Virginity is not an obligation

Hmm creepy and inaccurate. If you're putting it in a religious paper, it should be a hit. Don't know about otherwise.

Pregnancy and STD's can be prevented. Sex is an important thing, but there are benefits to not waiting until marraige.
Here are a few:
1. Get to know yourself and others better. You will be a much better lover to your future spouse if you know what suits you, and what pleases others.

2. It is good to know how sexually compatible you are with someone you will be sharing your bed with for the rest of your life!

3. It's good to get comfortable with the equipment. Biology gets people ready for sex long before our current societal standards accept marriage. Safe sex is one way to satisfy biological urges without having to have children each time.

4. Knowing your body makes you more comfortable with yourself as a whole person.

5. It shows you that there are other things out there. Marriage isn't for everyone, it's a custom promoted by the church and society. There is no reason why a stable, loving relationship can't exist outside of marriage.

6. It -does- feel good and it -is- pleasurable, if done correctly. There is no shame in this pleasure - it is non addictive, a great workout, and good for your reproductive system! As long as you are being safe (stable, predictible birth control, consent, respect, and preferably std testing on both sides) it is a healthy, natural, and fun thing to do.

Sex and when to have it is a personal choice, and no one should let someone else make the decision for them. Be it abstinance, marriage, loving relationships, or consentual sex partners, the most important thing to remember about sex is that you are responsible and comfortable.

I agree with Portal Star. The first times I had sex wasn't enjoyable for me at all, so it wouldn't have made for a good honeymoon. I also have no desire to get married in the future, so that would mean no sex for me ever. There was a time where I wouldn't have sex with anyone unless I was in love with them, but even that has changed. Marriage isn't for everyone and I don't think people should deprive themselves of something so enjoyable just for the sake of marriage. I have a child with a man I had planned to marry, but since he turned out to be an abusive jerk, I'm glad I never married him. I did get a wonderful son out of it though.

The "gift" of virginity is only a gift to someone who holds it dear for some reason.

You assume that a putative future spouse will have to "forgive" past sexual activity - this implies a fault is there to forgive. Your argument is circular and invalid.

Personally, in someone old enough seriously to consider marriage (in MY mind) - I would consider virginity to be a cause for some concern.

So it goes...

Saying it's "inaccurate" would be a misstatement here since the entire article is based on one person's opinion. When it comes to sex - different strokes for different folks. It'd only be inaccurate if full didn't actually think what he/she's written.



Verra true. The "value" of a gift is only really determined by the person getting the gift.

It was inaccurate to assume that your spouse would a. need to "forgive" you for what you chose to do with your own body, and
b. To assume they would prefer you were a virgin as a marriage gift.
It was inaccurate to assume both those things of everyone, surely that is the way -some- people feel, but I think many Americans nowdays would not see a sexual history as negative. But your right, it was opinion, not fact.

I quit being a virgin the first time I had sex.

I got the same initial feeling as Portal Star -- creepy.

If you want to keep your virginity because you want to keep your virginity...do it.

If you have to search for reasons to do it -- especially reasons that have to do with what some unspecified person in the future might think about it -- I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

Frankly, anyone who would really care a lot about that aspect of you may very well end up making your life miserable -- because anyone who finds that important continues to find it important well into the relationship -- and that importance often manifests itself in very ugly ways.

Are you going to be disappointed if you eventually hook up with someone who has absolutely no interest whatever in whether you are a virgin or not?

Are you going to reject someone you otherwise love who considers "remaining a virgin" to be moral -- and "not remaining a virgin" to be immoral?


But as I said, if you decide you want to remain a virgin -- do it. If you want to make this a campaign to persuade lots of people to remain virgins until marriage because you consider that to be more "moral" than the alternative -- you certainly are free to do that also...

...but be prepared to get lots of static (deservedly so!) on it.

Hope that was of help.

Hmmmm, I can't say I didn't expect these types of responses...

Portal Star:
-If you could explain how sex is useful in getting to know yourself better, I'd be interested to hear. Personally I don't understand why someone would use sex to forge a "deeper" bond when open conversation is an obvious alternative.


