But what if science could prove sexual permissiveness does great damage to future sexual happiness?
That's what Dr. Joe McIlhaney of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin says. New research shows that sleeping around now could ruin your chances of having a happy, fulfilling marriage later.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2010/March/Sexually-Indulgent-Now-Marriage-Ruined-Later/
candela wrote:
madrunner wrote:it's "wrong"? seems pretty normal.
please explain.
In Liberia, murder and rape are normal too.
i hope that's a joke.
repressed sexuality is very, very dangerous. and very natural. strictly imposed religious viewpoints that are unflexible or incompatible with the realities of human reproduction, lust, and love, are far more harmful than premarital sex.
i want my kids to have sex - when they are ready and with the right person, of course - but i want them to have sex, and if that means when they are 16, i will be fine with it. my parents were far too protective when i was going through that phase - never trusted my HS girlfriend (whose parents never trusted me), and i think the reason, on some level, was because they guessed how much sex we were having and they still clutched, immaturely, to our respective childhoods and refused to acknowledge us as adults.
we didn't have wild monkey sex every day senior year because it was the rebellious adolescent thing to do, or because we were into drugs or whatever associated illusions you sort of people imagine, or because we wanted to conceive a child, we did it because we were in love and it was unnatural and unhealthy to refuse what our bodies demanded. we were both straight a students, never got in trouble, and wound up going to good colleges after that. that isn't the girl i married, but it doesn't matter - our situation was not unique. plenty of teenagers have very healthy sex. you only hear about the ones that don't. ever since HS i've vowed to remember what it was like for that distant day when my kids were going through the same thing. they're not there yet, but i'm mature and wise enough now to know when to lay the hammer down - and when to back the @#$@ off. stop trying to control your kids. that is not the role of a loving parent. although i worry more, i think, about the influence of your uncontrolled dogmatic faith on the development of your child's worldview...
No woman is emotionally ready for sex. Few guys either. At any age.
LOL..ya lose all reliability when ya start trotting out a re-branded and failed abstinence only group like this. founded and funded by a bunch of ex bushies.
dear stone cold wrote:
But what if science could prove sexual permissiveness does great damage to future sexual happiness?
That's what Dr. Joe McIlhaney of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health in Austin says. New research shows that sleeping around now could ruin your chances of having a happy, fulfilling marriage later.
http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/healthscience/2010/March/Sexually-Indulgent-Now-Marriage-Ruined-Later/
OH NO YOUR DAUGHTER IS BEING HUMAN HOW DEVASTATING
The idiots of LR never seize to lessen my faith in humanity.
BLZ Bubb wrote:
LOL..ya lose all reliability when ya start trotting out a re-branded and failed abstinence only group like this. founded and funded by a bunch of ex bushies.
You ignore science that disagrees with your view. The research done by the medical institute for sexual health has nothing to do with cbn. CBN along with others posted the findings. Look at the study, or better yet read the book by the two doctors.
http://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601http://www.medinstitute.org/the board of directors were formerly associated with The Virginity Project, an abstinence only texas foundationgee...ya think they might have a built in bias?
dear stone cold wrote:
BLZ Bubb wrote:LOL..ya lose all reliability when ya start trotting out a re-branded and failed abstinence only group like this. founded and funded by a bunch of ex bushies.
You ignore science that disagrees with your view. The research done by the medical institute for sexual health has nothing to do with cbn. CBN along with others posted the findings. Look at the study, or better yet read the book by the two doctors.
http://www.amazon.com/Hooked-Science-Casual-Affecting-Children/dp/0802450601http://www.medinstitute.org/
Fun with Fundie wrote:
"No it's not. Rationalize whatever you want, but it's still wrong."
"In Liberia, murder and rape are normal too."
"Why don't you get a clue instead of rationalizing something that is inherently wrong."
"But I have a very hard time believing you wouldn't feel guilty deep inside."
"You wouldn't feel bad after premarital sex? Not at all? Then I guess I having nothing to argue against you with."
"But it won't change by belief that it is universally immoral"
When you use terms like universally immoral and deep inside everyone should feel guilt, your position IS based on morality.
No, you misunderstand me. I don't believe everyone SHOULD feel guilt. I believe that they DO feel guilt and are rationalizing that guilt away.
But instead of addressing the moral argument which I dropped 7 or 8 pages ago, why don't you address my practical one (last few pages)?
mapshap wrote:
Well then your statement is pointless because you admit the possibility that they lied to you. That was my point. You can't know what is inside someone else's heart or mind. Decent, good people can make mistakes, and they probably want to keep those mistakes to themselves. You think your mom is going to tell you about the time she was 20 years old, tripping on LSD, loving hippie life, and got a bout of chlamydia from a casual tryst at Woodstock? But oh that couldn't be your mom. Well here's a clue - people who get STD's can go on to have careers, families, and be wonderful people. You think they share all their sexual escapades with their kids? How naive are you?
My point all along was that you tried to take the moral high ground when claiming your family never had any of the assorted list of moral failings. Eh...I wouldn't be so sure about that, you never know.
