Honest Answers Please

[Moonchild]

this entire mindset and mentality is the result of 1000's of years of narrowminded cultures & the male dominated church trying to suppress women's sexual desires

I still don't agree with this. There are a million and one reasons to wait, even if it's not waiting until marriage and just for emotional maturity and a little bit of common sense.

[url]http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3227200.html[/url]

There are substantial differences in fertility statistics and behavior between women aged 18-19 and those aged 15-17. In 1996, approximately 880,000 pregnancies occurred among U.S. women aged 15-19 (Table 2, page 276): about 543,000 among older teenagers and 338,000 among younger ones (not shown). In addition, 25,000 pregnancies occurred among women younger than 15.

Now, I don't think you can say that those kids shouldn't have waited. Believe it or not, "I don't want to get pregnant" is a reason that some people use when they're still living with their parents to delay having sex. This is not the "result of [thousands] of years of narrowminded cultures ... trying to suppress women's sexual desires," this is a little bit of reason in a child's mind. When they hit the age of consent, fine. But no one, by reason alone, should have sex until they have the common sense to be careful about it. Again, reason. Not religion.

[Junket]

Shit, after reading 'Lilwing's thread. I'm beginning to reconsider even having protected intercourse.

I'd rather not even have a shred of doubt or worry. I think my relationship with my girlfriend would be 10 times more enjoyable that way.

Say her period for whatever reason takes a while to come this month. I'd feel better us both knowing it's just her body doin' it's thing, rather than "what if??"

[GrkScorp]

Okay, I'll take a guess. A Greek economics student from University of Athens who lives northeast of Onomia Square in the area frequented by radical students and anarchists. Yassou.

You had me at Greek Economics student.. but wow.. no way.. lol.. I got my B.A. in Economics.. but I then realized that I needed a job, one that would pay the bills.. and ironically.. economics was not going to help with that.. lol.. So I got my M.S. in Accounting & then my CPA; and am now working towards my J.D (all in New York.. I don't live in Greece).... But economics is one of those sciences that can explain anything by turning it into a market or some other typical model.. lol

[GrkScorp]

I still don't agree with this. There are a million and one reasons to wait, even if it's not waiting until marriage and just for emotional maturity and a little bit of common sense.

1. Emotional Maturity.. (News Flash).. if you're over the age of 20.. and you're still not emotionally mature.. maybe life on this world is not for you.. seriously.. degrade yourself to emo-goth status, and do the world a favor and stay inside your home.. Otherwise, it's safe to say that women over the age of 20 are emotionally mature.. at least emotionally mature enough to handle sex.. (we're not talking about starting a family.. or marriage, or having kids.. just having sex)..

Now, let's cut around the BS and realize that this was your whim of defensive talk, speaking to try and make "holding out" seem NOBLE.. and the MATURE thing to do.. yeah.. maybe if you're still in High School... but if you're a grown woman and still living in a fairy-tale.. that's just pathetic.. and you need to grow up..

2. Common Sense?? Actually.. you cannot even put into words why "holding out" on sex makes common sense if you're over the age of 20.. I mean, you're using protection.. and if YOU (the woman) is worried about it.. you can urge the man to use thicker condoms, two even, and start using the pill yourself.. but to be honest.. i've been using condoms for years.. and so have my friends.. and i have NEVER herd or seen any condoms break from my side, or from any of my friends.. So; that being said.. why the fear of safe sex with someone you have emotional feelings for?

There is no reason.. the only explination is that you feel hate towards women (girls) that did have sex.. you consider these women (lesser) as a way to justify the fact that YOU are not having sex.. all of a sudden the fact that you have no sex life is not a result of your actions; rather an artificial consequence of choice.. an illusion of the mind you put over your eyes to not have to deal with the fact that you simply don't have sex.. And then, when you meet someone.. it feeds into this cycle.. Now you're nervous.. "what if you're bad at it? what if you don't like it? etc.." all questions that could have been answered and solved if you would have had sex by now.. but NO.. now you force your partner to wait.. un-naturally.. you force the other person to resist their natural urge to express the purest form of love.. all because you're being an idiot and have self-image problems..