-Would you honestly dump an awesome woman just because she didn't satisfy you as much as you think you deserve? I fail to see a shred of morality in that. In the same sense, whether someone is a virgin or not does not hold nearly enough weight to marry someone or not. Yet, those who choose to satisfy themselves with every opportunity that comes their way would not be compatible with me.

-Referring to number 4, which is a cliche empty statement in my opinion, loses further validity when you can look in a mirror to fully explore your body if you choose. If you become ill do you somehow become more comfortable with yourself after you regain your health?

-Referring to number 5, that is very true and no one can write an all-inclusive letter on such a broad subject. So yes, that is an exception, but having sex does not open anyone's eyes to other life preferences, I don't see how that pertains.


"Sex and when to have it is a personal choice, and no one should let someone else make the decision for them. Be it abstinence, marriage, loving relationships, or consensual sex partners, the most important thing to remember about sex is that you are responsible and comfortable."

First you say sex is a personal choice, and then you establish your own criteria for right and wrong, being that we all should remember to be responsible with sex. Of course, the definition of such abstract terms like responsible and comfortable would be solely yours.

So where is the line for responsible sex and sex with disregard? 5 partners, 50, or 500? What makes an responsible sex life distinctly different than an irresponsible one?

dlowan:
"You assume that a putative future spouse will have to "forgive" past sexual activity - this implies a fault is there to forgive."
If you have sex during marriage would you not expect forgiveness from your wife? If you freely talked about your past sexual partners and how great they were, do you think she would feel uncomfortable? She will forgive it because it obviously was a mistake if you aren't with the person anymore.

Frank Apisa:
"Are you going to be disappointed if you eventually hook up with someone who has absolutely no interest whatever in whether you are a virgin or not?"

Not at all, for the simple fact that giving the gift whether appreciated or not, is payment enough, if it is valued then that's a bonus.

"Are you going to reject someone you otherwise love who considers "remaining a virgin" to be moral -- and "not remaining a virgin" to be immoral?"

I'm not looking for a carbon copy to marry, the only reason I would ever dump a girl would be if she stopped being herself.

fullofmalarkey9 said:
"dlowan:
"You assume that a putative future spouse will have to "forgive" past sexual activity - this implies a fault is there to forgive."
If you have sex during marriage would you not expect forgiveness from your wife?"

Well, I do not have a wife, being a woman - but that is a cheap shot - as is, if I can't have sex during marriage in your view, then when can I? That being said, who said anything about extramarital sex? You were arguing that one should be a virgin until marriage - whether one has an open or closed marriage is another affair altogether. (ha ha - sorry dammit!) If the rules worked out in that relationship excluded other sexual partners, I would not necessarily expect forgiveness at all, if I chose to have extra-marital sex.

"If you freely talked about your past sexual partners and how great they were, do you think she would feel uncomfortable?"

Huh? What has not being a virgin got to do with extraordinary rudeness and lack of consideration both for current, and past, partners?

Of course I would not talk about how great past partners were, or were not, freely with a spouse, or new partner. Having sex with someone is a great lowering of personal barriers in my view. I consider it unethical to talk in great detail about previous partners sexually at all - especially if their identity is known to the person one is speaking with. I would certainly talk freely about my sexual history with a committed partner, if that was of interest to them - and have no problem if they do the same, as long as the discussion meets my ethical criteria, and my and their comfort levels.

Getting rid of virginity does not make one a tasteless, unethical, insensitive boor.


"She will forgive it because it obviously was a mistake if you aren't with the person anymore. "

Well, again, you assume there is something in non-virginity to FORGIVE!

Why is something a mistake if it wasn't permanent?

I no longer live in the same house I lived in 10 years ago. Is this a mistake?

I no longer attend school - is this a mistake?

I no longer have the same job I had fifteen years ago - is this a mistake?

I no longer see a lot of some of the friends I used to see all the time - is this a mistake?

I used to eat lamb, I no longer do, is this a mistake?

I will be dead in a few years. Was I mistaken to live?


You keep using the assumption that your argument is valid in order to attempt to justify your argument. That simply doesn't work.

You could, of course, give other, reasonable, arguments to support your view. This would not necessarily make the view correct - but it would make more sense.

dlowan:
"Huh? What has not being a virgin got to do with extraordinary rudeness and lack of consideration both for current, and past, partners?"
Because having sex before marriage shows a lack of consideration for the partner you marry.

