Does anyone go for the whole no-sex-before-marriage thing? I’m interested as to why. Also, my parents aren’t married (ah-hah! I’m a bastard!) but they practically are… does that count? And what about civil weddings which have nothing to do with God. I’m not really expressing myself coherently here - my usual at-work flurry of words - but I’m interested to know.
Also… arranged marriages. What about them?
I do believe that in the UK (not sure about anywhere else), a man and woman living together are common-law man and wife and have certain rights to each others property etc. So in some ways you are a bastard, and in another you aren’t.
Biblically, it was the act of sex that signified a marriage. If you were a 13 year old girl and you had sex with a 50 year old (this was the norm back then) man, he would then take you as his wife. A girl who was not a virgin could not have sex or be married to any other man and if she did she was stoned to death. great.
So biblically, you are legitimate because the act of sex signified your parents marriage. On the other hand, unless your mother was celibate until that point, she should also be stoned to death. Bit of a lose-lose situation.
With regards to arranged marriages, I think “the west” have strange misconceptions. In most cases you do not only find out who your spouse is to be on the wedding day. You will have met them before and got to know them and you have the chance to reject an arrangee. This is what I’m led to believe at least. Ok, so its not the free marriage that we would employ but its not like lift up the veil “oh, no you’re a minger!”
Having said that I’m against arranged marriages 
I’m also against the no-sex-before-marriage ethic for the sole reason that it can ruin a relationship. You could be with someone for years without having sex and then you get married and you find that you are the most incompatible sexual partners on the planet and it could ruin the marriage. It seems like too much of a risk.
How can you know what it will be like to have sex with someone until you actually have sex? I’m talking about the totally physical act of sex, nothing to do with intimacy. Obviously, it will involved intimacy but putting that aside there is a physical side to sex. The karma sutra outlines 9 incompatible pairs of partners based on sizes of genitalia and says sexual relationships between these pairs will not be successful. So this isn’t me being radical, sexual compatibility has been with us for centuries
What does it mean to “lose yourself to someone spiritually” ? Is this not the fabricated clap-trap instilled into us from an early age in order to stop us being promiscuous? I’m not convinced that “losing yourself spiritually” has any meaning.
nicky…ditto on the bastard front…only, to make things worse…i am an unwanted bastard…moving swiftly on…
sex before marriage is completely up to the two people who wish to bacome intimate with eachother. i do think there are more important things to a relationship than sex, but it is, as ben pointed out, important to find out if you are compatible with a person before you enter into something as binding as marriage.
and arranged marriages are bollocks. what a complete violation of human rights. you don’t even get to choose who you want to spend the rest of your life with. and what if they do turn out to be a complete James Ede? you would just cry.
Haha, Lena. Coming in with some classic posts here.
I’m not passionately against arranged marriages - I am, however, against the fact that the in the type of cultures where they are the norm it is sometimes - note I said sometimes harder to get out of the marriage if it unsatisfactory, especially for women. This also voids any statistics that say arranged marriages are more likely to last than non-arranged. But if it turns you on, and you can get out if it’s crap, then what the hell. I’m not gonna judge.
As for sex before marriage. I DEFINITELY agree that this “giving yourself spiritually” business is overdone. Also, if you’ve never had sex, how the hell DO you know how “spiritual” it is? (Re-hashing Ben’s argument here, I know). Personally I’d be gutted if I waited to get married to have sex with the one special person, then realised it was really just a bit of fun and that I might as well have been out doing it with any Tom Dick or Harry. Ahem. I think most people I know who’ve had sex, religious or not, would agree that it’s not the spiritual experience people tend to make it out to be.
