Get Real! When Is It the “Right Time” for Sex?


Editor’s Note: We’re delighted to bring Get Real!, Heather Corinna’s
popular sexuality advice column, to you on RH Reality Check, now every week!

Jes asks:

I am 22 and
was the kinda girl that always had a boyfriend, all through junior high
and high school and moved in with my h.s. sweetheart. I have become
single for the last year and truly enjoy it. I rarely engage in
intercourse (major STD fears) but do enjoy some PG13 action. I date
very often and like to try and keep it all very old fashioned. It’s not
a rule I’ve made but I don’t kiss on the first date and keep ‘em
wanting more till at least the 4th date when they finally get a lil
makeout. I was casually dating a guy for about a month and felt he was
really into me. I wanted to have sex so we did and now he is MIA. My
girlfriend said thats what will always happen, they’ll stick around til
you put out than they peace out. 2 of my guy friends said they like a
lil chase but if after a month of hot dates they still don’t get any
action at all they move on to the next. So when do I put out? To wait
or not! I know theres no general rule or cookie cutter answer here but
I would like all of your personal opinions. People say just wait til
the time is right but c’mon… I’m not 16 and the time is always past
due and very right. Thank you for the advice as well as this excellent
site! Keep up the good work!

Heather replies:

There is no one way to do things when it comes to sex which will guarantee that a partner sticks around or does not.

There also is not any one way men feel or behave when it comes to
sex and relationships, nor any one way women do. Generalizations about
these kinds of things are very infrequently helpful and are often
grossly inaccurate. When people in small social communities talk about
these things, they tend to forget that social circles tend to have
their own dynamics, which become more pervasive the more everyone
starts to behave the same way, believing something to be universal
which is usually nothing of the sort.

Ultimately? When you should have sex with a partner is at whatever
time it is that it’s what you both want to do together, and at a time
when it’s something you both feel ready for, individually. None of us
is perpetually ready for or interested in sex with everyone and anyone
at a given time because we’re a certain age or because we’re single.
When we want sex, and with whom we want to have it, is going to be
based on unique sets of circumstances at any given time. We might go on
six dates and never want to have sex with a given person (or they with
us), and then be on one date with someone else and very strongly feel
that mutual desire and want. One set of rules for every person we date
only makes so much sense, unless you just know there are things you
unilaterally do NOT want to do, with anyone, period, or in a certain
time frame or situation (some people, for instance are only comfortable
having sex within committed monogamy, while some people can be the
opposite at times, only comfortable with more casual sex, for
instance). I’m 38 years old and have been very sexually active for
decades now, but that doesn’t mean I always want to have sex just
because I enjoy sex or am the age I am. We’re not always in the mood,
we’re not always attracted to just anyone, and interpersonal dynamics
and chemistry between any two (or more) people vary wildly.

Trying to schedule sex in such a way that’s not about sex at all,
but about trying to control someone else’s behavior by withholding sex
both doesn’t work to give you that result, and tends to take the sex
out of sex altogether: sex with someone else is about sharing physical
and emotional pleasure and adventure, about developing intimacy (either
just during that one time, or, if a relationship continues, about
developing more over time), about getting to know someone in a sexual
way. A healthy sexual relationship between equals who mutually respect
one another isn’t about a barter to get someone to stick around or give
you a commitment you want. In my opinion, withholding sex not because
that’s what you want to do in terms of your desire or readiness, but
because you’re trying to convince someone else to spend time with you
in the hopes that eventually you’ll put out is manipulative and
sex-negative, and turns sex and dating into a cheap powerplay rather
than a shared expression of mutual accord, pleasure and desire, which
is what it’s all supposed to be.

No matter when you have sex, not everyone you date is going to share
the same end goals you may have, or want to continue a relationship of
any kind. Sometimes, the reason people move on after having sex is
because sex really was all they wanted. Sometimes, it’s because they
discovered with that sex — or might have known before, but figured
they’d see how the sex was to see if that changed their feelings –
that they just don’t really feel a connection with that person that’s
sexual or romantic. Sometimes, they move on because the sex just wasn’t
very compelling for them, to the point they’re not interested in having
another go, even if it does improve over time.

If you want to know what someone is really looking for when you’re dating them, the way to find that out is to talk about it.
Ask if they’re looking for something long-term or more short-term, open
or monogamous, exclusively sexual or something which is also romantic
or about friendship. Express what you’re looking for yourself.
Obviously, you don’t want to get too into that on a first date (that’d
be a bit overwhelming for anyone), but as you move into second or third
dates, those are totally appropriate discussions. And if you feel like
you’re only comfortable with things becoming sexual once you’ve
procured a given commitment, then you voice that need. You’re far more
likely to find people for whom that’s a shared want by talking than you
are by withholding sex or having sex. If the people you’re dating
aren’t initiating these kinds of conversations, then maybe you need to
open that door yourself. Ideally, one or both people in a dating
relationship will bring these things up soon enough.

The guy friends you have may be saying what they are because they
want a sexual relationship, and feel that at a certain point, if it’s
not put forth, that’s not what the person they’re dating wants. They’re
then moving on because they feel they and those dates don’t share the
same wants in a relationship. That’s not unreasonable, but it’d sure be
a lot easier for them to find out if they really do or don’t share
those same desires by just talking about it. These really just aren’t
things we can intuit or discern based on when someone does or doesn’t
have sex with us.

None of this is to say it’s not perfectly fine for you to enjoy the
anticipation of sex when it comes to putting it off in your dating
patterns. It sounds like you like that part of it. Anticipation can be
pretty exciting, after all, and really rev up desire and arousal. I’d
just encourage you to think about it that way, and approach it that
way, than to see it as a way to keep someone wanting more in the hopes
of fending off what it sounds like you and your mates think is an
inevitable escape after sex finally happens.

So, when is the right time for you to have sex with someone you’re dating?
When it’s — and by it, I mean sex, plain and simple — what both of
you want, in a situation or scenario that feels right for both of you.

While how two people communicate in terms of sex, and how two people
conduct a sexual relationship certainly has an effect on if something
good sustains itself, any time you have sex with someone you just have
to accept that you cannot control how sex will make either of you feel
about the other, nor can it — or the absence of it — control if
someone will be interested in continuing the relationship.

As an aside? Again, no matter what the situation is when you don’t
want to have sex, that’s fine. But when it comes to sexually
transmitted infections, waiting a few dates for sex alone doesn’t
protect you from sexually transmitted infections: either not having sex
at all, or using safer sex practices with any sex you have is what we
know prevents the transmission of STIs. So, I’m including a link below
to help get you filled in on that.

Here are a few extra links to help you out:

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Heather Corinna on twitter: @Scarleteen

  • invalid-0

    Dear Heather,

    I’m so sorry that your are giving this kind of very false and destructive “advice” to teens. It isn’t surprising however. It makes a twisted kind of sense that someone who says you have a right to tear your baby apart with a vacuum hose just because it’s your body and you don’t want her in your womb, would also say that the right time to have sexual intercourse is whenever you want to do so.

    I used to believe such lies, and it almost ruined my life. I sympathize with you in that respect — you are terribly deceived, as I was, with your egoistic philosophy of life. It is one that will only bring you unhappiness.

    Human sexuality brings responsibilities and has huge consequences. It has a nature, meaning, and purpose of its own, and two people can’t decide what it will be — it is fixed, just like eating or sleeping. I can’t decide that eating will have a certain purpose, nor sleeping. Such biological functions are what they are. The same is true of sexual intercourse.

    Human sexuality exists to cement a permanent bond between two people, and simultaneously to bring forth new life. In other words, it is the final act of initiating a family. It has serious spiritual, emotional, and physical consequences, because when people act, they do so with their whole being.

    When two people engage in the conjugal act, they simultaneously create an emotional bond between themselves that corresponds to the immutable nature of sexuality. When people go from one “sexual partner” to the other, it undermines and destroys their psychological well being. They literally act a lie with their bodies. They do something that has one purpose, and simultaneously reject that purpose. The inevitable result is frustration and unhappiness.

    On the biological level, such behavior spreads diseases of many kinds, STDs, cancer, and others. Condoms fail up to 10% of the time and are unreliable for anything except self-delusion.

    Maybe the saddest thing about this essay you’ve written on sexual intercourse is that it doesn’t even contain a single mention of the word “love”. A whole article about sexual intercourse, and that word never appears. That speaks volumes about the philosophy of the pro-abortion crowd.

    I hope that someday you will learn what human sexuality is about, as well as life itself. It’s about love.

    In Christ,
    Matthew

    • invalid-0

      “I’m so sorry that your are giving this kind of very false and destructive “advice” to teens.”

      This advice is aimed at a woman who is 22 years old, not a teen.

  • invalid-0

    Matthew, very well said and it’s nice to hear truth. I hope that the teenage population that are speaking to Heather and receiving advice are not damaged too much. Ultimately, the truth is written on our hearts so hopefully the teen population that is listening/writing to Heather will see later that this lifestyle causes a lot of pain. I know when I was in that world that it was scary to actual face my demons head on, but once you do it is so freeing and you start to see the true design and everyday you are so thankful.

  • scott-swenson

    Dear Matthew and Taliban Returns,

     

    You know what, as much as it pains me to say it, you have a point. It’s a sliver of a shred of an iota of a point, but I’ll grant it for the sake of argument.

     

    Love is the very best reason to have sex. Sex with someone you love and are committed to has the opportunity to develop over time, deepening in satisfaction and exploration, sharing intimacy and fantasy that you might never share with another. Sometimes people find that right away, sometimes they don’t. Some people want that, others don’t. I know it would be easier if your fantasy cookie cutter world existed and everyone was just exactly like you, but for those of us in the real world, we’re glad we’ve got Heather.