"Well, I do not have a wife, being a woman - but that is a cheap shot - as is, if I can't have sex during marriage in your view, then when can I?"

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant to say extramarital. Having sex before marriage is extramarital as well, so I thought the similarity was obvious.

"I consider it unethical to talk in great detail about previous partners sexually at all - especially if their identity is known to the person one is speaking with."

And I consider absolute honesty to be the foundation of my relationships, and since I agree that it's in poor taste to talk about previous sexual partners in detail (because it brings to the surface something that may hurt your spouse) I choose to abstain from sex so I can be completely open with my wife.

"Getting rid of virginity does not make one a tasteless, unethical, insensitive boor."

I never said it did, and nor do I believe that. Society has plugged the idea that sex and love equate, so many choose to believe that.

"Well, again, you assume there is something in non-virginity to FORGIVE!"

You also hint at negativity in premarital sex when you say you have a problem with being completely open about past sexual experiences, calling it unethical.

"Why is something a mistake if it wasn't permanent?"

I never specifically said that nor do I believe that, so the rest of your questions need not be answered.

I have yet to see why my argument is invalid. Maybe I'm biting off too much. How about we just focus on something small to see if we can find common ground.

Do y'all agree/disagree that sex is just a physical act which people do only to fulfill their physical desires? If you say that sex somehow brings the participants closer, could you explain exactly how your relationship changes after sex?

If you wait it's simple to see, you love the person for who the person is and what the person about and neither party has to question that fact. Throw sex into the relationship and you would have to wonder whether that person is dating you just for sexual gratification, correct?

Sex before marriage is extramarital?!

What about people who never marry? Or are gay and in the US can't get married?

You can't just redefine words in order to suit your arguments. Sorry.

jespah:
My appologies, I just looked the word up. I always assumed it meant an action occuring outside of a marriage between two people. I didn't know it only meant a violation of vows. But honestly, who in their right minds would ever redefine words for an argument? I've decided that I could care less if my "argument" is concrete or not, I just want good discussion on the subject. People seem to spend to much time thinking about flaws than thinking about the actual idea at hand.

"What about people who never marry? Or are gay and in the US can't get married?"

Then this discussion wouldn't apply to them, however I'm sure many people can still draw similarities from marriage to some other event in their life. If people who choose not to be married decide at one point to be commited to some other person for the rest of their lives is the essence of marriage, whether they make it offical or not doesn't matter.

Noting fullofmalarkey's nom de net, I wonder if after a bit he/she will say, "you didn't think I was serious, did you??"

--Noting fullofmalarkey's nom de net, I wonder if after a bit he/she will say, "you didn't think I was serious, did you??"--

Congrats on demonstrating my point. An obvious display of thinking too much about the poster instead of the ideas presented. I stand behind everything I said but apparently **constructive** conversation is a little too much to ask. It seems like many are just hear to find any fault and then leave instead of just pondering the idea for the enjoyment of excercising your brain. Is the question of whether you should alter your life now for someone you have yet to, but expect to meet not interesting at all?

fullofmalarkey, you did say:



I apologize if I offended you, I am genuinely confused as to your motivations and your name lends itself to such speculation.

I think others have done a fine job of critiquing. My own opinion is that one can certainly individually decide to remain a virgin for one's own reasons, but your article seems further reaching than that.



It's interesting, I think -- I'm not sure what you mean. While an individual may certainly decide to remain a virgin for the benefit of a future mate, I don't think that there is any reason to compel or encourage such an action. As others have said, I am very glad that I had experience with intimate romantic relationships (not just sex per se but all of the attendant baggage) before I met the man I decided to spend the rest of my life with. I learned many things that benefited my current relationship.

So, "alter"? I altered my virginal state, to the benefit of my married state.

Only if you believe it does Malarkey - you have a right to believe this, but not to assume it will be true for everyone.



Er, I was funning with you, Malarkey - and I believe you have conceded the point about sex prior to marriage not being extra-marital. Perhaps it might be defined as exo-marital?