Sorry, but your point is pointless. Anyone could lie about anything. Some level of trust is necessary.
Next!
unc wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHE_9Q6nqmc
The thread is now over. Thanks for coming out.
MADE IN ARIZONA wrote:
Science and Math professionals have by far the least morals of any other people...
Way to make an objective statement. Funny how no one challenges you over it though. They just challenge what's convenient enough to support their point of view.
seriously guys wrote:
[quote]candela wrote:
i hope that's a joke.
repressed sexuality is very, very dangerous. and very natural. strictly imposed religious viewpoints that are unflexible or incompatible with the realities of human reproduction, lust, and love, are far more harmful than premarital sex.
i want my kids to have sex - when they are ready and with the right person, of course - but i want them to have sex, and if that means when they are 16, i will be fine with it. my parents were far too protective when i was going through that phase - never trusted my HS girlfriend (whose parents never trusted me), and i think the reason, on some level, was because they guessed how much sex we were having and they still clutched, immaturely, to our respective childhoods and refused to acknowledge us as adults.
we didn't have wild monkey sex every day senior year because it was the rebellious adolescent thing to do, or because we were into drugs or whatever associated illusions you sort of people imagine, or because we wanted to conceive a child, we did it because we were in love and it was unnatural and unhealthy to refuse what our bodies demanded. we were both straight a students, never got in trouble, and wound up going to good colleges after that. that isn't the girl i married, but it doesn't matter - our situation was not unique. plenty of teenagers have very healthy sex. you only hear about the ones that don't. ever since HS i've vowed to remember what it was like for that distant day when my kids were going through the same thing. they're not there yet, but i'm mature and wise enough now to know when to lay the hammer down - and when to back the @#$@ off. stop trying to control your kids. that is not the role of a loving parent. although i worry more, i think, about the influence of your uncontrolled dogmatic faith on the development of your child's worldview...
From my point of view, premarital sex is "very, very dangerous". Shall I add a few more "very"s to see if it makes more of an impact?
Go back and read my arguments on the impracticality of premarital sex, and then respond to those points.
Thanks
P.S. - You don't seem intelligent at all because you claimed I have a religious faith -- I never said that I did. Making things up is known as lying, and is generally frowned upon.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
[quote]Jeff Wigand wrote:
It adds greatly to the bond between the people in question, and brings them together. This is all rooted in our evolution. Our brains want us to find good partners, want us to mate and mate often. Some people require several encounters before they feel comfortable sharing that part of themselves, others may feel comfortable upon first meeting, and for others, comfort is less of an issue and they don't require the same kind of emotional bond in order to enjoy it. Again, being smart about how you do it, drastically reduces your risk of finding yourself in a spot. It's never zero, but few things are.
Very well. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that such short-term sex can contribute to a meaningful relationship. If you took a society, cloned it, and then had the first society continue like ours does, and the second continue without premarital sex, I believe you would find a much greater level of net happiness among the second society. Of course, this point is entirely untestable, so we're just going to have to stick with what we each think about it.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
How am I going to accidentally going to have a baby? Do I have less ability to prevent a pregnancy than I do in preventing a drunk driver from running a red light? With the pregnancy, a couple can use a condom (with proper condom use, an average of two pregnancies result from every 8300 acts of sex), use oral contraceptives (99.9% effective), use a combination of the two methods, or limit sexual activity to oral and anal intercourse, any and all of which reduce the chance of pregnancy to nearly zero.
You're okay with 2 unwanted pregnancies for every 8300 acts of sex using condoms? Assuming "95% of Americans have premarital sex", then that's 74,458 unwanted pregnancies. Geez. 74,458 lives that have a high probability of being raised in an environment without the proper resources for a positive development (again, I can cite some facts about this if you like). Only 43,400 people are killed in car accidents each year. You are not only affecting your own life (as in a risky act like sky diving or free climbing), you are affecting someone else's too. If you're okay with that, then fine, but I am very surprised.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
And what about gay couples? What about my friends who are in their 70s? You must agree that any reasonably educated person has much more ability to control whether or not they conceive a child through their own volition, than they do to avoid a potentially life-threatening car accident.
Gay people and those are in their 70s cannot accidentally have a child.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Similarly, people can have sex with all the precautions listed above. Most who take those precautions won't end up with an unintended pregnancy or an STD. Those that are more cavalier, like those who drink and drive, text while driving and run in the middle of the street, put themselves at greater risk.
And those people who drink and drive, and text while driving, are WAY more impractical than those who have premarital sex and are MUCH more damaging to society. But it doesn't make something that's somewhat impractical any more practical by comparing it to something vastly more impractical.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
How would you suppose a couple that has decided they don't want children will accidentally have some? If Carl has had a vasectomy and Carla has had a tubal ligation, how are they going to accidentally end up with children? This is what I mean by taking proper precautions.
Then I have no longer have a case that it is impractical -- taking the assumption that you have given that sex is a highly valuable relationship-building tool (which I expressed my own thoughts on in the first point above). In fact, I would be all for free vasectomies and tubal ligations for those who want it.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
The point is the risk is not zero.