     

    You see, it is you that is making the wrong assumption — as those who seek to judge first — often do. You ignore other people’s lives because they do not fall in rigid lock-step with yours. The woman asking the question even says, "I know theres no general rule or cookie cutter answer here but
    I would like all of your personal opinions." When you have your site up and running, maybe she will write to you for yours too.

     

    But let’s get back to love.

     

    The questioner asked about her boyfriend, so there was an assumption of love there. She didn’t ask about a "friend with benefits" or "casual relationship"; she asked about a boyfriend. Actually, more to the point, she asked about herself in relationship to a boyfriend.

    The question was not about love, explicitly. Heather’s column, and the reason we are so glad to have her writing with us, is about healthy, responsible sex, or erotic love. You know, those feelings that we can’t always explain, aren’t always easy to discuss with just anyone (especially people who judge first, ask questions later), and that come and go, even in a long term relationship. No one is ever always in the midst of eros which is about chemistry, anticipation, excitement and often timing.

     

    We should also compare and contrast the fact-based information Heather provides, with abstinence-only programs. For example, this piece about various abstinence groups talks about one who just wants kids to think about love too;

    Joanne Mackenzie started the abstinence program WAIT Training.
    SIECUS concludes of WAIT Training, "its reliance on messages of fear
    and shame make it inappropriate for schools."

    According to Fundiewatch, Mackenzie said, "I don’t want
    kids to equate sex with disease. I want them to equate sex with love
    and tenderness and long-term romance, and all those yummy things that the heart longs for."

    Yes, but love and tenderness would also involve truth and the
    information, trust and respect for teens to make responsible life
    decisions for themselves, based on respect for their bodies and their
    partners. That would be yummiest of all.

     

    So those of you who just want people to ignore reality think teaching kids only about abstinence makes sense, when we know those programs do not work. That doesn’t feel very compassionate, which requires a discussion of other types of love.

     

    Eros is not the only love, as you point out, there is love for humanity (phillia) and unconditional love or compassion (agape).

     

    You believe that you are loving people (compassionately) by telling them what to do, so they can be more like you. That is conditional, not unconditional, and it falls short in the compassion department. You sit in judgment of others, not loving your neighbor as you would yourself, unless that neighbor looks and thinks exactly like you, and that doesn’t feel right either.

     

    We’re all here learning to love, each on individual paths, each part of a larger purpose (for those who believe). Along the way some of us have sex, and many of us have questions. If you don’t agree with the advice Heather gives, don’t read it. Better yet, you’re welcome to start your own web site and attract your own audience. The best part of new media is people can find what is important to them and you can see what people respond to — like when HHS tried to redefine contraception as abortion and web traffic surged with from people who like contraception, and enjoy healthy, responsible sex. Many of them in monogamous relationships and marriages, some who’ve only been with one person their entire lives.

     

    What’s important here is that people have a space to ask questions and get information without judgment or stigmatization. Your comments are borderline disrespectful because you completely dismiss the woman asking the question and topic (sex) only to score cheap points. I argued against deleting the comments because I believe the more narrow minded people are exposed, the more people learn that when it comes to learning about life, it is often best to listen carefully to many perspectives and determine which ones feel right to you. For many people, your perspective is perfect. God bless them and keep them and may their lives be filled with joy.

     

    But sirs, God did not send you to judge others, so I ask, that you afford our readers and writers the respect they deserve as fellow human beings. If you want to engage our readers, do so without judgment, stigma, shame. If you can’t, then at least admit that you too fall short in your understanding of love, and God help the teens that learn about sex in this day and age without understanding what real medical information has to to teach.

     

     

     

    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    Dear Scott:

    I would submit to you that your response is very fallacious. Let’s look at it.

    First, you claim that I’m being unloving and judgmental and that I’m imposing my views by saying that your “advice” columnist, a woman who seems to be obsessed with promoting promiscuity among teenagers and young people (and for anyone who doubts it, visit her websites at http://www.scarleteen.com and http://www.femmerotic.com), is wrong.

    You implied that I was attacking the person who wrote for advice. In fact, I never mentioned her at all. I was referring to Heather Corinna throughout my post.

    Regarding the statements I made: It’s not unloving or judgmental to observe that certain kinds of behavior are immoral and self-destructive and encourage people to quit to spare them the consequences. Nor is it unloving to observe that someone has made an error.

    Are we being “judgmental” as a society when we tell people not to drink excessively or snort cocaine? Do we hate those people, or do we love them? The unloving thing, I would submit, is to tell someone a sweet lie that eases their path to self-destruction, rather than the truth.

    It seems that libertines only know that one passage of the Bible, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”, and they always take it out of context. The way that passage has always been understood is that we should not judge the soul of someone, because we don’t know if they really are aware of their evil, or are acting out of ignorance, psychological problems, etc. We should also not judge rashly or harshly regarding their actions. However, the same book tells us to denounce immorality and enumerates many examples of sins that kill the life of the soul. To judge that an action is objectively wrong is not judgmental. It’s a good thing.

    Of course, I don’t need the Bible to know that sexual promiscuity is immoral. It’s just repeating what we all know by the use of our reason: that human sexuality, like eating and sleeping, has an immutable purpose that reflects our full nature as rational (spiritual) beings. That’s why it’s so damaging when someone molests a child. If the sexual act were just some casual event in which someone shows affection for someone else, it wouldn’t have the deep emotional consequences that it does, and wouldn’t be destructive out of that context.

    Second, I didn’t mention “abstinence only programs” of any kind, so that’s a red herring. What I was trying to convey is that your “advice” columnist is a promoter of a cheap, promiscuous sexuality that is very convenient to the abortion industry. It’s no surprise that the glorification of promiscuity and abortion go hand in hand.

    More important than any “abstinence only” program in a school is the promotion of good values in the home, reinforced by the whole society. If students go to a school and are told they are nothing more than clever animals, that human existence is purely material and there is no transcendent reality, that we’re all nothing more than the blind churnings of matter, we shouldn’t be surprised when they act that way. Abstinence education should be only one part of a whole societal effort to reinforce moral values among the young, one that has been abandoned in recent decades, with devastating results.

    Finally, you claim that if the woman has a boyfriend, they must love each other. Are you kidding me? Like your advice columnist would say “get real”! We all know that there are many motives that people may have for coupling with another person. The love I am talking about is the Divine Agape, which reflects the friendship spoken of by Aristotle, in which the one values the other for himself or herself, not as an object or as a means to another end.

    I want you to know that I’m not writing these responses to irk you or to slam you, but just to provoke you to think. The convenient hedonistic equations promoted on this site may sound good at first, but when one considers them more deeply they fall apart. Life is not the superficial pleasure-journey that is portrayed here, as well as in the commercial media. It all turns out to be a lie, one that cheapens the really profound thing that life is.

    In Christ,
    Matthew

  • invalid-0

    You have yet to demonstrate that extramarital sex in general is either immoral or self-destructive. The emotional, psychological and physical benefits of sex do not magically switch on once a marriage has been solemnized, nor do the risks thereof evaporate.

    The “purpose” of sex is not so cut-and-dried as you would have us believe. First of all, purpose is a thing imputed by human beings, not an immutable property scribed in stone. Second, the fact that a typical monogamous human couple will copulate hundreds of times in their lives and produce perhaps only a handful of children demonstrates that procreation is certainly not the primary purpose of sex in human life and relationships. Humans are among the very rare animals where the female is sexually receptive when no fertile. What is the “immutable purpose” of that, do you suppose? The human female is also special in experiencing orgasm, something not found in most female animals. What is the “immutable purpose” there?

    Clearly to treat pair bonding and recreation as somehow “illegitemate” uses of sex is to ignore both biology and the experiences of billions of people around the world.

    Heather is simply dealing with the realities of human sexuality. We can all pretend that if we admonish teenagers to wait until marriage, but mounds of research shows they do not, nor have they ever. Estimates range that between 20% to as much as 50% of Puritan girls were pregnant at the time of their weddings. In some parts of the world they mutilate girls’ genitals, cover them from head to foot, forbid them from going out in public unescorted and make it clear the penalty for fornication is death by stoning… it happens anyway. Burying your head in the sand and fostering feelings of shame towards our sexuality doesn’t work. It’s been tried.

    To conclude, I know just how full of it you are from personal experience. I have had several sexual relationships outside of marriage. None of them were casual, all of them were loving, and none of them do I regret. They were all very rewarding, and not destructive at all. No one was hurt; all benefitted. What’s more, I know my experience is not unique.

  • invalid-0

    I never said that sexual intercourse wasn’t for pair bonding. In fact, that is one of the two reasons I listed for the conjugal act. It binds a couple together to create a family, and if performed at the right time of the month it will tend to cause pregnancy as well. That’s one of the two natural purposes of the act: unitive and the procreative.

    When the sexual act is carried out outside of an intellectual commitment to that union (marriage), it is the acting out of a lie at the deepest level of our being. Our mind denies what it is doing, seeking the pleasure apart from the purpose. It creates an interior conflict within a person.

    Now answer me: if this act is only for expressing affection, and doesn’t require a commitment to a permanent union between an adult male and female, then why is it destructive when done to children? Also, why shouldn’t parents and their adult offspring engage in sex according to your logic, in order to solidify their family bond? Heck, people are affectionate with their dogs, and if this is just another form of affection, why is bestiality wrong?

    We all know deep down inside that this is not just a casual show of affection between any two people. Its about a permanent union between a man and a woman, with the purpose (in the long run) of bringing forth life, something that will happen naturally if the couple engages in a normal pattern of sexual intercourse and has no problems with sterility.

    Your nonsensical statements about the fact that people will sometimes violate moral rules could be used to deny all moral principles and even all laws. Of course people have always broken those rules to some extent. There will always be drunks and drug addicts too, so should we stop encouraging people to avoid such behavior?

    Finally, you’re mischaracterizing Corinna’s statements. She isn’t being “realistic” about the fact that some teens will decide to engage in extra-marital intercourse. She’s encouraging them to do it, whenever they want to, without any principle of permanence or commitment.

