets away with it every time?
troll hard dude troll hard!!
For some it is an OJ moment. It could get nasty. Thank God I don't have kids.
According to a 2007 study by the US Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 47.8% of high school students reported being sexually active. My guess is that the real number is probably higher. Of the 52.2% who weren't yet sexually active, you can bet almost all of them would be before graduating College.
Whether they are emotionally ready for it or not, kids are having sex, no matter what we tell them. The fact is, people don't wait for marriage because sex is a completely natural and great part of life that feels too good to put off. Giving kids ignorant advice like "Wait for marriage because the bible says so" is ridiculous and doesn't make logical sense. Kids need to be EDUCATED about the risks associated with sex.
Peace Out wrote:
Whether they are emotionally ready for it or not, kids are having sex, .....
Name an instance of a person of a reasonable age who was not, "emotionally ready for it". This idea is part of the AMERICAN myth that adolescent sexuality does not exist, and teenagers have sex thrust upon them.
All teenagers in Holland have access to condoms, and the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STDs is a small fraction of the US. The Netherlands *expects* children to have sex, and plans accordingly.
Facebook Phil wrote:
All teenagers in Holland have access to condoms, and the rate of unplanned pregnancies and STDs is a small fraction of the US. The Netherlands *expects* children to have sex, and plans accordingly.
Actually....this is the problem. In the US, they think "teenagers" are "children". And this is just simply not the case, at least when it comes to sex. Part of sex is learning and exploration - something that is done alone, without parents help and guidance.
Christianity bases its whole lying picture of the world on the notion that God got Mary pregnant. No, they were not married. And now we should accept that Christianity has a consistent doctrine against pre-marital sex?
To begin, let me say that I am stupefied by the insistence that most to all young persons develop sexually “before graduating college.” This argues that everyone goes to college (partly to become sexual beings, if not already so) – and wonderfully shows the middle-class, college-educated-ness that is LRC. That being said, I am a middle-class, college-educated high school teacher who would like to (try to) shed some light on the initial situation.
I teach currently at a predominantly poor (98% free or reduced lunch), urban high school – and (without any concrete data) the majority of my students are sexually active. Prior to this, I taught at a highly diverse, highly competitive selective enrollment school (24.9 ACT average) – and again (without any concrete data) the majority of my students were sexually active. I use “sexually active” here as a more general term, meaning the person with some level of regularity performs a sex act – this does not mean specifically vaginal intercourse, but other forms of intercourse (and outercourse) as well. (Before anyone implicates me as some sort of pedophile or pederast, I want to say that any good teacher would have a sense of this information, because it shows that you listen to your students. High school students are loud and lack many filters - you hear things, this is why we are all mandated reporters).
With this small and in no way scientific sampling – I would conclude that “Yes, most teenagers/high school students are (at some level) sexually active.” In addition to this, I could reference Freud (and the majority of psychoanalysts) who would argue that sexuality (drive) develops at an even younger age. However, the “normalcy” of the friend’s problem (if we are to call it that) does nothing to explain his perceived depression. Rather, (without having ever spoken to the man) I would think either he (like some who have posted on this thread) feels pre-martial sex to be immoral (ergo, his daughter has sinned, he has failed as a father) or he vehemently hates the boyfriend (“How could she have had sex with him?” becomes the question, again his daughter is tainted – he fails as a parent). Both of these lines of reasoning involve him feeling a sense of failure, explain to him that this is not the case (you may want to cite the daughter’s “good grades” as contrary evidence). Additionally, explain that the only way he can fail is if he doesn’t ensure that his daughter is practicing safe, consensual sex acts.
As to the numerous posts on the morality of pre-martial sex and normalcy as moral certitude, I would like to (again, try to) bring some levity to the situation. Ideology is the primary agent here, and Yogi Berra’s “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded” becomes a wonderful quote to focus on (it is not normal for persons to have pre-marital sex, however it is normal to have sex before marriage). The discourse over the normalcy of pre-marital sex is a waste of time – depending on how one approaches the topic, numerous conclusions can be reached (all relatively sound), that is all I want to say about that. So, to the question of morality, it seems that (as applied here) morality functions in an amoral/immoral dichotomy (either it is immoral to have pre-marital sex or morality has no bearings on the issue) – here we are missing the more important third term: moral. My argument is that it is moral for persons to practice pre-marital sex (here I mean safe, consensual sex acts). As a matter of utility, it appears to be of the greatest utility to have a developed sexuality prior to entering into (perceived) monogamy. And, (contrary to what I assume will be a rebuttal) one does not, and cannot, develop a strong sense of his/her own sexuality via masturbation or solo sex acts. Thusly, in order to assure that a marriage (or any extended monogamous or perceived monogamous relationship) can properly function – pre-martial sex must take place (now I wait for the few of you who will raise: “I never had sex until marriage and we have been married for 50 years!” – you are the minority in this country and I congratulate you, but from a utilitarian position, it is not feasible to apply your standards across the population).
