Printable View
Does not having sex affect your realtionship? If your gf isnt having sex with you bc of personal beliefs (waiting till marriage) does it matter? How important is sex and why? Do you feel emtionally connected? could a sexless realtionship work? (oral sex excluded as well) Honest answers pleaseeeeee
it depends on the people
some people find sex necessary, some don't.
Personally, I couldn't be with someone who wanted to wait until married etc, because their not my beliefs, and I'd find lack of sex detrimental to my relationships. But others would see things differently. The only solid answer I can give you is that, whatever your beliefs are, your relationship is more likely to be successful if your partner holds matching beliefs.
i don't believe in god so i never will have that chance to wait till marriage. however, if i was with a girl that really wanted to wait, and if i loved her that much then i'd wait. it's a good thing that i've never met a girl that wanted to wait till marriage though.
raverboy
from my opinion sex is complementary to love relation, because love classified into 2 things, feelings, emotions and body connection, if love existing there is no matter if happened before or after married ..
are you a james taylor fan fireandrain?
...........:smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Al Pacino [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
............
If she told me she wanted to wait until marriage, I would find that honorable and very charming. Disgracefully, it is not very common.
The question for me is not to have or not to have sex. The question for me is why do you want to have sex. If you think about it from this point of view, then new cards are laid on the table, bringing new things to think about.
Catholic as I am, I agree on sex within marriage only; but, besides that, I can find very appealing in a woman the fact she wants me to respect her in such an old-fashioned yet very valid way to show your love.
OMG... I just hope that didn't sound too cheesy. :P
Cheeseball.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tedel [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Anyway, I haven't engaged in anything beyond oral sex with my girlfriend. I haven't been on the receiving end yet, and to tell the truth aren't quite sure what her views on that are.
I've been satisfied with what we've shared, my problem I think is that because I never achieve the release, I'm always ready and roarin' to go. So even if we're just cuddling after I've gone down on her, my john still might be at full attention.
That's frustrating because I'd like to just enjoy the moment more, but my mind is still distracted. Not all the time, but alot of it.
However, in my opinion a relationship that's lacking in physical intimacy is nothing more than a very dedicated friendship.
Well, it depends on ALOT of different factors. I mean, I guess to find all the factors, most anyway, you would have to first look at geography. Where a person is and lives has alot to do with how they would look at this issue. Secondly, urban vs. rural plays a huge role. The third largest factor would have to be the quality of male that he is. If he's not exactly an alpha-male, then chances are, he won't mind that much; (better than nothing mentality). But if he has a great job (or job outlook), comes from a great family (female version of great family = lots of money), is very good looking, has a great personality and is very charming, and has well (other good qualities to him) let's just leave it at that; then chances are, he's getting attention by other women; and the idea of SEX is always there.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireAndRain23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
But again; notice how all these other factors would play a role. If it's an Urban setting, chances are people are more liberal, there are many more people to begin with, so your mentality will not be likely to win you over a guy. Then, the geographic mentality also plays a role. If you are in Georgia vs. New York or California; people have a different idea of social norms.
Now, more generally; I live in New York, and at first, I would respect the fact that a woman would want to wait until marriage to have sex. But after a week goes by, a month, two months even, the fact that i'm not having sex would eventually get to me. Don't forget, sex is a form of "bonding"; and yes, it "is" very important in a relationship; especially for younger couples (under 35). This is not just my opinion; but I have seen guys just end things, or relationships go sour when there was a "lack" or sex, nevermind the total absence of it!
Depends on the people involved. Personally, I won't have sex before marriage, and I've mostly dated people who share that view. It's been said before, and I'll say it again--it's more a matter of whether the views of the two involved match than whether there's sex or not. None of the people I've dated minded that I didn't want to have sex. Whether it's important depends on the people involved. I've still felt what I considered a relatively deep emotional connection--and had three relationships last a year or more--without sex*. Sexless relationships can and do work. When my parents met, my dad was on a business trip to England. So when he went back, not only did they have a sexless relationship because of their respective beliefs, they also weren't able to even see each other for the longest time. But they still dated for ages, they did what they could, and they obviously did it well--they've now been happily married for more than twenty years. Very happy ending for a once sexless relationship. =)Quote:
Originally Posted by FireAndRain23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
*An important thing to remember about that, with reference to the poster above me, is I'm nineteen. Sex is not important to me, nor was it important for them. And the one I dated during my senior year in high school was actually the one most against the idea of sex before marriage.
Gotta love ignoring the "Ask a Male" part of this forum. XD But referring back to what I said, I've never had sex. With either gender. Maybe I count in the attracted-to-women way...
First of all, the answer depend on your age & maturity level. But in general:
YesQuote:
Originally Posted by FireAndRain23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Its a valid choice. So is yours whether you want to wait (for her) or not.Quote:
If your gf isnt having sex with you bc of personal beliefs (waiting till marriage) does it matter?