  • invalid-0

    You in turn are mischaracterizing my comments, and indeed extramarital sex in general.

    First, it is no form of lie to engage in sex outside of marriage. Justify your claim! There is nothing that magically changes when a marriage contract is sealed. A couple can be bonded with each other without the benefit of marriage, and even a casual look around you will show these bonds can outlast official marriages.

    Sex is destructive when done to children because they cannot consent. Notice even you use the term “done to” instead of “done with”. No sexual relationship is healthy if it arises from a gross imbalance of power. If you think child molestation is wrong because the child is not married, there is something seriously wrong with you. Seek help.

    As for adult offspring, you glibly equivocate from “pair bond” to “family bond”. These are not at all equivalent, and that’s why trying to foster the latter by activities that forge the former are going to be destructive.

    Pets are also incapable of consent. Remember what I said about gross imbalances of power? They are further incapable of reciprocating a human pair-bond. Again, yf you think bestiality is wrong because the animal isn’t married, there’s something wrong with you.

    One purpose of sex is to create offspring. One purpose, not the purpose. In the “long run” sex is used far more for pair bonding and yes, recreation than for procreation. Even after menopause, couples continue to have sex even though there is no more chance of conception. I think that demonstrates quite conclusively that pair bonding and recreation far outlast your supposed “long run” purpose.

    Consensual sex between adults is not comparable to cocaine use. First, it is not self-destructive, and you have yet to show anything more than hand-waving to show it is. Second, it isn’t that some people do it, The overwhelming majority of people do it, including the overwhelming majority of psychologically, physically and emotionally healthy people. One study by the Guttmacher institute found that 95% of Americans had had extramarital sex by age 40, including 98% of those who had ever had sex. This is not a few people violating your rules, it’s a pattern of normal human activity.

    Heather is simply recognizing the reality that young people are going to have sex, and that this is normal and healthy. Telling them it’s bad simply makes them go elsewhere for advice or keep their questions to themselves. We’ve tried that model of sex education before and it didn’t work.

  • mellankelly1

    Now answer me: if this act is only for expressing affection, and doesn’t require a commitment to a permanent union between an adult male and female, then why is it destructive when done to children? Also, why shouldn’t parents and their adult offspring engage in sex according to your logic, in order to solidify their family bond? Heck, people are affectionate with their dogs, and if this is just another form of affection, why is bestiality wrong?

    Wow.  First, who says one must be married in order to have a commitment?  And marriage is permanent?  Really?  And please confirm for me that you do not actually believe that the reason adults shouldn’t have sex with minors and/or their pets is because they are not married to them.  That logic is just phenomenally disturbing.  Actually, the mere fact that one could go from consensual sex among unmarried adults to pedophilia and bestiality is what’s really disturbing.

    We all know deep down inside that this is not just a casual show of affection between any two people. Its about a permanent union between a man and a woman, with the purpose (in the long run) of bringing forth life, something that will happen naturally if the couple engages in a normal pattern of sexual intercourse and has no problems with sterility.

    I respectfully disagree with those statements.  Sometimes I have casual sex with my husband for the mere purpose of sharing my affection for him (and vice versa).  We’ve done that on occasion since we first met.   We’ve been together almost 15 years (married for the past 9) and having sex prior to marriage in no way "acted out a lie".  Further, we will continue to have sex without being open to the possibility of "bringing forth life" for as long as we possibly can.  While I certainly respect your thoughts and opinions regarding your personal relationship with your spouse and/or the purpose of your sex; I most definitely disagree that those thoughts and opinions should have any bearing on my relationship with my spouse and/or the purpose of my sex.

  • invalid-0

    I said “a commitment to a permanent union between an adult male and female”. Notice the part about “adult”. You conveniently dropped that, then accused me of saying something else.

    Interesting that you two keep distorting what I say, instead of answering it…if I’m wrong, why not just refute my statements?

    Your “respectful disagreement” is not an argument. You’re just saying “I disagree”. Tell me why. The fact is that when anyone deliberately prevents one of the two natural purposes of the act from being fulfilled (unitive and procreative), they are in fact acting a lie with their bodies, and doing something unnatural. This is a biological reality. Anyone can refuse to accept it, but it doesn’t change the reality. It just means that one is living in denial.

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    ….I can’t help but feel like what you’re really accusing me of is simply being incompetent in achieving my own goals.

    After all, if my agenda really is to just get lots and lots of young people to have a metric arseload of sex with a ton of partners, then I’m doing a really crap job of it.

    Talking to them about things like Chlamydia, about sexual abuses, about limits and boundaries, about safer sex, about how to negotiate in relationships is profoundly stupid of me in serving that agenda. Silly girl! At least now I know, so I can do a better job from here on out: awesome.

    You know, I’m just passing through today in a brief check of things while I’m out of town. I don’t manage RH, nor do I make a call on commenting. I certainly can’t tell anyone what to talk about or what not to, and it’s not my place.

    But I do have a real problem, particularly as a woman, as a non-heterosexual person (who, in her personal life, very intentionally chooses not to marry in the relationships she could lawfully do so, even in long-term committed partnerships), with sex being discussed or defined as a) vaginal intercourse, b) only something heterosexual people do or may do in accord with nature, and/or c) as something women may only do if they are willing to reproduce every time they engage in sex (funny how that setup doesn’t make any such demands on men’s bodies and lives).

    So I would request, if for no other reason than to not render further invisible a substantial segment of the population, if which I personally am a part, that those commenting bear in mind that we’re not all straight, we don’t all want to bear any children or children at any time we want to have sexual partnerships (which is pretty common among those of us who actually have to be the ones pregnant), and when many of us talk about sex, we are not merely talking about heterosexual intercourse. Thanks.

    • invalid-0

      Of course you talk about STDs — how could you avoid it? But, of course, you treat abstinence as if it is only one, “unrealistic” choice…after all, in your mind we’re all just animals who can’t control ourselves, right?

      As for your efforts to talk about “safe” sex, what a joke. “Get real”, Heather. Condoms fail 10% of the time, even when used “properly”. They can’t protect anyone in the long run. And you can’t put a condom on your heart, nor your soul, a point I made in my previous post, and one you conveniently ignored.

      When condoms fail, then people go to the abortion clinic, where the baby-killing industry you support makes another profit off of those who are foolish enough to heed your “advice”. One dead, one wounded. Your “final solution” to an inconvenient baby.

      As for sodomy, or any other sexual behavior outside of a commitment between an adult man and woman, I’ve already answered that, and you haven’t answered me. I challenge you to do so. Answer the arguments.

  • invalid-0

    If a thing has two purposes, it doesn’t follow that it is being somehow misused if only one purpose is being exploited at any given time.

    By your argument, sterile couples, post-menopausal women, women who are not ovulating and pregnant women are “acting a lie” by having sex even if they are married. This is ludicrous.

    Appealing to “the long term” doesn’t get around first two examples, because they never will be fertile again. It also doesn’t explain why premarital sex would be wrong, because the potential remains in that case to fulfill both of your stated purposes “in the long term”.

    I have on my hip on the moment a cellular phone. It has dozens of functions, or purposes if you will, some of which I will never use. That doesn’t mean I am acting a lie with my cell phone or in any way misusing it.

  • invalid-0

    I’ll answer your points one by one:

    1. Do you think it’s really true that the only reason that sexual interaction with children hurts them is that “they cannot give consent”? In that case, why doesn’t it hurt the child to give him a hug, which is a sign of affection that is appropriate for any two people. He can’t consent to that either.

    Your ridiculous distortion about what I wrote above (for anyone to see) about child molestation and bestiality just shows desparation on your part, and discredits you further. I clearly said “between adults” and didn’t just mention marriage.

    You ask me to “seek help”, but who needs to really seek help here? You say above that child sex abuse is damaging because of lack of consent. And so are you saying if a child gives consent, it won’t damage him? That’s absurd. Even if a child of 10 years, for example, gave consent, it would be self-destructive and rightly illegal. Or would you want to make it legal? That’s the frightening logic behind your claims.

    You even go so far as to claim that the reason it’s wrong to have sex with a dog is that the dog somehow can’t give consent! That’s really twisted. You don’t see other problem with bestiality? But then, why would you, based on your “sex-is-for-recreational-pleasure” concept?

    2. I defined “marriage” as a permanent commitment. I’m not speaking of a legal document, but as a decision on the part of the couple to begin a permanent life partnership, which is exclusive. If not, what do you mean by “pair bonding”? If you ultimately mean that it’s just two people showing affection, I’ve already answered that. We all know it’s more than that. So then what? Do you say that it’s for creating a bond that will last the next ten minutes, or ten hours? This isn’t a contract, it’s an exchange of persons. You don’t become a family for a fixed period of time.

    3. The “Guttmacher Institute” is a political entity, not a scientific one, and is committed to promoting the population control and sexual “liberation” agenda. Do you also believe the discredited Kinsey studies that say that 10% of the population is homosexual?

    But even if the study you cited gives correct data on the particular time period and place you are referring to (the last 40 years, the USA), then what? That doesn’t mention the fact that many regret such behavior, and embrace opposing values later! The vast majority of people have also told lies, and done other things that are wrong, and that many regret. Does that make those things acceptable?

    Even in atheistic China, only about half of the population thinks that extra-marital intercourse is morally right:

    http://www.reuters.com/article/lifestyleMolt/idUSPEK3401020070612

  • invalid-0

    “DL”:

    My argument doesn’t imply that at all. People who are temporarily or permanently sterile are not doing anything to obstruct the natural processes of the sexual act. The act involves all of the sexual processes and related processes of the body, which means that sometimes sexual intercourse will naturally bring forth life and sometimes it won’t. Moreover, if a couple is sterile because of a biological defect, they aren’t doing anything to obstruct what is natural.

    But deliberately interfering with the sexual act, by using a drug or putting up an obstruction, is obviously unnatural. It prevents those processes from occurring.