Article showing premarital sex trends over the last half century
Keep in mind that people used to get married somewhere between 16-22. It's not too hard to keep it in your pants when you're getting married right away. Actually it's kind of sad to see colleges like Wheaton or Calvin where people all get married ASAP to the first person they date just so they can have sex.
If you would read the articled I linked, you would see that the rates have consistently been >90% since the 1950s. Granted, it could be argued that those having premarital sex in the 1950s would typically go on to marry that person; however, these are still cases of premarital sex.
how has no one asked for pics yet? come one now
It wouldn't be devastating if the mother and father had been adults and had frank conversations with her about sex from the time she had her first period. The real travesty is that 1) the guy probably would have been proud if it were his son that was having sex (sad commentary on perceptions of male and female sexuality); 2) the parents weren't mature enough to sit down and talk with their daughter before she came into adulthood and the responsibilities that that entailed; 3) that they were surprised in the first place (come on...she's 16). I think the guy should feel bad for himself that he didn't take advantage of years of opportunity to talk to his daughter about being sexually responsible because he was too afraid to confront and uncomfortable topic. Hopefully now that it's been thrust upon him, he will be a man and deal with it in some way other than being a child.
candela wrote:
Facebook Phil wrote:"Adolescent sexuality" is not an aberration. Its a normal part of the maturing process.
Tell your friend to join the real world, make sure his daughter has plenty of condoms, and that they are used.
No it's not. Rationalize whatever you want, but it's still wrong.
You're from the south, I presume?
candela wrote:
Facebook Phil wrote:why?
11th commandment: Thou shalt not have sex before marriage.
Aah. A bible thumper. Should have known. Or a fairly decent troll.
candela wrote:
madrunner wrote:you compared premarital sex to murder and rape. Get a clue.
And it was a very valid comparison. "Normal" is a society specific term. Your argument was a flop. Why don't you get a clue instead of rationalizing something that is inherently wrong.
Inherently wrong? Wow, you really need to get off your high horse. I think that relgion is inherently wrong and only practiced by deluded bigots. See how that works?
I didn't mean to respond to you. I'm sure just about everyone has premarital sex in modern times. I suspect the rates were lower as you go further back, just because society was so protective of women and dating was much more formal.
Right. Unwanted pregnancy, STD's, AIDS, doesn't harm anyone. Get a clue.
ArtDude wrote:
Thusly, in order to assure that a marriage (or any extended monogamous or perceived monogamous relationship) can properly function – pre-martial sex must take place (now I wait for the few of you who will raise: “I never had sex until marriage and we have been married for 50 years!” – you are the minority in this country and I congratulate you, but from a utilitarian position, it is not feasible to apply your standards across the population).
Are you stupid, or just naïve?
In an analagous comparison, one could say that it is necessary to live together before getting married to see if it is REALLY going to work out, as a test. But everyone knows that as bad as the divorce rate is for the overall population, it is even worse for people who cohabitate before marriage.
You can't actually be a teacher. I call troll.
Why are you concerned? wrote:
It wouldn't be devastating if the mother and father had been adults and had frank conversations with her about sex from the time she had her first period. The real travesty is that 1) the guy probably would have been proud if it were his son that was having sex (sad commentary on perceptions of male and female sexuality); 2) the parents weren't mature enough to sit down and talk with their daughter before she came into adulthood and the responsibilities that that entailed; 3) that they were surprised in the first place (come on...she's 16). I think the guy should feel bad for himself that he didn't take advantage of years of opportunity to talk to his daughter about being sexually responsible because he was too afraid to confront and uncomfortable topic. Hopefully now that it's been thrust upon him, he will be a man and deal with it in some way other than being a child.
As a father of two daughters who are young adults now, I would cut the guy a little slack on not having frank discussions on sex with his teenage daughter. I have a great relationship with my daughters, but I can tell you that they would have been mortified to discuss sex with me when they were in their mid teens. My wife got that lovely task. I doubt there are many teenage girls who feel comfortable talking about sex with their fathers.