5_♦♣ Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 And yet, you're still implying that premarital sex=promiscuity. And yes, fewer sexual partners does=lower risk of STIs. However, it is possible to only have sex with one or two other people before marrying and not have any STIs. And the reverse is possible as well, that is, one could remain a virgin until marriage only to contract an STI from their spouse upon getting hitched. Also, I said unwanted pregnancy, not unexpected. There is a difference. Link to post Share on other sites
MoraDollie Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 My personal beliefs on sex, it should be between two people who share a strong emotional connection. I'm demisexual, so I can't really wrap my head around with how it's ok for some people to have sex with "friends" or strangers. If you don't think you can afford a baby or just can't handle being a mom, get yourself sterilized or as close to sterilization as possible (strong birth control). I was raised in a very Christian household so this concept was pretty much beat into me, but as I got into my late teen years, I really started straying from the "traditional" Christian view (I actually started straying since I was like fourteen but didn't really start separating myself from it until I was eighteen or so), and starting having my own views about sex and everything. There is no such thing as 100% safe sex. I have nexplanon birth control, and it's chances are about .05%. Less than 1%! So the chances are extremely slim. If we used other forms of birth control for sex, the chance is even lower. Link to post Share on other sites
marmalade-cats Posted January 30, 2014 Share Posted January 30, 2014 Yes, definitely. There's nothing wrong with sex, nothing wrong with figuring out what you like before you get stuck with one person who may or may not like the same things. Link to post Share on other sites
kaleidoscope_eyes Posted February 15, 2014 Share Posted February 15, 2014 I voted yes, because I think it should have to do less with whether or not you're married and more to do with your commitment level. Although I have zero interest in sex personally, I've always thought that the healthiest sexual relationships are the ones where the level of sexual intimacy is matched by the level of emotional intimacy. All relationships begin, in the emotional arena, with both participants slowly exploring the personality of their partner--people don't generally jump right into baring their souls and their deepest secrets. Likewise, I feel like immediately jumping right into full-on, no-holds-barred sex is liable to shock the system, and upset the balance of the relationship. If the physical side develops at the same rate as the emotional side, neither party is jumping in blind and both are less liable to be hurt. I feel like sex has some natural strings attached, just because it's a pretty intimate act, and if your feelings jump, because of sex, to a level beyond the current personal investment, that's where things get sticky. If those feelings aren't backed up by a certain level of respect and understanding for oneself and one's partner, it can be damaging to the relationship and the person. I think personal balance is achieved through knowing and respecting yourself physically, mentally, and emotionally, and I feel like balance in a relationship is only reached when all those facets move in synchronization. I don't think it's easy, or healthy, to separate these three aspects of the self, because just feeding one will cause the others to suffer. This is true within a person's life and their relationships. Even though I'm not interested in sex, I think a non-sexual physical relationship has stages, too, and there are some things that I definitely wouldn't do with a partner until I felt the relationship had reached a certain emotional level. Link to post Share on other sites
humanbeing Posted February 18, 2014 Share Posted February 18, 2014 No for non-religious reasons. Let me explain, I respect everyone and I accept that if people want to have sex before marriage, than I have no right to judge them. Personally I've never had sex, and I never will. But people have the right to be unlike me. So why did I vote no? Because I see no logic in sex before marriage. If people would only have sex when they want to have children, (I'm not sure that sexual people can live like that, appearently not because sex seems to be very very very important to them.) then there would be no need for birth control, condoms, abortions and other methods. And I don't believe that having sex just for pleasure makes a person better, more intelligent or more open. Some people say that they want freedom, and then they say that people must have sex just for the pleasure because that will free us. Well, I want my freedom of not doing it. This kind of "freedom lovers" looks down on the people who has sex just to have children and consider themselves better than the people who just has sex to have children. Well I have no sex at all, and they're not better than me. Only freedom they know is freedom of having sex just for the joy, which would be a complete loss of time for me. Worse than masturbation, which I ought to do, because it also requires another person, which could and most certainly would behave much more sexual than me and I would literally throw up. I know most people are unlike me. Okay let's assume that sex is a very very very enjoyable thing. Well besides that sex is the cause of the birth of children. So again, if you don't want children, having sex just