    Your cell phone is a man-made device with multiple optional purposes. The sexual act differs in two substantial ways:

    1. It is not material object used as a tool. It is a bodily function whose nature is not determined by man, and whose purpose therefore can’t be arbitrarily determined by man.

    2. The sexual act is a single action, with a single nature, and with two purposes, not a device that has multiple optional functions and purposes.

    You can’t separate the nature of the sexual act from the nature of man himself, and from the nature of the two sexes, all of which are fitted and designed for the purpose of creating families. The complex spiritual, emotional, and physical nature of human sexuality cannot be separated from this end.

    If two people act in a way that is contrary to that nature, they act in a self-destructive way. They create innner conflict that results in exterior symptoms. This is why the contraceptive revolution was accompanied by a revolution in familiy instability and divorce. I believe it is also linked to our increasingly neurotic, unhappy society.

    In the case of a cell phone, it doesn’t run contrary to its nature and purpose to send a text message and not to make a call, or to check the time and to not make a calendar entry. However, if you were to try to use it as a flotation device, the result might be your premature death, and the destruction of the phone, because that’s not its nature nor its purpose.

  • mellankelly1

     I said "a commitment to a permanent union between an adult male and female". Notice the part about "adult". You conveniently dropped that, then accused me of saying something else.

    Dear, kind sir… I accused you of saying precisely what it is that you said… as a matter of fact, I quoted what I was referring to directly above my response.  Perhaps you overlooked it? 

    Interesting that you two keep distorting what I say, instead of answering it…if I’m wrong, why not just refute my statements?

    I promise not to misquote you if you would simply write what you mean in the first place.  And I beg to differ, I most certainly denied the accuracy of your statement as it applies to my (and I suspect many others) life… ergo, I refuted your statements.  Why does this make you so angry?  Obviously, you’re free to believe whatever you wish regarding your relationship with your spouse and the purpose of your sex. 

    Your "respectful disagreement" is not an argument. You’re just saying "I disagree". Tell me why.

    My "respectful disagreement" was a disagreement (difference in opinion) with all due respect (something I am beginning to doubt was warranted).  Simply because you refuse to acknowledge that my discourse was persuasive doesn’t mean that it wasn’t "an argument". 

    Further, you’ve given me no reason to believe this is accurate information:

    The fact is that when anyone deliberately prevents one of the two natural purposes of the act from being fulfilled (unitive and procreative), they are in fact acting a lie with their bodies, and doing something unnatural. This is a biological reality. Anyone can refuse to accept it, but it doesn’t change the reality

    Poppycock.  You can call it "acting a lie with their bodies", I can call it "having the best sex ever" … my statement is not only completely and utterly natural but also a "biological reality" as evidenced by multiple orgasms!  Please feel free to believe that anyone who disagrees with you is in denial but it still won’t change the fact that these people simply disagree with you.  But good luck with that whole sex is evil unless you’re married (commitment to a permanent union) and procreating (if able) thing.

  • invalid-0

    Let’s review what anyone can see from your posts.

    You quoted me saying this:

    Now answer me: if this act is only for expressing affection, and doesn’t require a commitment to a permanent union between an adult male and female, then why is it destructive when done to children? Also, why shouldn’t parents and their adult offspring engage in sex according to your logic, in order to solidify their family bond? Heck, people are affectionate with their dogs, and if this is just another form of affection, why is bestiality wrong?

    Then you responded by mischaracterizing what I said, leaving out the part about “adults” and only mentioning “marriage”:

    Wow. First, who says one must be married in order to have a commitment? And marriage is permanent? Really? And please confirm for me that you do not actually believe that the reason adults shouldn’t have sex with minors and/or their pets is because they are not married to them.

    Maybe you didn’t do that deliberately, but you did do it. We all make mistakes, but I don’t think it’s right for you to defend it after it’s pointed out to you. How would you feel if someone did that to you?

    I said that the rest of your statements weren’t an argument, because they’re not. Simply stating that you disagree is not an argument. One must give reasons. I’m ready and willing to listen to any reasons you may give.

    The rest of your latest response fails to counter any of my points, or even to address them. You just say you feel pleasure when you have sexual intercourse. I never said it wasn’t pleasurable. I would submit to you, however, that physical pleasure is not happiness. There is no way to be happy living an irrational existence. Happiness comes from love. And there is no love apart from truth. When we act a lie, at such a deep level of our beings, we destroy our ability to be happy, we although there are those who protest that they are (as I falsely did, for years). I think that many people have no idea what happiness really is.

  • invalid-0

    Do you think it’s really true that the only reason that sexual interaction with children hurts them is that “they cannot give consent”?

    It’s by far the number one reason. Lack of marriage is not the reason, nor is their inability to have children (they can, between puberty and the age of consent).

    Your hug analogy is bizarre and more than a little disturbing. Forcing a child to perform sex acts is not like forcing a child to eat their brussel sprouts. Sexuality is an intensely personal issue and deep psychological trauma is caused by violating a person’s boundaries against their will.

    Your ridiculous distortion about what I wrote above (for anyone to see) about child molestation and bestiality just shows desparation on your part, and discredits you further. I clearly said “between adults” and didn’t just mention marriage.

    If they’re ridiculous, you you really aught to be able to answer them. I did not ignore your “adult child” scenario. That came third after children and pets, and I addressed it by pointing out that the human pair-bond is very different from the parental bond and activities that forster the former certainly aren’t beneficial for the latter.

    You say above that child sex abuse is damaging because of lack of consent. And so are you saying if a child gives consent, it won’t damage him?

    Anyone remotely familiar with child psychology would know that children are not psychologically capable of meaningful consenting to sex before a certain age, and this is the reason for statutory rape laws. Even after the age of consent, sexual relationships can still be harmful where there is a gross imbalance of power (a concept you repeatedly and pointedly ignore).

    You even go so far as to claim that the reason it’s wrong to have sex with a dog is that the dog somehow can’t give consent! That’s really twisted. You don’t see other problem with bestiality? But then, why would you, based on your “sex-is-for-recreational-pleasure” concept?

    I also said that dogs are unable to reciprocate the human pair-bond. There’s also that imbalance of power I talked about. Really, do try to keep up.

    2. I defined “marriage” as a permanent commitment. I’m not speaking of a legal document, but as a decision on the part of the couple to begin a permanent life partnership, which is exclusive.

    Woohoo! You’ve just described every teenager in love, my friend. Your bizarre new definition of “marriage” corresponds to nothing in any culture I’ve ever heard of. Wow. You go on about the self-destructive nature of sex outside of marriage, but all this time you’re not including those who intend to be together forever? What, do you think only one-night stands result in STIs and unwanted pregnancy? Do you think the waiting rooms of abortion clinics are filled with prositutes?

    Methinks someone is trying to rationalize away their own premarital sex, which they do not regret, and found beneficial and fulfilling, and not self-destructive at all. Sex that they initiated when it felt right for them. Am I right?

    If not, what do you mean by “pair bonding”? If you ultimately mean that it’s just two people showing affection, I’ve already answered that.

    No, pair bonding is a well-studied phenomenon in biology. It’s a psychological bond between partners, and includes feelings humans describe as being “in love”.

    So then what? Do you say that it’s for creating a bond that will last the next ten minutes, or ten hours?

    I thought we weren’t talking about contracts. Make up your mind. In any case in humans pair bonds generally last months to years, and can be lifelong.

    The “Guttmacher Institute” is a political entity, not a scientific one, and is committed to promoting the population control and sexual “liberation” agenda. Do you also believe the discredited Kinsey studies that say that 10% of the population is homosexual?

    I’m afraid you don’t get away with hand-waving away the findings so easily. Can you rebut the study or can you not? The Guttmacher institute is very much involved in real scientific research. I suggest you check out the bios of their research staff including the list of their papers several of which have been published in prestigious journals like The Lancet.

    But even if the study you cited gives correct data on the particular time period and place you are referring to (the last 40 years, the USA), then what? That doesn’t mention the fact that many regret such behavior, and embrace opposing values later! The vast majority of people have also told lies, and done other things that are wrong, and that many regret. Does that make those things acceptable?

    If you want to claim that’s the case, then present some evidence! I personally don’t know a single person who has regretted having sex before marriage.

    Even in atheistic China, only about half of the population thinks that extra-marital intercourse is morally right:

    Funny you should mention that. Notice how free and healthy societies like Japan and New Zealand do not try to enforce your brand of sexual morality, but the places like Iran and communist China do. During the Cultural Revolution, women were even forced to all cut their hair in the same dowdy way and wear a plain uniform to hide their feminine beauty. Again, that sounds a lot like the Taliban and not that far from those who blame rape victims because of the way they dress. It all goes to prove that it’s all about control – use “morality” as a pretext to control others’ sexuality, and you have control of them.

  • invalid-0

    Now answer me: if this act is only for expressing affection, and doesn’t require a commitment to a permanent union between an adult male and female, then why is it destructive when done to children? Also, why shouldn’t parents and their adult offspring engage in sex according to your logic, in order to solidify their family bond? Heck, people are affectionate with their dogs, and if this is just another form of affection, why is bestiality wrong?

    Then you responded by mischaracterizing what I said, leaving out the part about “adults” and only mentioning “marriage”:

    So you’re defining the only kind of sex that isn’t harmful as “between a permanently commited adult male and female”, therefore having sex with children is wrong because they don’t fit your definition?

    Very shallow reasoning indeed. It’s wrong to have sex outside a committed adult relationship because it isn’t a committed adult relationship. That’s what we call a tautology.

    Get this: We don’t accept your premise as axiomatic

    Now justify it, or go away.

    • invalid-0

      Anyone can read what I wrote. I said that the serious emotional damage to children caused by this act is an indication that it is not simply an act of affection. That isn’t a tautology. You are seeing things that aren’t there, not surprising on a site full of people who wish to keep the murder of unborn infants “safe and legal.”