Oops.. i'm sorry.. let's not call it that.. what I ment to say is.. all because you're too busy pretending to be "mature & having common sense".. by being immature & irrational..

Now.. back to the original question.. .does it bother the other person? YES.. yes it does.. there's your answer.. now.. for the pseudo-ethics behind this.. read wanna-be-nun posts in other threads that cover this topic.. but I believe this thread was started to ask if (not having sex bothers the other person), not whether it's right or wrong..

But alas.. wasted effort.. I can expect the same person.. like some FOX news reporter to come back and feed some more BS into this thread.. ugh..

AH!.. alas.. the loophole.. the original poster wanted to know if a relationship could work without sex (oral sex excluded).. my answer is simple.. YES! (you forgot to exclude manual sex.. muahhahaha.. handjobs)..

[Junket]

'Scorp, the only thing I'm finding wrong with your arguments is that it seems to be you're criticizing everybody who is choosing, for whatever reason, not to have sex. Or more specifically, intercourse.

I'd say your argument is just as bad as those that would likewise criticize anybody who was having sex before marriage.

I won't deny I get a little 'irked now and then about Moon's sometimes overly prideful proclamations of her wanting to abstain, but I haven't found anything wrong with her wanting to wait. Shit, she's not my girlfriend, or yours. And she's not even involved in a relationship where her abstaining is creating friction.

All this to say, what's the big deal?

[GrkScorp]

'Scorp, the only thing I'm finding wrong with your arguments is that it seems to be you're criticizing everybody who is choosing, for whatever reason, not to have sex. Or more specifically, intercourse.

I'd say your argument is just as bad as those that would likewise criticize anybody who was having sex before marriage.

I won't deny I get a little 'irked now and then about Moon's sometimes overly prideful proclamations of her wanting to abstain, but I haven't found anything wrong with her wanting to wait. Shit, she's not my girlfriend, or yours. And she's not even involved in a relationship where her abstaining is creating friction.

All this to say, what's the big deal?

The big deal is.. that while me and you have moved on in life.. people like her.. say BS like that.. and then.. little girls which come on forums like this.. read this and it says with them.. (saying no to sex is noble.. it's right.. sex is bad.. etc..)... and while they're girls.. fine.. but.. the point is.. it stays with them for life... in the back of thier minds.. and later on.. when they meet a guy.. they're going to bring that crap up.. (i'm 20 years old.. and I like you.. but I think we should wait.. i dunno why.. but that's what I think or.. i'm 20 years old.. but i'm not ready for sex yet.. i'm waiting for jesus to come to me in my dreams and tell me it's ok..).. And it messes around with the natural selection process... regular alpha-females who would otherwise grow up to be 20, and have sex, then move on.. and settle with a guy.. and have mindblowing-relationship-superglue-bonding sex with them.. are now forced to have shitty sex with them because of artificial inhibitions set in place by beta-females..

And as a result.. you see all these great looking women.. settle with these LOSER guys.. who could care less about no sex.. because they have porn.. and they finally have a girlfriend.. and from the woman's point of view.. now she found a guy who is (sweet) enough to wait..

But I was taught early on about efficient markets.. and you have to ask yourself.. WHY would this guy want to be with you if you're not having sex? (the reason for most women is.. "well, because he loves me and is a nice guy").. yes.. maybe that's the case.. but what's more likely the case is that he's a lower quality male relative to the quality of female you are.. so he's willing to wait.. (aka.. you've messed up natural selection)..

[Gribble]

Scorp, you're like the anti-prude. Judging people, putting them down because they don't have sex. Moon chooses not to engage in intercourse. She does not, however, look down upon those who do have sex, so long as they do so responsibly. I fail to see the problem with that.

[Moonchild]

Re: GrkScorp's first post after mine:

I was talking about minors. As I've said repeatedly, I have no problem with mature adults doing whatever the heck they feel like doing. But I just don't see reason for twelve or thirteen-year-olds to have sex, because they aren't mature enough for it to mean anything or to be careful about it. There was an article I don't really feel like digging up again... Maine, was it? Middle schools offering contraceptives. /Middle schools./ That's what, grades 6 through 8, all kids fourteen or younger. That's what I was talking about. I cannot imagine there being near enough maturity or common sense to justify sex at that age. As far as "right or wrong," you were the one to bring it up first, and I'm simply replying to you. We never specified what sort of women we were talking about, and my foster sister apparently started calling herself a "woman" at fourteen and had sex with a nineteen-year-old. What does that say to me? That the nineteen-year-old was quite a bit out of line and that my foster sister was not ready for it. She's only had sex once since she came to live with us, and it was at least with a guy about her age this time. And, now seventeen, she has a much better idea of what she should be doing to protect herself, and that, I think, is one of the most important things. She's looking forward to college. She doesn't need to get herself pregnant.