And... ?
candela wrote:
So you are saying that practicality, like morality, is not something that is widely and almost universally agreed upon? Interesting. I suppose I had always made the assumption that most people had similar views of what constituted "practical". But I am not sure that I am in the minority about the weight and value placed upon sex. I would need to ask a lot of people to see if this is true. Personally, I think if I asked I would find that most who practice premarital sex think it impractical, yet they are going to do it anyway. So one of us is correct, but I doubt there is data at the moment indicating which.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
Practicality would mean to extent to which an idea can be realized in the real world, the likelihood of that idea to succeed when implemented, and the suitability of a solution for a given situation.
Given that a majority of people have sex before their first marriage, and given that a majority of people do not contract STDs or have unwanted pregnancies, it would seem that having sex (with the aforementioned precautions) is a practical solution in satisfying the urge to engage in sex with your partner (short or long term).
Again, if you're fine with trading the well-being of 74,458 lives for some quick sexual gratification, then so be it. And again, I am surprised.
Jeff Wigand wrote:
A 16 year old committing to a lifelong marriage is not necessarily reflective of their preparedness for anything. Can you see why most would think that the person with decades more behind them would know themselves better, have more life experience, be more mature and be better prepared for such a commitment.
Would you honestly say that a 13 year old wife (perfectly legal in the state of New Hampshire) is more likely to be prepared to handle sex and her marriage than a a 40 year old who has graduated middle school, high school, university and has spent years getting her career in order, simply by virtue of the fact that the 13 year old signed a marriage certificate and said, "I do"?
"Not necessarily" -- those are the key words. We can still substitute "but with high probability". If a person is REALLY mature enough to commit to a lifelong relationship (and there are VERY VERY few that can do this at a young age), then yeah, they are much more prepared than that same 40 year old who, randomly selected from the population, is likely to have tried drugs, been arrested at some point in their life, had a divorce, and who's kids turn out only mediocre in school, with mediocre jobs, and a mediocre happiness. (Yes, mediocre is the appropriate term for an average person).
Lexmark wrote:
Look this candela guy obviously has some emotional problems don't feed the troll. Look at his posts that go on and on and on, about a total Non-issue. Just, don't provoke people with mental health problems, agree with them and move on.
Validating the behavior only exacerbates the problem.
To the OP,Here is some classic LetsRun advice you can give to your coworker,
girls like it wrote:
Your daughter has already sucked more dick than you could imagine. She's probably already slept with 20-something year old guys. She's an adult. Before she's finished with school she'll have gotten it on with many guys from 18 old 32 years old.
More relevant advice for your coworker,
Guppy wrote:
Listen here, momma. Your daughter is going off to college and that means she's gonna get railed by all kinds of guys. If she was decent looking, went to my school, and I had a class with her, I'd probably end up railing her too. The only chance you have is if she's fugly, otherwise, accept the fact she's going to be screaming god's name on Friday and Saturday nights rather than Sunday mornings. Probably best just to keep your nose out of other people's sexual business.
In regards to your question, she may or may not let her male friend give her the ol' freshman girl away-from-home-and-lonely orientation. If it bothers you, try not to think about it.
candela wrote:
Sorry, but your point is pointless. Anyone could lie about anything. Some level of trust is necessary.
Next!
You still really don't get it. I'm glad to hear you admit that anyone could lie about anything (and by extension, I think you'd agree that anyone can omit anything).
I am simply trying to keep you honest, to rein you in a little bit. If we can't keep the discussion within the bounds of reason, then what are we even doing here?
The funny thing is, you might even be right! It is entirely possible that your whole family never got an STD, unwanted pregnancy, failed a test (except that 1 guy you remembered afterward), etc. But YOU. CAN'T. KNOW. THAT. FOR. SURE. So my objection was you even incorporating an unverifiable claim into the discussion as if it were relevant. Now that you are agreeing with me, we can essentially excise that post from the discussion.
So carry on, I won't bother you any more, but hopefully in future posts you will minimize hyperbole and won't go around making claims that you can't possibly back up.
candela wrote:
Very well. I find it incredibly difficult to believe that such short-term sex can contribute to a meaningful relationship. If you took a society, cloned it, and then had the first society continue like ours does, and the second continue without premarital sex, I believe you would find a much greater level of net happiness among the second society. Of course, this point is entirely untestable, so we're just going to have to stick with what we each think about it.
Oh geez, not this sh*t again with the unverifiable claims. Lol, I give up.
Facebook Phil wrote:
Sex is not the exclusive province of adults. Nor should it be.
Awful lotta closet pedos in this thread.
Colin Sahlman runs 1:45 and Nico Young runs 1:47 in the 800m tonight at the Desert Heat Classic
Molly Seidel Fails To Debut As An Ultra Runner After Running A Road Marathon The Week Before
Megan Keith (14:43) DESTROYS Parker Valby's 5000 PB in Shanghai
Hallowed sub-16 barrier finally falls - 3 teams led by Villanova's 15:51.91 do it at Penn Relays!!!
Need female opinions: I’m dating a woman that is very sexual with me in public. Any tips/insight?