  • mellankelly1

    Wow.  Just… wow.

    Then you responded by mischaracterizing what I said, leaving out the part about "adults" and only mentioning "marriage":

    If you say so, dear.  I didn’t leave out the part about "adults"… as I was responding to your comment (which I referenced) I was including adults in the "Wow. First, who says one must be married in order to have a commitment? And marriage is permanent? Really?"  I am perfectly comfortable allowing any person reading to allow my comments to speak for themselves… I believe a translator is unnecessary.   I understand that you feel compelled to point out the perceived wrongs done to you rather than address any points that have been made.

    I said that the rest of your statements weren’t an argument, because they’re not. Simply stating that you disagree is not an argument. One must give reasons. I’m ready and willing to listen to any reasons you may give.

    No, quite frankly, you’re not.  I have explained how your statements weren’t applicable to my life experience (which I suspect is true of many) as an example.  I’m beginning to think that perhaps you are unaware of what an argument is… simply put: my statements were arguments regardless of whether or not you, personally, found them persuasive.  What we have here is a difference of opinion.

    I would submit to you, however, that physical pleasure is not happiness.

    Now, that is curious.  Physical pleasure (including sexual pleasure without being open to the possibility of procreation) is a pleasurable and satisfying experience which creates (for me, at least) a state of well-being and contentment.  So, yes, sex is happiness by it’s very definition. 

    Happiness comes from love 

    Oh my goodness… you wish to define where happiness comes from?  Control freak much?  Individuals find happiness from many different sources… others may find happiness in things that you wouldn’t.  You most certainly do not have the ability nor the credibility to define where each individuals happiness comes from, silly boy.  Or is it that you’re attempting to define love?

    When we act a lie, at such a deep level of our beings, we destroy our ability to be happy, we although there are those who protest that they are (as I falsely did, for years). I think that many people have no idea what happiness really is.

    Pardon my frankness but please quit attempting to equate the lives of others with yours.  Sorry about your destroying your ability to be happy but simply put… my life sounds absolutely nothing like yours.  Call me crazy if you’d like but I am perfectly content with  my life.  My husband, my family and my friends are a few of the things which bring me happiness – knock on wood – but I wouldn’t change a thing!  Happiness means different things to different people… because you disagree with what brings happiness to someone does not mean that person has "no idea what happiness is"; it simply means that happiness means something different for you.  I believe that the largest barrier to achieving happiness is the compulsive urge to control things which are out of our control (for example, the sexuality of the general population).  I submit to you that a fear of human sexuality and a consistent need to control not only the sex lives of others but the very definition of happiness is irrational and keeping you from acknowledging the fact that your truth is not a Universal Truth.

     

  • scott-swenson

    Dear Mellankelly1:

    And the people all said AMEN!


    Be the change you seek,

    Scott Swenson, Editor

  • invalid-0

    I’m sorry that you are so confused about happiness, but it is does illustrate the empty sexual hedonism that this whole site is based on, and that the whole pro-abortion movement is all about. I notice that Scott Swensen, manager of these pages, gives you a little “high-five” for saying it. What could better illustrate the real motives and thinking behind this site?

    By your definition, a rapist could be happy, because he gets physical pleasure from the sex act. Do you not realize you have a rational nature, that there are other dimensions than the physical to human existence?

    I would recommend Plato’s Republic to you (especially Chapter IX), in which Socrates refutes this hedonistic fallacy handily, although I’ve already pointed out the fundamental error behind it. Ignoring my points and repeating over and over “but I’m happy” doesn’t cut it. Let us not forget that in this post:

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/06/the-new-antichoice-democrats-can-we-work-with-them#comment-7336

    You compared the killing of an unborn baby with killing an insect or animal, and said that having an abortion was just as moral as giving birth. Now you want me to believe that you’re happy as a sexual hedonist.

    There are plenty of people living immoral, self-destructive lives who claim they are happy, and I don’t believe them either, nor should any reasonable person. To act against our nature puts us into conflict with ourselves. We cannot be happy living that way. I hope you’ll learn that someday.

    • harry834

      "a rapist could be happy"

      consensual sex is not rape.

      "Do you not realize you have a rational nature, that there are other dimensions than the physical to human existence?"

      Why does being rational necessarilly require abstaining from the physical? It was mentioned that Most people, including older adults, have sex before marriage. Do you think all these people are malfunctional? How so?

      Would they be better functioning if they pushed themselves into lifetime relationships just to please this idea? What if they don’t want to have lifetime relationships, or are still exploring? Would they be better off "sucking it up" and pushing their desires aside to satisfy this imperative?

      Unwanted committments don’t bring happiness. Neither does being excessively afraid of something that can be experienced with contraception.

      If your argument is that sex out side of lifetime bonding is bad because there’s the risk of bad emotions, then all life experiences are bad too.

       

  • invalid-0

    I’m sorry that you are so confused about happiness, but it is does illustrate the empty sexual hedonism that this whole site is based on, and that the whole pro-abortion movement is all about. I notice that Scott Swensen, manager of these pages, gives you a little “high-five” for saying it. What could better illustrate the real motives and thinking behind this site?

    By your definition, a rapist could be happy, because he gets physical pleasure from the sex act. Do you not realize you have a rational nature, that there are other dimensions than the physical to human existence?

    I would recommend Plato’s Republic to you (especially Chapter IX), in which Socrates refutes this hedonistic fallacy handily, although I’ve already pointed out the fundamental error behind it. Ignoring my points and repeating over and over “but I’m happy” doesn’t cut it. Let us not forget that in this post:

    http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/06/06/the-new-antichoice-democrats-can-we-work-with-them#comment-7336

    you compared the killing of an unborn baby with killing an insect or animal, and said that having an abortion was just as moral as giving birth. Now you want me to believe that you’re happy as a sexual hedonist.

    There are plenty of people living immoral, self-destructive lives who claim they are happy, and I don’t believe them either, nor should any reasonable person. To act against our nature puts us into conflict with ourselves. We cannot be happy living that way. I hope you’ll learn that someday.

    (This post was inadvertently placed below another, unrelated post, so I’ve reposted it here where it belongs. I would like to request that the other copy be removed.)

    • invalid-0

      “I’m sorry that you are so confused about happiness, but it is does illustrate the empty sexual hedonism that this whole site is based on, and that the whole pro-abortion movement is all about.”

      dude, if it’s so hedonistic, what are you doing here? from what i remember from church, it’s a sin to be intentionally sullying your soul with sites like this.

      now, frankly speaking, i don’t believe that…not even close, but if you are as they, which, from the way you speak, i would peg you, then…what sense is there being on the site if it is inherently sinful?

  • mellankelly1

    I’m sorry that you are so confused about happiness, but it is does illustrate the empty sexual hedonism that this whole site is based on, and that the whole pro-abortion movement is all about. I notice that Scott Swensen, manager of these pages, gives you a little "high-five" for saying it. What could better illustrate the real motives and thinking behind this site?

    Yes, because happiness is all so confusing… please, enlighten me.  I suppose the fact that you believe that my husband and I, after almost 15 years together, delight in "empty sexual hedonism" should make me quiver.  Because if you proclaim it… it must be The Truth.  Hey, know what?  I’m going to have "empty sexual hedonism" in your honor this evening… thank you so much for that.  And really, what could better illustrate our "empty sexual hedonism" then a "high-five"?  Perhaps a "HOLLAH"?

    I would recommend Plato’s Republic to you (especially Chapter IX), in which Socrates refutes this hedonistic fallacy handily, although I’ve already pointed out the fundamental error behind it. Ignoring my points and repeating over and over "but I’m happy" doesn’t cut it.

    Really?  Ah, so it’s more like "Listen to ME… I know what happiness is" (with an Arnold Schwarzenegger accent, of course) should dictate my life and my happiness… not the things which actually bring me happiness?  Hmmmm… I’m going to have to get back to you on that.  Listen, I think it’s cute and all how you claim to know the motives behind each stranger you encounter on the Internet but I’m going to need to remind you (perhaps inform you) that you are coming off just the tiniest bit extremist and (pardon me for writing this) maybe a little crazy with these proclamations.

    and said that having an abortion was just as moral as giving birth. Now you want me to believe that you’re happy as a sexual hedonist.

    I don’t know… how happy is a sexual hedonist?

    There are plenty of people living immoral, self-destructive lives who claim they are happy, and I don’t believe them either, nor should any reasonable person. To act against our nature puts us into conflict with ourselves. We cannot be happy living that way. I hope you’ll learn that someday.

    I think that people who attempt to control the lives (including the sexuality) of complete strangers are being self-destructive and appear to be unhappy.  I don’t believe that any particular person’s belief system should dictate another persons life.  I think people who substitute one addiction (be it sex, drugs or rock-n-roll) for another (be it religiousness or the compulsive need to control the lives of others) cannot be happy living that way.  Again… it appears as if we have a simple difference of opinion here.

    (This post was inadvertently placed below another, unrelated post, so I’ve reposted it here where it belongs. I would like to request that the other copy be removed.)

    I didn’t read this anywhere else so I’m hoping it wasn’t inadvertently kept in an unrelated post… I’m crossing my fingers! 

  • invalid-0

    Don’t try to take your faulty reasoning and attribute it to me, my friend. Anyone can read these posts and see what you’re doing.

    I showed that by your mere standard of “not giving consent”, you would have to claim that hugging a child is immoral. You then try to twist it and say “that’s disturbing” …but YOU are the one who made that claim, and I was showing the implication of your claim! And yes, it is disturbing that you would claim that!

    Yes, it is disturbing to see you say that the only reason child sex abuse is wrong is that the child “can’t give consent” and that there is an “imbalance of power”. It’s not just wrong for those reasons, it’s wrong because it is perverse and unnatural, because the act is not merely an act of affection, but exists to create a permanent family bond of husband and wife, which can only occur between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, which is the conclusion you are desperately trying to escape, as is obvious to anyone who reads you. And that’s why those emotional consequences, which I mentioned before you did, are so serious.