Re: Frasbee:

Quite. And I respect what both of you have chosen as well, because it's reasonable for you and right for you. That's the whole point of being a mature adult, I think. Being able to choose what's right for you based on the information you have and the beliefs you hold.

Re: GrkScorp's second post:

First, I don't think what I'm saying is BS. Second, girls who would read this thread the entire way through would not see, "sex is bad, not having sex is noble"; they would see two sides to an argument that they've probably been having with themselves. And based on our views and information, they could decide for themselves what's right, and hopefully, if not abstaining in their youth, at least realize that they need to have some sense about it. Sex is an emotional thing, but it's an emotional thing to be careful with, just like everything else. If you're too reckless, bad things happen. And whether Jesus comes to someone in their dreams would have a lot more to do with their own problems than with the article I pointed to about teenage pregnancy. >> It doesn't all have to do with religion. Neither my roommate nor my best friend believe in God, and they're both waiting until marriage. Oh, and I'd rather settle for a "loser" guy than be in a relationship with someone pressuring me to have sex. It goes back to "if you're not having sex with me, you don't love me enough." If a guy is trying to force me into something, then /he's/ the loser. And to be perfectly honest, I prefer an emotional basis to a relationship than a physical one. But I'm not really understanding this--does that mean that all men who wait are "lower quality"? Are all women who wait simply settling for the scum of the earth? It doesn't make sense to me, that.

[GrkScorp]

First, I don't think what I'm saying is BS. Second, girls who would read this thread the entire way through would not see, "sex is bad, not having sex is noble"; they would see two sides to an argument that they've probably been having with themselves. And based on our views and information, they could decide for themselves what's right, and hopefully, if not abstaining in their youth, at least realize that they need to have some sense about it. Sex is an emotional thing, but it's an emotional thing to be careful with, just like everything else. If you're too reckless, bad things happen. And whether Jesus comes to someone in their dreams would have a lot more to do with their own problems than with the article I pointed to about teenage pregnancy. >> It doesn't all have to do with religion. Neither my roommate nor my best friend believe in God, and they're both waiting until marriage. Oh, and I'd rather settle for a "loser" guy than be in a relationship with someone pressuring me to have sex. It goes back to "if you're not having sex with me, you don't love me enough." If a guy is trying to force me into something, then /he's/ the loser. And to be perfectly honest, I prefer an emotional basis to a relationship than a physical one. But I'm not really understanding this--does that mean that all men who wait are "lower quality"? Are all women who wait simply settling for the scum of the earth? It doesn't make sense to me, that.

O.K.. First of all.. i'm sorry.. over-reaction.. i'm just used to femenist nuts going on & on about sex and the evils it holds.. blah blah.. anyway..

teen pregnancy is a whole different topic.. great.. it's sad.. but it's not what we're talking about.. We're assuming, as a given, that people will be responsible & mature about sex.. Given that; I don't see a reason why two adults cannot and should not have sex when they are in love..

1. I never had to pressure anyone to have sex.. And if you're a girl who's been in that place.. then tell the guy to ---- off.. and leave..

2. Dangers of sex.. dangers lie in irresponsible people.. guys who forget condoms and couples who think it's ok to go ahead.. But if you're reasponsible.. it's a different story..

I got angry before.. because i've had so many of my close friends which i've had to play Dr.Phil with for years to get them to let go of that childhood trauma their parents or friends had left them with.. that (sex is bad, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, and keep waiting..).. I wish I could take a video of some of them and post them on this site.. just to see how much their lives have changed.. [no, i didn't have sex with any of them]..