Again, it’s a bit of an each-to-their-own type situation. I’m not fussed if anyone doesn’t want to sleep with anyone before marriage, but personally I think it’s a fairly pointless virtue to cling on to.
retches at thought of marrying james ede
not meaning to name names, you understand.
um … i reckon, to be fair, sex is a little overrated. not pleasure-wise, but in terms of how important to life it is. this may be blasphemous or something (blatent ignorance shining through here) and i’m sorry if i offend, but i’m going to throw caution to the wind. sex is what you make it. if you build it up to be something its not, you’re going to be disappointed. personally, i think its the most intimate thing you can do with someone, and allows you to experience some sort of union with them. in my opinion, that doesn’t have to be exclusive to one person. so many marriages fail or are just unhappy that it seems a little optimistic to assume the person you marry (first marriage) is the only person you’ll ever sleep with. surely its better to keep it a little sacred, but enjoy it nonetheless. i do believe that sex is done a little freely at the moment retires to granny armchair with tartan blanket over knees and so i’d say it should be saved for love harvests the corn.
i do agree with the whole waiting for love thing. well, maybe not love, but waiting till you’re sure you won’t regret it is really worth it.
i believe the misconception of the term ‘arranged marriage’ comes from the word ‘arranaged’. To many people that means someone has chosen your partner (it’s mainly a heterosexual marriage by the way) for you. However this is merely a medievil practice which does still occur at times, but is not religious but cultural (he’s a doctor, marry him)…the truth is that the practice is how ben has said it. The boy and the girl meet, in whatever way, in the subway, in the bus, at a resturant etc. all possible senarios, they can date and be close mates, and if they feel their compatable then they will ask their parents what they think. Or it maybe a girl that your parents have seen and like, and want you to find out what you think, but only after the acceptance from BOTH parties involved (i.e the man and women).
within my culture, it’s a merge of two families not two people, so i might like the girl, but her family as in her close family may not have the same beliefs etc. and some break ups come from differences.
so ben…with this arrange marriage idea there is a free marriage concept…but like everything which is ‘free’ there are frill’s attached! 
i reckon, to be fair, sex is a little overrated. not pleasure-wise, but in terms of how important to life it is. (quote of clarice)
so clarice… i beg to differ with that… sex is probably the most important thing in life, without it life would not continue! and dont gve me science and test tube babies… the doctors had to come from somewhere!!! (just a slightly joking reply) but the point still stands
reguarding my views… i believe it should be kept within marriage and for one person… i could go into a lot of reasons for why even without religion it should be kept this way… but i cnat be bothered (see Philosophy vs religion)… i just accept my religious law… however this doesnt mean that it isnt hard to resist and sometimes people mess up but my belief still stands…
yeah, point taken, dan. it is obviously essentially the point to our lives. what i meant was how important to each individual it is. yes, its original function was purely reproduction but we are now able to control this, and it can therefore be considered also for pleasure. whether or not this is against your religion is irrelevant, its happening. i agree that it isn’t to be taken lightly, and should be saved for love (corny though that is).
(i.e the man and women). - a muslim.
was that a typo? or did you mean women? because thats an entirely new debate.
what reason could there be for waiting? so it’ll be in some way better and more special?
well, personally, i am of the opinion that good sex is a skill to be learned, you and your partner are gonna have a far better and more special time if you’ve both been out practising beforehand.
If you think sex is such an important part of a relationship (which is not a good thing anyway), doesn’t that make it more important to have sex before marriage to see whether you are “sexually” compatible (as ben I think it was was talking about)? OK, so you can find out in other ways whether you are “physically” compatible but there are other things to take into account. From the purely practical point of view, I heard about this couple who broke up because one half was so well endowed that it was physically painful (and actually caused medical problems) for the other.
More importantly, I think it is necessary that you live with your partner many years before you actually marry. My brother was completely in love with a girl (I have never seen two people more in love), and after the third year of their dating, they moved in together and lived effectively, as man and wife. Who could foresee that two and half years later they would split? This, I think, shows that it is important to live together for a good period of time before deciding that this is your one, and making your vows if you want them to last. And if you can spend those years together celibate, then good for you, but personally I think sex is part of a healthy relationship (as long as you are mentally compatible etc).
While I do think that you shouldn’t have to wait until marriage to have sex, I think you should wait for quite a while in a relationship. People should be absolutely sure that they love each other, and sex should be the final step.
Any reason?
Why shouldn’t marriage be the final step? After all, it represents the highest level of commitment in a relationship does it not?
Why should you have to be in love to have sex? I’m not encouraging promiscuity, but casual sex works for some people, and doesn’t have to end in pregnancy, some hideous disease or eternal feelings of guilt, it could just be fun.