    Nice try, but it didn’t work. Instead of trying to attribute your error to me, why not just admit that your hedonistic, “sex-for-mere-pleasure” concept turns out to be wrong? We’ve all been wrong before, I’m not trying to claim I’ve never made mistakes when I debate. When one is corrected in an argument, the right thing to do is to simply acknowledge it, and then continue. It doesn’t mean you’re stupid or incapable, just that you hadn’t thought things through sufficiently before writing. We all do that sometimes.

    You’ve now admitted that there are serious emotional consequences to sexual intercourse, which is a step in the right direction. It’s something the site’s “advice” columnist didn’t even mention, as I recall. Now obviously if there are serious emotional consequences, you would need to acknowledge that it isn’t merely an act of expressing affection, like a hug (something that doesn’t create a deep emotional bond between people, with lasting consequences), but rather something more.
    Now let’s take another step in the natural line of reasoning here. If this does create a deep emotional bond between the two consenting adults, and we can see that the structure and biology of the act is oriented to bringing that about over the “long run” (within a month or two, if both are healthy), it is reasonable to ask the question: do the two have any connection?.
    Now let’s think about this rationally…do you think that it’s natural to bring forth new life, and then just walk away? Do you think that this emotional bond, which you admit exists, isn’t connected to the procreative function? And procreation involves a long term commitment by its nature.
    It’s true that the two people can use contraceptives to prevent birth. But that doesn’t change the fact that the emotional bond inherent in the act is related to the procreative function, which is an intrinsic aspect of that same act. Again, the two ACT A LIE. They deny the purpose and meaning of the act, and of the emotional bond they create, which can’t be separated from the procreative aspect of the act.

    As for your statement about not knowing anyone who regrets premarital sexual intercourse: either you are very young and socialize with an immature group of people, or you are living in one of those cultural enclaves that seals you off from the vast majority of Americans. Virtually all of my friends regret their decision to have sexual intercourse before marriage, the ones who did actually did so… not all did, to their credit.
    One study in 1970 found that 40% of people in the USA across the whole age range expressed such regret:
    http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5305387/Sexual-regret-in-college-students.html

    To anticipate your objection that the majority didn’t express regret, so what? Truth isn’t determined by majority vote. The fact is that despite what you say, large numbers of people DO repent and regret their extramarital relations. They even did so in 1970, when the sexual revolution in the USA was in high gear.

    • invalid-0

      I showed that by your mere standard of “not giving consent”, you would have to claim that hugging a child is immoral.

      No, you made a false analogy which I exposed. Since you have since done nothing to rehabilitate your argument, it stands refuted.

      You then try to twist it and say “that’s disturbing” …but YOU are the one who made that claim, and I was showing the implication of your claim! And yes, it is disturbing that you would claim that!

      As usual, you are misrepresenting my argument completely. What I said was disturbing was your (apparently continued) cavalier dismissal of the consent issue. This is the mindset of a rapist.

      It’s not just wrong for those reasons,

      So you admit that these reasons do make it wrong. Good. I was beginning to worry about you.

      it’s wrong because it is perverse and unnatural, because the act is not merely an act of affection, but exists to create a permanent family bond of husband and wife, which can only occur between two consenting adults of the opposite sex, which is the conclusion you are desperately trying to escape,

      That isn’t a conclusion; it’s an axiom. To refer to it as a conclusion is tautological. You have never demonstrated this “purpose” or “nature” from first principles. you simply assume it. Until you do, I reject it wholeheartedly.

      And that’s why those emotional consequences, which I mentioned before you did, are so serious.

      Your dogmatic assertion of the “purpose” and “nature” of sex fails to explain the vast gulf that exists between the emotional effects of one-night-stands between consenting adults (generally positive) and child rape (devastating). By your analysis they ought to be comparable. Why aren’t they?

      You’ve now admitted that there are serious emotional consequences to sexual intercourse,

      Certainly, there is a significant emotional dimension to sex (and not just sexual intercourse). The point is it doesn’t work the way you claim.

      Now let’s take another step in the natural line of reasoning here. If this does create a deep emotional bond between the two consenting adults, and we can see that the structure and biology of the act is oriented to bringing that about over the “long run” (within a month or two, if both are healthy), it is reasonable to ask the question: do the two have any connection?.

      Now let’s think about this rationally…do you think that it’s natural to bring forth new life, and then just walk away? Do you think that this emotional bond, which you admit exists, isn’t connected to the procreative function? And procreation involves a long term commitment by its nature.

      I’m afraid this isn’t going to lead in the direction you’re hoping. Pair bonding tends to last a few months to years – generally longer for females and shorter for males. If we want to take the natural biological effects of heterosexual coupling on psychology as an indication of ultimate purpose, then human “marriages” should last a couple of years, and involve a great deal of cheating by both partners.

      Then there’s the problem of female orgasm, in that heterosexual intercourse alone generally fails to bring it about in a solid majority of women. Since orgasm has powerful consequences for pair bonding, its seeming disconnect from “straight sex” has worrying implications for your position. It means that the pair bond is furthered far better by non-procreative sexual activities, a very strange thing indeed if there were some “higher unitary intent” to sexual intercourse.

      Our closest living relatives, the bonobos, offer some illumination on the subject. Bonobos use sex for tension relief and to lubricate social interactions. This includes males with females, males with males, females with females, and groups. A passing familiarity with the biology of sex blows the idea of a unified, lifelong, predetermined purpose right out of the water.

      Now let’s think about this rationally…do you think that it’s natural to bring forth new life, and then just walk away?

      Unfortunately, for males the answer is yes. Pair bonding is not an instantaneous and inescapable part of sex. It occurs in every society ever known to history and in all the other great apes. It is also natural to form a pair bond. It is also natural to “cheat” on that pair bond.

      Do you think that this emotional bond, which you admit exists, isn’t connected to the procreative function?

      That’s correct. The pair bond is connected to sex and to orgasm. It occurs whether or not the partners are fertile or even of different sexes.

      And procreation involves a long term commitment by its nature.

      By its nature, procreation involves a long term commitement from the mother. The world is full of people who were born and survived to breeding age without any commitment from a biological father. Do not confuse a social problem with a biological abnormality. Your use of a keyboard to post messages for someone potentially thousands of miles away using a sequence of arbitrary symbols that represent phonemes is a thousand times more unnatural than absent fathers.

      Methinks you have a problem with the naturalistic fallacy. What is natural is not necessarily good, and vice versa.

      It’s true that the two people can use contraceptives to prevent birth.

      Be still my heart; you made a true statement.

      But that doesn’t change the fact that the emotional bond inherent in the act is related to the procreative function,

      Actually, that isn’t a fact, but just something you made up.

      which is an intrinsic aspect of that same act. Again, the two ACT A LIE.

      Again, ignoring the fact I pointed out earlier that lying is a deliberate mental act, and taking steps to ensure sterility hours, days, or even years before the act cannot rationally be said to determine the participants’ mental state.

      They deny the purpose and meaning of the act,

      Nonsense, as the purpose and meaning of the act are defined by the participants, not dictated by you. You have failed to demonstrate that sex (which again includes more than intercourse) has an objective, unitary purpose or meaning.

      and of the emotional bond they create,

      Sex is not a mental marriage. Pair bonding does not work that way. Building a pair bond takes time, and those who do take the time are not denying their emotions if they don’t feel like having children or have no plans to get married. Pregnancy and lifelong commitment are intellectual concepts not understood at the emotional level that pair bonding operates.

      which can’t be separated from the procreative aspect of the act.

      Actually, they were never tied to procreation. Pair bonding occurs regardless of whether the potential for procreation exists or not, and whether sterility is induced or natural. There are literally no negative emotional consequences to couples using contraception vs. not using contraception. Your “analysis” consistently fails to explain why this would be.

      As for your statement about not knowing anyone who regrets premarital sexual intercourse: either you are very young and socialize with an immature group of people, or you are living in one of those cultural enclaves that seals you off from the vast majority of Americans.

      Sorry, neither is true, as your own statistics will soon demonstrate…

      One study in 1970 found that 40% of people in the USA across the whole age range expressed such regret:

      http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5305387/Sexual-regret-in-college-students.html

      To anticipate your objection that the majority didn’t express regret, so what? Truth isn’t determined by majority vote.

      Apparently I’m not the one in an isolated enclave.

      The majority does not determine Truth, so if you had some other kind of evidence to support your idea that premarital sex is harmful, it might outweigh this statistic.

      However, this is not the case. All we have is your bald assertion, balanced against one study that shows 98% of Americans have had premarital sex by age 40, and another (38 year old!) study that shows a solid majority of those who engage in premarital sex do not regret it. With the amount of indoctrination young people receive about how wrong premarital sex is, this is a stunning statistic. You cannot rationally dismiss 60% of the population as amoral, hedonistic libertines.

      So far all the evidence is against your thesis. Care to dig your hole any deeper?

  • invalid-0

    The tautology I pointed out (quite clearly, which makes it hard to believe your misrepresentation is not intentional) was in trying to prove your idea that sex outside of committed adult heterosexual relationships is wrong by saying sex with children is wrong because they are not committed adult heterosexuals.

    Finally, you can stop pretending you believe a zygote is an infant. We know you don’t. Nobody holds names and holds funerals for menses. I’m quite certain you don’t crusade against the myriad other things that reduce the chance of implantation and increase the chance of spontaneous abortion, such as aerobics, drinking coffee, and horseback riding. I strongly doubt you’re lining up to adopt frozen embryos from fertility clinics. Then, of course, there’s the fact that hormonal birth control’s suppression of ovulation means that, given implantation’s 40%+ natural failure rate, putting a woman on birth control drastically reduces the chance that a fertilized egg will be lost during any given fertility cycle.