Basic human need.Quote:
How important is sex and why?
Sex can enhance this when present.Quote:
Do you feel emtionally connected?
Sure, its called friendship. Which won't work if one is horny for the other.Quote:
Could a sexless realtionship work? (oral sex excluded as well)
Hmm.. I wanted to say this in the morning, but I actually had to leave my house in a hurry, so my response was quite rushed.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireAndRain23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
The concept of waiting for sex until marriage arose in ancient society; where women would be socially forced to wait for sex until marriage (when their father would find a husband for his daughter). The concept expanded in England. In fact, if you are a Chauser & Milton fan, you will note the word "fornicate" in middle english ment to (have sex with someone outside of wedlock). Sex with someone during wedlock (aside from your husband/wife) was "adultery". The church actually enforced punishment against both. However, women in society who committed either act were shuned; only with adultery, women would find support from other women. With fornication, women would be shunned alltogether. So there were litterally decades of society & the church trying to keep women sex-less until marriage.
In fact, this is a sexist view that generated from men thinking that women were not sexual creatures; and that they had no desire, and very little if any, to have sex for pleasure.
All you are doing by not having sex, is preserving that sexist ideal till this day; by falsely "thinking" that you are being a good christian or whatever..
Now, I would agree with you if you said you were waiting to have sex with the right person.. There is nothing wrong with saving that for the person you feel completes you. But remember, it can take years from the time two people meet to get engaged, and then months for them to get married. A HUGE part of that (initial) bonding process [which lasts 6months to a year], is sex. Sex for pleasure is a very shallow and narrowminded media-driven view of sex to try and prevent women from going out and having sex. In reality, sex is a wonderful thing between two people who are in love with eachother. Yes, it's ment to create children, and it happens to feel good (sometimes), but those two aspects sum up only 1% of sex. Sex is important for bonding.
Think of it as how children need to be touched and huged, and held, etc. when they are small.. so that they can bond with thier parents. With two people, sex is nature's way of helping keep the bonding long-term.. Without sex, two people would not be able to be happy with eachother, and would leave; leaving the children in a poor environment for survival. However, sex promotes good feelings amung two people, strong emotional bonds, and maybe even strong pleasure bonds (if sex happens to feel amazing).. This is very important for holding an entire family together; non-the-less a marriage.. But it has to start soon.. more importantly.. within the first 6 month window! [this is the critical bonding period]!
In the past, waiting until marriage was a good option, because marriage was often fixed.. Your parents found you a man; you may have even been able to say yes or no if you were lucky.. but it was only a matter of days until you were married.. and after you were married; you actually got to meet and get to know the person.. So the first 6 months of the relationship [critical bonding period] started after marriage!
This isn't the case in today's world.. Marriages are not fixed; you have choice which is a good thing. But, when you meet someone, and you start to like them, and feel they are right; it may be months or even years before you both feel that way (and know that the feeling is mutual).. In that time, you NEED to form a strong bond with that person; so him AND you can feel a stronger longer-lasting connection with eachother. Why? because this is the only chance you'll get. The [critical bonding period] has a limited time frame, and in today's society, that timeframe is outside & before marriage occurs.
So; you might want to consider revising your noble goals to waiting for that right person, rather than marriage..
Scorp pwned the prudes.
Great answers. I appreciate it much.
I always felt as if i should wait untill marriage.(the whole u become "one" )
I'm 25 and its more of waiting for the right person who i love to share my body(hopefully it will be with the same person i marry).
Im rather confused lol. Thanks for the insight I appreciate it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrkScorp [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Some people are good at pretending to be nice and then turning out to be complete sluts. I'd rather not run the risk of being some conquest or number for a jerk simply because he (or she) happens to be a very good liar. Then you have the STDs and the pregnancy and the "if you don't have sex with me, you don't love me enough"s. I'd rather stay out of all that, thanks. Also, I've had multiple year-long relationships, as stated in my previous post. I'm waiting for the right person--and want the right person to commit to me by not only an emotional bond, but a legal one. Six months in, I still feel that the person I'm with is wonderful--but the fact that I'm single now proves that they weren't quite so. The right person will be the one I end up with. The right person will be the one I marry. No one sooner.
*I forgot to mention. I simply don't care. I'm not so horny that I'll ever have a sexual urge I won't be able to take care of by myself.
Moonchild, how is a legal bond going to make any difference at all? If the person is a good liar, they will always be a good liar, regardless of a piece of paper.
The only woman I ever loved was the one that I never had sex with. Sex just complicates things; so if you are abstaining, good for you. You'll find out what the guy is honestly thinking about you.Quote:
Originally Posted by FireAndRain23 [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Quote:
Originally Posted by miSSleepy [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Because that piece of paper is a pain in the ass to get out of, and if they just want sex, they're more likely to go somewhere else than marry me.