Im not a fan of marriage. Why have a piece of paper to equal the sum of your feelings for your partner? Why do you need rings, and services and name changes to show your commitment? Its almost like you want to show off that you’re THAT commited to eachother. Im not going to need any cheap materialistic keepsake to show the value and content of my feelings towards another.
Now sex is a different issue. I believe that sex is sacred. BUT! I also believe that sex is:
A. Great fun
B. A daily requirement
im talk both about sex with and without love by the way. I mean, sex with someone you love is one thing, special in its own right. Then again, sex for pure carnal pleasure is great as well, they’ve just both gotta have their time and place.
Plus, i think people (and in particular men) view it as taboo, even if they insist that they’re open about it. Because sex is sectioned off from the rest of life, nature and the great scheme of things. Even though its the one thing that got us this far in the first place! I just think people should pay attention to sex a lot more, and make sure its something they’re good at!
People of the world, leave your “slave to the system” desk jobs and get back into the bedroom! Your country needs you!
Sex-b4-mArRiAge
My city Montego Bay is a very small one… you know those everyone knows everyone’s? It’s such a promiscious place and I think we have the 2nd highest aids count in the island.
These are the effects of sex before marriage in my community:
I agree with all those who say that sex b4 marriage is garbage because you always run the risk of getting a partner who cant satisfy you physically. If I were in love with this guy and on the wedding night or whatever , I find out it’s like having sex w/ a stuffed toy, It would be so easy to un-love him and I’m so serious!. Oomph is necessary in a relationship.
[size=59]I’m a virgin yes, [/size], but the only thing that I’m waiting on is time.
sshh…
i didn’t just write that… 
but, doesn’t putting out get you love?
(joking)
I am not an avid believer in Marriage, or atleast in the way that it is now. So sex before marriage is really relative to the person. I do wish to say that too many people do it for something to do, something to talk about, to look cool, be with the in crowd - I disagree with all of this. I think sex is suppose to be special, no matter whether it is soft or rough. Some guys/gals use sex as a way of getting power. Over powering the other person or making sure to always get their way, I also disagree with this. It’s quite possible to have wild sex and still do it with a person you love while at the same time it can be a thing to share and not to squander. Some people I know even got married for tax purposes, since you pay less taxes as two people who are married than you would if you summed up the taxes between the two of you not married.
Other get married because of societal pressures, for instance in Slovakia people get married around 19, give or take a year. So these pressures at to a persons perception as well as the way they act and think. Some get married because their significant other wants to, and both sides of the family are pressuring for the two to get married.
Lastly, marriage is a religious thing that people take very seriously, especially when a women gets pregnant. For some people this automatically signifies marriage no matter what. It’s one to make sure that both parents raise the baby, but it’s not right for them to have to marry. Then people wonder why there is a 50% divorce rate and the parents aren’t together for the baby anyway.
What’s your take?
There are various theories about monogamy and why it is such a common practice in the human species (only about 3% of all the Primate species are monogamous and it makes no genetic sense either).
The currently popular one (with evidence to support it) is that its a cartel by the male species. Male sperm is a cheaper resource than the female egg. Plus, in mammals, the female of the species also invests a considerable gestation period carring the young foetus in her womb. So the investment made by the female is more than the investment made by the male, although the genetic contribution is the same (50:50).
That explains why males are less choosy and females more so as far as courtship and sex are concerned.
Given the above, it is possible for a single male to service (pardon the term, but I dont mean to trivialise things in any way, couldn’t think of a better word) multiple females. And females would prefer belonging in the harem of a strong, wealthy male than being the only partner for a poorer, less powerful male. This leaves the rest of the male population high and dry.
As a response, the male species (the more powerful one physically as well) decided on restricting their demand so that more of them could benefit. Thus came monogamy. Male infidelity is frowned upon much less than female infidelity anyway. The reason for this being that the female knows that the child she is carrying is hers, but the male never knew for sure whether the child his female partner is carrying is in fact his.
This is just how we genetically evolved … and is no indication of how things ought to be. Given that gene propogation is not of primary concern anymore, such things may not be completely valid anymore, but it explains our tendencies very well.