3. Lastly.. i'm AM anti-prude.. because that is afterall what a prude is.. someone who blindly thinks OH!.. (sex=bad=evil=devil=wait).. they hear sex and think of babies, illnesses.. and while it's good to be careful.. if that's what you think about when you hear sex.. you're not going to be able to enjoy sex.. So, in that sense, you can think of prudes as irrational women who say no to sex for no logical reason.. (two healthy people who love eachother & are mature enough to engage in safe sex.. should not have to hold off on sex.. for no reason..).. That being said.. what i'm NOT "anti".. is men/women who wait to find the right person.. and I think i've made that clear a couple of times in my other posts..

[Moonchild]

Feminist isn't the same thing as anti-sex. >> Nor is it anti-men, really.

And eh, if it's actually making them have a mental breakdown, then a change of heart isn't a bad thing. But being told that sex is for after marriage may not actually qualify as traumatic.

As far as that reply of mine went, that's not really an assumption we can make. I'm willing to bet that there are registered users (or at least visitors) of this site who probably shouldn't be having sex, no matter how much they think they've matured since they were in elementary school. It's an open forum. We have to assume that, in a hypothetical discussion about sex, we're considering everyone who's having it, not everyone who's having it who is also over the age of nineteen, unless specifically stated in the subject. This is especially true because maturity is a fuzzy line; you'll find seventeen-year-olds who know exactly what they're doing, but also twenty-year-olds who've gone and accidentally impregnated their girlfriends.

As long as a reason for someone to hold off on having sex makes sense to them, be it religious or waiting for the right person, I will never hold anything against them. As long as those who do choose to have sex do it while making reasonable and informed choices, I will never hold anything against them. Neither position is wrong. I only get a little annoyed when someone insists that their way is the only right way or insults other people's choices. And that's another reason to keep the age thing open--that seventeen-year-old who knows what he's doing can weigh the consequences and decide for himself what to do, even if it's to have sex, as long as it's not illegal and he takes his parents' (supposing he's still living with them) views into consideration. Sex is not a good reason to get yourself kicked out of the house, after all. But if the twenty-year-old didn't see the point in using protection, I'm not sure him or his partner should be having sex to begin with. Fuzzy lines all over, isn't it?

[vashti]

I actually find Moon's position on sex to be well thought out. The thing is, guys can have sex using only their genitals. Most females cannot. Therefore, the price to pay for sex is generally higher for women. Women would be healthier emotionally if they could have just learned how to say "no", but instead, we tend to say "yes" too soon, and then feel tied to the male emotionally, regardless of their value. Bad idea.

[GrkScorp]

I actually find Moon's position on sex to be well thought out. The thing is, guys can have sex using only their genitals. Most females cannot. Therefore, the price to pay for sex is generally higher for women. Women would be healthier emotionally if they could have just learned how to say "no", but instead, we tend to say "yes" too soon, and then feel tied to the male emotionally, regardless of their value. Bad idea.

Lol.. well.. then.. don't sleep with the wrong people.. I don't know what guys you're sleeping around with (not U vash)..

but.. quite honestly.. it's a big mistake to let things lead up to a (sex) situation if you're with a guy you don't desire to that degree..

anyway.. i'm done talking on this anti-sex-female dominated thread.. (which by the way, was asking GUYS if they minded.. but women obviously took this WAY off topic..)

[misombra]

us women are evil that way.

[vashti]

but.. quite honestly.. it's a big mistake to let things lead up to a (sex) situation if you're with a guy you don't desire to that degree..

To what degree? Sex? or something lasting? because it seemed like you were advocating that desire should dictate sexual activity in women, but when I pointed out that sex and emotion are tied together for women, you say a woman shouldn't let things lead up to sex... Isn't that what moon was saying? That women should wait until they are sure they can afford to be emotionally invested in a man before they sleep with him?

I get the feeling you believe women look at sex the same way men do. They don't, at least not until they are in their 30s (when you'd like to believe we are a depreciating commodity, lol).

[Tedel]

us women are evil that way.

No surprise, you always are.

Back to the topic, I think there is actually something nice about the no-sex-before-marriage policy. You won't have anyone to compare to and even if he or she was a lousy sex, you would still enjoy yourself; on the other hand, comparison can really damage a relationship, especially if you are too experienced.