by Jules Saturn 56 Replies latest social relationships
For many people that's the only time they'll get any! ... LOL
But seriously, most people have sex more for pleasure than procreation, so as long as it's safe and consensual have at it.
Personally, I really enjoy having good sex with someone I care about and that returns the feelings.
Marriage is a completely different -- although not unrelated -- subject.
Sex outside of marriage is considered a sin by most religions. Religions invented sin to make people feel guilty and cause them to go to the religion to appease their guilt via donations and/or service.
I have no use for religion and sin. For a long part of human history, marriage has been a protection to children. To me, that is the only part of keeping sex within a marriage that seems important. That, and we are still living under judicial systems influenced by the religious institution of marriage. So that means many people have to keep sex within marriage in order to protect their assets.
But I don't see how sex before (or without) marriage is anything wrong. If people would just use birth control, it should be fine.
Hi JF
The Bible is against sex outside of the marriage arrangement. My contention is that society would be wise to promote biblical standards.
As to your claim that the Old Testament forces women to marry their rapists, I suggest reading:
https://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.com/2018/04/03/does-the-bible-force-a-woman-to-marry-her-rapist/
Vanderhoven, that is the strangest "defense" of the Bible.
Basically, instead of addressing the issue of men raping women and then marrying them, it sidetracks with the use of words in the instance of Potiphar's wife and Joseph, then simply declares "Nonetheless, the claim......is incorrect."
Especially in Bible times, but still so- rapists are generally men. And to suggest a softening of the meaning centuries later is just reinventing what the Bible says. It was clear that if the woman was "engaged," she should have saved herself by crying out, so the Bible refers to rape and the people who read it back then knew that.
The Bible doesn't declare that people should stone a rapist (or otherwise kill him) unless she belongs to another man. The Bible tries to imply that the rapist is accountable for what he did. That means, he is stuck with the woman he raped. So that is written from a man's point of view- a man who understood the law not only allowed rape, but institutionalized it. If you want an unengaged woman, rape her and she is yours, especially if she did not cry out and doesn't want to be put to death.
And really, when we talk about women in the Bible being forced to marry their rapist, we are primarily thinking about men who have killed her parents in some kind of warfare, and then the man takes the child as a wife, giving the non-Jew no choice in the matter- hence rape takes place. Women were just property, valuable for sex and doing housework.
Hi OTWO,
Do you agree that the Bible is against sex outside of marriage?
Do you believe that if this Bible standard was followed that our society would be better off in terms of the number of unwanted pregnancies, abortions, sexually transmitted diseases and the problems that go with them?
Pre-marital sex comes with consequences. If you are ready to accept them, then you are fine to have it.
If a person feels that pregnancy after sex is an 'unwanted pregnancy', then it means that unprotected sex itself was unwanted for that person.
Pre-marital sex comes with consequences.
Yes, and on an individual and societal level these consequences can be very severe. The sexual revolution in the 60s brought on a wave of misfortune that has not abated despite the "safe" sex education message provided in schools.
Why is there an assumption that following Bible standards on sex (even aside from the marry your rapist issue) has no negative effects?
Is there not a wide chasm between Biblical standards and standards that equate to promiscuity? Do not unwanted pregnancies happen in marriages? Do people not stay with abusive mates, with kids in abusive situations, due to Biblical standards on divorce which include sex as the only out? Are there not people in sexless marriages that live life without something they wanted because another person can't or won't give it to them? These biblical claims greatly oversimplify a very complex subject.
Yes. It's interesting that sex before and/or without marriage is automatically equated to rampant promiscuity. Or on the flip-side of the coin that monogamous relationships only exist within marriage....
That is the stereotype held by JW's and kindred groups, but it really isn't how most normal, well-adjusted adults behave.
It's only premarital sex if you get married after.