for the joy is taking an unnecessary risk just for your joy. Personally I can't understand people who don't want children but still insist on having sex. (That's because I'm asexual I guess. I can't quite understand how can a simple body activity with so little and temporary physical joy be the center of the most people's lives. They wouldn't say a person who never played tennis, never tried scuba diving, or never watched a certain movie is weird, as for not having sex, they behave like if I said that I want to eat aliens who think that they are actually dinosaurs for breakfast.) For me, having sex for a reason other than having kids is just meaningless, not just meaningless it means emotional agony to me as well. I couldn't stand a person who needs sex, my stomach gets sick from stress when I really think about sex so a partner who is really demanding it from me...just unbearable. And I can't understand how not having sex with your spouse could be a cause for divorce. If I was married I would feel threatened. "Have sex with me or you will be divorced" like "Bow before me or you will be terminated" :D :lol: As I said everyone is free to live their lives without concerning my personal opinions. Respect to all who has sex or not whatever they believe or do :) Link to post Share on other sites
praisecats Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 I believe in sex whenever you and your partner want to, but I really don't believe in marriage Link to post Share on other sites
letrickster Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 A lot of people I know are pretty strong advocates for waiting till marriage but I personally think in most situations it's better not to. You could be really incompatible or not realize your sexuality until you've actually had sex. It could lead to very uncomfortable situations and ruined relationships. That said though it really depends on what you and your partner are comfortable with. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 Abstinence till marriage nis a kind of nonsense. It has its origins in times when the heritage and legacy was very important. Moreover no contraception method was known so they used it as a metohd of prevention of unexpected pregnancies. Of course it was crated by men, because men in majority were inheriting . I think it's just an origin of this idea. Link to post Share on other sites
Grasshopper Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 Asexual, so it's a non-issue for me personally, but I have absolutely no problem with sex before marriage in principle. Link to post Share on other sites
LaMaestra Posted April 6, 2014 Share Posted April 6, 2014 I voted 'no for non religious reasons'. And that's all I'm prepared to say. Link to post Share on other sites
Satin Posted April 7, 2014 Share Posted April 7, 2014 I accidentally clicked on the wrong answer. I don't mind anyone having sex before marriage. The idea one should sustain from sex before marriage is just as outdated as marriage itself. Link to post Share on other sites
Epitaksor Posted April 14, 2014 Share Posted April 14, 2014 I believe this has to be decided by every couple on their own. If they want to try something before marriage, fine. If they want to wait, they should wait. I personally believe that marriage is not needed for sex to be acceptable. However, I think they should be in a commited relationship and know each other well before they are considering the sexual part, and of course it has to be consensual. Additionally, I personally cannot relate well to people that look for sex from people they do not know well, or seek a relationship primarily for sexual satisfaction, or marry because they do not want to wait any longer. In my opinion, these things should be minor parts only of the overall concept, and not the actual goal. However, this is proably my asexual view, and I can accept when others see this differently. Link to post Share on other sites
Lenika Posted April 15, 2014 Share Posted April 15, 2014 I say No for non-religious reasons because... A relationship built on sex alone is not likely to last. Emotional attachment and compatibility should come first, then sex. And that would make the sex much more special, and if there were any problems with sex it would not 'break the deal' because you are in love with that person for who they are, not the sex they give. You have to be in love with the person to have a good lasting relationship. If all you want is sex and thats what your waiting for, you might as well hang it up right now and go fetch a hooker. So I would say put sexual acts on hold for a fair amount of time until you know you fit with this person for who they are. Now no one has to be married to have sex. But this is the advice I would give. So, even if your partner was still a virgin and you were engaged, you would still wait until the wedding night to have sex? What if you find out that you aren't sexually compatible on your honeymoon? Kind of like the person said about finding out you were ace or such. I would think that any couple truly wanting to be together would have long since had discussions about sex and would know if they wanted it or not. And more importantly, if they are in love with each other for the person their partner is, good sex/bad sex would not be a deal breaker. There are plenty of ways to be intimate, even sexually intimate without penis in vagina sex. So I'm sure a committed couple could find something that suits them and their needs. :) Link to post Share on other sites