Hmm.. good logic, I've gotta admit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonchild [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I really don't have standards in regards to when and where.
Well, maybe I do, but people seem to take such pride in their prudish behavior, like they have to try hard to convince themselves it's the "right" thing.
Like straigthedgers. Ever meet one of them? They're a bunch of stuck up faggots.
They remind me of Alcoholics Anonymous people, always 13th-stepping everyone.
The 13th step goes thusly:
Accept that everyone around you is an alcoholic, and that it is your responsibility to do everything in your power to convince them of this, up to and including knocking their second beer out of their hand.
Mm, in my case, it's more that I want to clarify my opinion, seeing as not a lot of people seem to share it. I guess it's my way of giving people a view of the other side, or an understanding of the other side of things. Some people take pride in having sex, so is that also them trying to convince themselves of something? Neither position is right or wrong. My position is right for me, and yours is right for you. Anyone who thinks they can or should hold the entire world to either view is either insane or full of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frasbee [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I don't see your behavior as prudish, Moonchild. You're not up on your soapbox, telling the world you've got it right and that sex fiends like me have it wrong.
I think Fras is worried about coming off as prudish himself, perhaps.
XD He's not prudish; he's just silly in a small, furry animal sort of way. He's not trying to be an adorable romantic, but that's how he comes across, no matter how rough he acts, and no matter how often I think he could tone it down a little.
Gribble does similar things sometimes, I've found. Though I am sad he hasn't been on AIM at the same time as me in a little... Ah well, more time for me to write my papers. Eew, I have class in an hour and a half. </off topic>
Bitches, I've lived in denial about it for this long, you're not gonna stop me now!
You're a sap! A romantic sap, and Amy is a lucky girl!
Fras you're a toasted marshmallow. Crusty on the outside & all goo in the middle. Come, accept the truth of your inherent Goo-ness & all shall be Zen. ;)
I don't think sex is completely necessary. I think abstaining from sex can be a good thing if you don't feel you're ready for it yet or if you want to wait for the right person.
But i think it can have a real negative effect on your partner. From my perspective, if a girl didn't want to have sex i could probably deal with that if i really loved her and i felt loved in return, but i think it could also make me feel like my girlfriend was not attracted to me, and it may feel like a friendship thats not going anywhere.
I guess it's down to whether or not your boyfriend is ready to wait or not, but be sure to show him that you are attracted to him and that you love him.
Well... what it really boils down to is the theory of supply & demand.. Now, both sexes have a demand for the opposite sex; and there is a supply to match it..Quote:
Originally Posted by Azure [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
From a woman's point of view.. They have a demand for guys.. and there is a certain supply of guys.. Let's look at how this market clears.. There's a (Price) so to speak.. If a guy want's too much, and has little to offer; then his (Price) is set too high.. and obviously.. we would all prefer quality & a lower price, which is now the case.. so the market will clear.. women will find men.. at the lowest (Price).. and those women that don't.. will have to wait.. until there is more available supply..
Now, let's look at the market for Women... Men have a certain demand.. and there is a certain supply of women.. Now, men have very basic criteria (looks, personality, fun, young, outgoing, smart, and sex is somewhere in there.. closer to looks and farther away from "loves pets").. So.. all these factors form a woman's (Price).. if a woman is lacking any of these to certain degrees; her (Price) is much higher.. [the opportunity cost of being with a lower quality woman, while higher quality women are available]... So.. all women are doing by "holding off on sex" for some meaningless and artificial reason.. is increasing their price.. and hence, remaining unsold.. the same can be said about b*tchy women, ugly women, etc.. So.. this market will eventually clear.. and women who are not purchased.. will have to wait.. and wait.. and wait.. and wait.. until some desperate guy who is willing to pay such a high (price).. [mind you, that's not a good thing; price is negatively correlated with the quality of the woman].. comes along and takes her out of the market..
Now, I personally don't care.. I've never been faced with this dilema.. but here is one thing to consider for both sexes reading..
Men (boys).. enjoy sex the most the first few times in their lifetime.. after the first few times.. all the other times are not as enjoyable.. (hence the need & desire to have more sex.. in search of that same initial pleasure)..
Women (girls).. take much longer to enjoy sex, and may not enjoy it early on.. But after those first few times, a woman starts becoming more familiar with her body and sexuality.. and more easily enjoys sex, and experiences more intense orgasms..
So, if it's anyone who should be "holding off" on sex; it should be men.. not women.. but.. like I said before.. 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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by GrkScorp [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Quote:
Originally Posted by GrkScorp [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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]
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.Quote:
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.
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??"
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.. lolQuote:
Originally Posted by CAM [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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)..Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonchild [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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)..
'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 :D 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..Quote:
Originally Posted by Frasbee [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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)..
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.
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.
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..Quote:
Originally Posted by Moonchild [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
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..
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?