    Your position is inconsistent with the belief that a zygote is equivalent to an infant, and 100% consistent with a desire to punish women for perceived sexual sin.

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    I actually have written pieces about managing celibacy and how it can be of benefit to people. As well, I’m not one of those folks who puts animals below us, thinks of them as mindless and without control, or feels a need to elevate myself by considering myself higher than they are in some essential way. As far as I’m concerned, we’re all animals, just with varied capabilities, resources, environments and motivations: that doesn’t trouble me because I don’t put a value judgment on that. I know y’all really like to go this route with the animals, but you gotta know, it’s really wasted on Buddhists.

    Condoms in perfect use fail, actually, 2% of the time. In typical use, they fail 15% of the time. I’m not even going to ask where your 10% in perfect use figure is coming from, because I’ve no interest in seeing the place you pull this stuff from. But just from a personal standpoint: how long is the long-run, anyway? Because when using condoms myself and doing so properly for a couple decades? I have yet to have a failure, and I’ve given them quite the field test over the years. The method I have had really fail on me, perhaps unsurprisingly, is the one you keep cheerleading so much.

    The problem, here, Matthew, is that you and I have an essential disagreement that really makes communicating any further pretty useless: you strongly feel that sex outside of your set of beliefs and ideals is harmful — and would thus, require a “condom for the soul” and I do not. There’s no point in arguing that because I can assure you that so long as I daily hear — and not even accounting for my own life and experience — people on all sides of the fence express, for themselves, to enjoy sex in many contexts and experience positives in many scenarios, and also NOT to enjoy sex and experience negatives in all these myriad scenarios — I’m going to believe what all those voices are telling me, which is that there is no one “right” way for sexuality to be a positive. You keep telling me and others that we don’t know the truth, but another insurmountable disagreement we’re going to have is that I don’t believe there is but one. It also seems clear that you, as well, are not going to diverge from your views, so what’s the point?

    Lastly? I’m not only not Catholic, I’m not heterosexual nor do I likely have whatever your idea of righteous Catholic sex is, either. So, you can talk all you want about how sex and love are only real or positive for one man and one woman all you want, or about how certain sexual activities between adults are not right or sanctioned, but since you’re talking about that to someone who has experienced otherwise, and who is not included in your magic kingdom by design, even if she wanted in (which she does not), at best it’s futile and at worst, it’s subjecting me to your bigotry.

  • invalid-0

    Amazing, how much will you degrade yourself to defend your libertine, irresponsible concept of human sexuality?

    Apes do it, so its natural for us, according to you. What reasoning! I wonder what other atrocities you will use it to justify.

    You are right that some female apes will rub their genitals with members of the same sex, at least in some groups. Apes also eat their own feces and vomit, have sex with their own offspring, and other things that I hope that you won’t try to justify — but who knows? This is, after all RH Reality Escape, the place people go to trade their mutual self-delusions!

    You say that men don’t “pair bond” for very long, and that it’s “natural” to cheat. Actually they do more than “pair bond” — they marry and stay married for years, and often for life. Responsible men don’t cheat on their wives or walk away from them. Your not a Bonobo, my confused friend, you’re a human being. Don’t try to use apes to justify your irresponsible attitudes towards human sexuality, and don’t use the existence of irresponsible behavior in other people, either. Some people murder and even eat their victims, does that make it natural? You can’t cite existing or even frequent behavior to show that it is “natural”, only that it occurs, because man, as a rational being, has the ability to choose to act in conflict with his nature. That’s the essence of evil, and sometimes whole societies, with the exception of only a few members, embrace it.

    You ask me if I’m going to say that the majority live immoral lives. The answer is: obviously they do in the USA and in this particular time period, especially if they think that extra-marital sexual intercourse is not wrong. Truth is not determined by majority vote, and societies sometimes become corrupt. American society is passing through a period of deep corruption evidenced in a variety of ways. However, a substantial percentage say that they do regret extra-marital intercourse.

    You say that absentee fathers are a mere social problem and not a biological malfunction. I didn’t say their biology malfunctioned. Their soul did. They chose something evil, which is something that man is capable of doing. He can decide deliberately, and with culpability, to go against his own nature. And yes, it does lasting harm to his children.

    Bonobos don’t need long-term family bonds to properly raise their offspring. Rational creatures, like human beings, do. And children benefit from a permanent family structure for their whole lives, as do all the members. The biology of the sexual act, including the emotional bond between the couple, cannot be separated from that natural purpose, which is why it is damaging to those who engage in “casual sex”.

    I won’t even bother to reply further to your continuing misrepresentations of what I wrote. You seem to hope that no one will go back to read my original posts. If they do, they’ll see what you’re doing, and you’ll just be discredited more.

  • invalid-0

    Certainly, what is natural for bonobos is not necessarily natural for human beings, but observation shows that the use of sex for bonding, tension release, and play are common to both species.

    In case you haven’t noticed, what I am doing is taking you to task for your continued appeals to “nature” and what’s “natural” without any regard to what actually happens in nature!

    What is “natural” to humans, if not behaviour observed throughout all time periods, across all cultures, and even in related species?

    You say that men don’t “pair bond” for very long, and that it’s “natural” to cheat. Actually they do more than “pair bond” — they marry and stay married for years, and often for life. Responsible men don’t cheat on their wives or walk away from them.

    Responsibility is irrelevant to whether a behaviour is natural. You asked whether such behaviour was natural. It is. It arises spontaneously without external prompting in every human population.

    You are now defeating your own argument. You started off claiming extramarital sex was wrong (independently of any imposed religious belief) because it was “unnatural” or went against the “natural purpose” of sex. Now I point out several things that are indisputably “natural” and you shriek about how that doesn’t make them morally right.

    Having now established by mutual consent that the attribute of being “natural” does not map to the attribute of being “right”, I will ask you to again demonstrate why extramarital sex is wrong.

    You say that absentee fathers are a mere social problem and not a biological malfunction. I didn’t say their biology malfunctioned. Their soul did.

    Please demonstrate the existence of a soul, and how they relate to absentee fathers. Please include a method of discerning their proper mode of operation and how to detect malfunction. Either that, or drop your appeals to dogma and try arguing rationally.

    You ask me if I’m going to say that the majority live immoral lives. The answer is: obviously they do in the USA and in this particular time period, especially if they think that extra-marital sexual intercourse is not wrong. Truth is not determined by majority vote, and societies sometimes become corrupt. American society is passing through a period of deep corruption evidenced in a variety of ways.

    A little delusional longing for “the good old days”? Perhaps you mean the morally upright 60s featuring rampant drug use and “free love”? Or was it perhaps the righteous 40s, with the Zoot Suit riots and Allied GIs leaving tens of thousands of illegitimate children behind in Europe? Or was it the thirties, when Lucille Bogan wrote “Shave’Em Dry” (look it up)? Maybe it was the colonial period, when a quarter or more of puritan brides were pregnant on their wedding day? Perhaps during the Crusades, when an army of prostitutes followed the righteous forces of Christendom?

    How can a society survive so long when a majority are “amoral libertines” as you would describe them? It cannot. No such thing has happened. For far longer than you’re willing to admit to yourself, extramarital sex has been going on, in secret or in the open, and society has not collapsed because it is not in itself wrong.

    You might have noticed the question was not whether they thought it was wrong but whether or not they regretted it. If it was harmful as you claim it to be, don’t you think more would have regretted it, having been somehow harmed?

    Bonobos don’t need long-term family bonds to properly raise their offspring. Rational creatures, like human beings, do.

    Nonsense, of course Bonobos need long-term family bonds. In fact the entire tribe needs to maintain cohesion. It has nothing whatsoever to do with being rational or not and everything to do with the amount of time and resources required to bring offspring to maturity.

    The biology of the sexual act, including the emotional bond between the couple, cannot be separated from that natural purpose,

    You’re a little late. Pair bonding, which is a psychological phenomenon, is not connected to actual reproduction at all. As I pointed out before (and which you continue to ignore, like a broken record), pair bonding operates on an emotional level that cannot comprehend such far off abstractions as “birth” or “lifetime”. This analysis explains why pair bonding continues unabated in sterile individuals (whether sterile naturally or artificially, permanently or temporarily) and between same-sex partners. Your “analysis” does not.

    Now, while you’re at it, perhaps you’d like to regale us on how you divine the “natural purpose” of sex without any reference to nature again?

    I don’t subscribe to your dogma which, fundamentally, is all you have to go on here. Your appeals to “purpose” are transparent references to what your religion claims to be the purpose of sex. The same applies to your appeals to nature, right, and wrong.

  • invalid-0

    I’ve always maintained that pro-aborts equate humans with animals. I’m glad you’re honest, and admit that:

    As well, I’m not one of those folks who puts animals below us, thinks of them as mindless and without control, or feels a need to elevate myself by considering myself higher than they are in some essential way. As far as I’m concerned, we’re all animals, just with varied capabilities, resources, environments and motivations: that doesn’t trouble me because I don’t put a value judgment on that.

    Speak for yourself, Heather. Actually don’t. I hate to see you tearing yourself down like that. If you don’t know the difference between an animal and a human being, you don’t know anything, you don’t even know yourself. You’re better than that, you’re more than that Heather. I hope someday you wake up and realize that.

    But people who think that they are essentially no different from an animal are precisely those who will tend to treat others like animals, to murder unborn babies, obey their passions and appetites above their reason, etc. After all, animals don’t have reason (and every attempt to prove it, with orangutans and parrots, has been rejected by the scientific community as mere mimicry, which is precisely what it is).

    I’ll be praying for you, Heather, what else can one do for someone so confused, so lacking in self-respect and respect for others?

    As for the rest of your comments: nice dodge. Claim I’m trying to impose my religion on you, when in fact I’m defending my religious beliefs against your slanders, and then ignore the non-religious arguments I used to show that contraception is immoral. And don’t act like you’re somehow insulted — you are the one who has insulted Catholics in your posts, making our religion out to be some sort of oppressive scheme to harm women. That’s hypocritical, Heather, but not unexpected from someone defending the indefensible.