""" Posted April 20, 2014 Share Posted April 20, 2014 Before after... What's the difference!? As long as you are fine doing it with the right person Link to post Share on other sites
iujghewbge Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Doesn't matter to me because I'm asexual, but I chose the third choice. It's not about having sex before marriage, it's more about just having sex with the right people, or person. I don't think you have to be married to have sex, but it has to be thought out and handled responsibly. Marriage doesn't always bring you to the right person which is why the issue isn't being married. Everyone just needs to make sure that they're choosing their partners wisely and they need to realize that it's not about trusting them, it's about making sure that everything is okay before having sex. Link to post Share on other sites
Sally Posted April 22, 2014 Share Posted April 22, 2014 Lenika, on 14 Apr 2014 - 8:49 PM, said: . I would think that any couple truly wanting to be together would have long since had discussions about sex and would know if they wanted it or not. Discussions don't let you know what sex is really like, or what sex with that person is really like. Too many people have cried on AVEN that if only they'd had sex before marriage, they wouldn't feel trapped in a marriage now, because they would have known... Link to post Share on other sites
ChrissyBear121 Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 So I chose the third option 'no, for non religious reasons'. I don't really have a clear cut explanation as to why I chose this though... I am Lutheran by how I was raised but my family doesn't go to church regularly or follow many religious beliefs. I simply believe that for myself and only myself, if I were to ever have sex (probably never going to happen) I would want it to be after I was married and I wouldn't want there to be pressure on that even. I don't want a relationship based off of sex. Now for other people I think it's perfectly acceptable to have sex beforehand because it is all about personal choices and beliefs. : S Hope that makes sense. Link to post Share on other sites
cavyX Posted April 23, 2014 Share Posted April 23, 2014 Yes I do. You gotta taste the milk before you buy the cow. In some cases anyway. Link to post Share on other sites
tuvok Posted April 25, 2014 Share Posted April 25, 2014 I guess my actual position is closer to that people should be in long term committed relationships. I agree with this. I guess since marriage isn't a big part of my culture I didn't see that as marriage. In my view the purpose of marriage is to have a document on the relationship so a father can get to see his child in case of a divorce or death... Most people here doesn't usually even think of marriage before their 30's or they have a child. In that regard I don't see any problem in people having sex outside marriage. I do however find it weird when people starts to have sex in the beginning of a relationship. I don't see long term couples that live together as married but I guess that if they were viewed as such I would change my answer... Link to post Share on other sites
humanbeing Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 So I chose the third option 'no, for non religious reasons'. I don't really have a clear cut explanation as to why I chose this though... I am Lutheran by how I was raised but my family doesn't go to church regularly or follow many religious beliefs. I simply believe that for myself and only myself, if I were to ever have sex (probably never going to happen) I would want it to be after I was married and I wouldn't want there to be pressure on that even. I don't want a relationship based off of sex. Now for other people I think it's perfectly acceptable to have sex beforehand because it is all about personal choices and beliefs. : S Hope that makes sense. Yes, it makes a lot of sense to me :) Link to post Share on other sites
ChrissyBear121 Posted April 27, 2014 Share Posted April 27, 2014 Yay! Sometimes I just confuse myself... didn't want others to be confused by me too. Link to post Share on other sites
penguinsimpala Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 For me, I would never have sex before marriage due to religious beliefs, but if someone wants to have sex and it is consensual (consents) and is safe, go for it. To each their own! Link to post Share on other sites
ShogunV2 Posted May 4, 2014 Share Posted May 4, 2014 No. I don't think so. The only way I would ever have make love to someone to begin with is for that special someone and only if it would make them happy. But if I do that I need to be 100% sure that it is the right person and that we will try our utmost to stay together for life. I'm not religious. It's just part my code I guess. If I ever did share such an intimate act with another human being it would be very special to me. Not just something done out of compromise or "just because." If I did that and the relationship just turns out to be a fluke then it will really hurt me. Link to post Share on other sites
Lady Girl Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 This poll is being locked and moved to the read only Census archive for it's respective year. As part of ongoing Census organization, and in an attempt to keep the demographics of the polls current with the active user base at the time, the polls will last for one year from now on. However, members are allowed and even encouraged to re-start new polls similar to the archived ones if they like them. Lady Girl, Moderator Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.