That is a nice decision for you to make, Malarkey - I have chosen an equally nice but different one. Oh - my reasons for not discussing previous partners in detail with a new partner is partly about poor taste, but also about an ethical decision not to abuse intimate information (such as tends to be exchanged, in various ways in sexual relationships) by divulging this to others. I make the same choice about other intimate confidences that are made to me verbally by friends/workmates/clients etc - confidences that I also keep and would not disclose to a spouse. I am unsure if your "absolute honesty" includes breaking other people's confidences? Mine would not. I neither privilege nor downgrade sexual confidences in making decisions about my ethical obligations and what it is reasonable, and not reasonable, to divulge to a spouse. I would not keep silent from shame or regret about previous sexual intimacies - but for the reasons I have discussed above.


No, you did not say that - but your example implied it.



Not at all - your particular view leads you to interpret everything in the light of your view. It is a narrow beam which is not allowing you to really understand what people are saying.

I have addressed my reasons for not betraying intimacies conveyed with a belief in their confidentiality, of any kind, (well, I exclude some - such as ones about serious criminal acts etc.!) - it is this ethical position, as I said above, which guides me in many areas of human communication, not just in matters sexual - NOT because of any negative beliefs I hold about pre-marital sex.



Yes you did, and yes they should be answered - or at least the argument behind them should be. You said that if a previous relationship had ceased, then it was, by definition, a mistake. My questions are stating the view that non-permanence in human relationships of many different kinds does not imply mistakenness in their formation - and challenging you to say why such a view should be held in the area of human intimate sexual relationships.



Not so fast. Malarkey - do you understand the concept of logical argument?

You are arguing that virginity prior to marriage is an absolute good. You have been challenged to justify this view. Nobody is challenging your right to make such a decision for yourself - or anyone else's right to make such a decision for themselves. However, many of us ARE challenging your right to say that this is the ideal for everyone.

In answer to peple's challenges, you have made a few arguments for why this is a positive - but, generally, your arguments have been of the nature of "Not being a virgin is bad because it means you have to deal with the negative effects of not being a virgin when you marry and your spouse and/or you feel bad because you are not a virgin"

Can you not see that you are assuming the validity of your argument in giving reasons to support it? This works for you, though it is specious, but it answers nothing for those of us who are waiting for you to give a valid response. Can you not se ethat you cannot assume your argument is correct as a pre-condition for arguing to support it?

I am sure there is a better way to explain this - but I have had no sleep and my brain is stuck in a groove! Perhaps someone else will explain this more clearly, or provide a good metaphor - I will try to think of one later.



Sex is lots of things, I think - sometimes it can be "just" a physical act - sometimes it is an immensely moving emotional experience, some see it as a means to spiritual enlightenment. It is difficult to explain how it can bring people closer - but I am happy to give it a try tomorrow. I imagine that is different for everyone.

There are lots of reasons for dating - and lots of gratifications that people may be seeking - of various physical and emotional needs. I could equally well argue that, if you have NOT experienced a/a number of full physical and emotional relationships before you choose to marry (IF you do) then you could easily not be in a position to judge whether someone is dating you for a whole range of possibly unhelpful reasons - that only experience prepares you to know whether a relationship is healthy and likely to be permanent. Relationships are infinitely complex - and you could argue almost anything about them. In the end we muddle along as best we can - some muddle happily, some not so much. Sex is only a part of all of this. I don't like it when people try to tell me which particular muddle is right for me - without knowing me or my values or my experiences. I won't tell you you ought not to be a virgin, if you don't tell me that all of us unmarried folk ought to be!

I might add that I am puzzled by your comments about people not staying to discuss this with you. we aren't AGREEING with you - but did you not wish to test your argument out?

I will come back to this later, as I have to go.. but until then...

I don't think that anyone- apart from the fanatically religious- expect chastity and fidelity BEFORE that relationship starts. Why should one's past sexual experiences have any bearing on the present? Isn't experience preferred? Is this not a waste of youth? Getting around before marriage doesn't signify that one will get around during it, you know.

Different strokes for different folks... but I wonder that a committed virgin talking down premarital sex doesn't know all of what they are talking about, by definition.

I'll stand by my first comments.

If you want to remain a virgin for whatever reasons -- do so.

But if you are trying to sell the idea as being good or enlightened as opposed to the alternative being bad or unenlightened -- you are way off base.