  • http://www.scarleteen.com invalid-0

    I’ll be praying for you, Heather, what else can one do for someone so confused, so lacking in self-respect and respect for others?

    What else you could do? I already told you: you could go patronize and pray for someone else who WANTS you to, pay some manner of respect to the fact that some folks really don’t like having someone else’s religion shoved down their throats and recognize that when that continues to occur after we have asked for it to cease it tends to be construed as harassment.

    I know, I know, where’s the fun in that? If you only saved folks who wanted to be saved instead of working so tirelessly for us A-List sinners, it wouldn’t be as good.

    Just leaving me alone and recognizing that we’re of different opinions, different life experiences and are just very different people who choose to lead our lives differently? Also an option.

    After all, you don’t see me storming into churches giving out condoms for communion.

  • invalid-0

    Humans are animals, Matt. This is a simple scientific fact and cannot be disputed. You are a motile, heterotrophic eukaryote without cell walls. You. Are. An. Animal.

    It is patent nonsense to accuse someone of “acting like an animal”. What exactly does that mean? Does it mean to ram one’s proboscis repeatedly into the bark of a tree to root out insect living underneath? Does it mean to spend an Antarctic winter incubating an egg balanced on one’s feet? Does it mean to gather thousands of sterile individuals to tend to a single fertile female and her offspring?

    There is no such thing as “acting like an animal”. Every species, including humans, has its own behavioural norms.

    After all, animals don’t have reason (and every attempt to prove it, with orangutans and parrots, has been rejected by the scientific community as mere mimicry, which is precisely what it is).

    This is completely false.

    Here is a report in Science about a border collie that can associate new words with new objects by process of elimination

    An example of bonobos possessing language

    She and her colleagues have been testing the bonobos’ ability to express their thoughts vocally, rather than by pushing buttons. In one experiment she described to me, she placed Kanzi and Panbanisha, his sister, in separate rooms where they could hear but not see each other. Through lexigrams, Savage-Rumbaugh explained to Kanzi that he would be given yogurt. He was then asked to communicate this information to Panbanisha.”Kanzi vocalized, then Panbanisha vocalized in return and selected ‘yogurt’ on the keyboard in front of her,”Savage-Rumbaugh tells me.

    Evidence ravens understand the concept of deceit

    Many animals also pass the mirror test which demonstrates that they recognize that their reflection in a mirror is an image of themselves.

  • harry834

    that biology only describes animal and human behavior – it does not tell us which is moral and which isn’t.

    Morality and ethics are something determined beyond biologicals facts of the species. They are determined by human concepts like values, rights, human dignity, etc. However, these human concepts are not necessarilly completely separate from the animal behavior. Both apes and humans have been demonstrated to show empathy. And certain whales, and perhaps all apes have diverse cultures – like humans – to complement their innate instincts (whatever those are. the search for instincts in advanced primates is still developing, but a lot has been seen. Read Steven Pinker’s book the Blank Slate, and Matt Ridley’s the Agile Gene).

    But all these discoveries and speculations on the data are NOT the same as moral judgments. To say the opposite is to committ the naturalistic fallacy: assuming an "ought" from an "is".

    If you LISTEN to the sexual and dating lives of people beyond your approvals Matt, you’ll hear that the journeys of each person has its own pleasures and pains, in varying degreess, just like life experience.

    You ARE right when you say sexual/dating experience has the risk of emotional pain. But so does ALL life experience. Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

    Everyone has to determine their own risk assessments. But this should be done with an understanding of the realistic fears, not the "what ifs" and figments of conservative’s imagination.

    Even pushing yourself into a false choice of celebacy or lifelong monogamy comes with its own risks:

    What if I don’t know if I want to get married? Maybe I don’t want to committ to one person too soon. I’ll have to date different people at the same time to have a chance to explore.

    BUT that doesn’t mean we necessarilly have to have sex right away. Or when/if we have sex we know about the importance of preventing pregnancy. People who date without celebacy vows (MOST of the population) know the rule: "no condom, no sex".

    None of this is the definition of cheating. Only when a relationship gets more serious does the need become greater to talk about one’s other partners. But not necessarilly after a first or second date!

    We know the importance of communicating STD status to partners, and that is the wisdom Heather and others are trying to share.

    Among various other points of wisdom. Heather’s advice column goes way beyond condoms. It talks about emotions and respect, and everything related – included the best way to find pleasure while respecting your partner, whether male, female, gay, or straight.

    The point is:

    You Matt want sex education to be one sentence: be afraid, stay celebate, get a committment – no other questions.

    Ans since 95% of Americans refuse to take this vow of "marriage or celebacy" that’s why advice columns like Heather’s exists. Because whether or not people will admit it, they want to know about sex, pleasure, and relationships that have unwritten stories – like the unwritten stories of life.

     

  • invalid-0

    As for sodomy, or any other sexual behavior outside of a commitment between an adult man and woman

    You don’t REALLY think married ppl don’t ever have oral or anal sex, do you??

  • invalid-0

    But people who think that they are essentially no different from an animal are precisely those who will tend to treat others like animals, to murder unborn babies, obey their passions and appetites above their reason, etc.

    I think you have this backwards. People who think we are animals (which we are, we are primates) tend to treat ANIMALS like they deserve life as much as humans. For example, i believe we are no better than animals, and i have never eaten them or killed them (or their babies.. what animals kill their unborn babies? this is a bizarre statement).

    every animal has features that enable it to survive, our prime one is our BRAIN, so please consider using it. i use mine to plan my children, to enjoy sex in some ways other animals can’t (with toys, without making a baby every single time, with communication, etc). other primates are very close to us and DO have reason, and can even have language. Humans are not the only primate to become sentient on Earth, there were also the Neanderthals. We ARE animals, we are not somehow special or different, we just have different skills and abilities.

  • invalid-0

    I’ve been more emotionally scared by living in a straight-laced community where everything I am has been characterised as wicked or bad than when I finally learned that sex was something I could enjoy. Yes, I waited for sex with my husband- because I didn’t have anyone else I wanted to have it with- really, why bother if you’ve got a lot of baggage that no one else is going to help you work through…and you need to work through it to get to relaxing enough to have sex…let alone enjoy sex?
    My emotional scars come from a lot of things- none of them having sex. They come from the judgmental people in my school growing up, they come from the people who call what I do worthless, and they come from my father being a traveling tradesman growing up- he was around, just not much and not for the big stuff.
    Yet I’m still here. I’m doing great- I’ve learned from all that and I’ve become a stronger person. I’ve got big dreams and am well on my way to changing the city I live in and I love it. I am blessed because I didn’t just do what everyone else thought was ‘moral’- I didn’t suck it up, I lived for love and Love and it has been great. Not saying I don’t struggle- we all have a Kampf to deal with and that is what defines us. Before I learned this, conforming to others’ standards are what made me most miserable. Living for Joy and Love have made me happy.
    Living is risking unhappy, depressing, and terribly strong emotions in the negative- and yet we are all still doing it.

    Es tut mir Leid if, Harry834, you believe this an attack- I am actually trying to build on your concepts because I believe they are valid, while the nay-sayers on the board seem to be countering things right and left, ready to tear limb from limb.

    Blessed be, brothers and sisters.

  • invalid-0

    Dear Heather,

    As I scrolled down the page to write this comment for you, I whizzed past arguments on the nature of man and animal, the essence of morality and happiness, and perplexingly a brief discussion on the ethics of pedophilia. Essentially, wtf?

    Putting that aside.

    One thing I will never be able to understand is why, as a teenager, everyone else in the world seems to think they can make the decisions for me. Fortunately, I live in Australia and outside the strange and alarming world of abstinence-only education. At school, I was taught the biology of sex, the availability of contraception, the the significance and risks attached to sex. I giggled as I put a condom on a banana under the teacher’s instruction, and I had a spermicide fight with my friends. And I haven’t seemed to have turned out the twisted, diseased, pregnant creature I think opponents to a liberal sex education would liked to have seen.

    I was sexually assulted by a complete stranger on my way to school one day, and the fact that I basically understood what it was all about actually helped me immeasurably. (Apologies if this reads like an agony column. I’ll get to my point, I promise!) I always thought, “I’m a moral, upstanding girl, and, despite my atheistic tendencies, I’m going to wait till marriage for my first experience.”

    I love my boyfriend, and he loves me. I don’t know if it will last forever – I hope it will, and we are both very intense and serious people – but I have had sex with him, yes. I hope he will be my only partner.

    Not all teenagers move through partners once every few weeks. Often, opponents to teenage sex forget that there are people our age who can make informed, sensible and personal decisions ourselves, and stay in meaningful relationships for numerous years, like adults. (Do I magically become sexually responsible once I turn 20?) In my case, I discovered that it would have been disastrous to wait till we were married. The growth of my sexuality, a process which brought my lover and I immeasurably closer together, was also therapy that helped cure me of my psychological difficulties after my attack. I needed to be loved ASAP, and told that sex is not rape – if I had not had such an experience with him, by the time of my marriage (possibly to another less sensitive man), the anticipation and fear of sex would have just psychologically broken me. My relationship at the moment is stable, loving, sexual and so very happy – and, importantly, so very fear-less.

    I guess the point of this recount is that, exactly like you say, Heather, sex should be when it feels right – when you want it – between two people. Marriage is just an institution. It’s a few words and a piece of paper. Significant relationships are more important than marriage, and I don’t think you can measure these just in months and years.

    So, why does my sexual development so concern government officials, religious people, and the rest of the world?

    Why do people tell me that I can’t do what’s right for ourselves?

    Why can’t we explore our lives in privacy, and be given the right to have the knowledge for choice, and assisted, not instructed, by those who think they know best?

    Heather, your words reassure me that not everyone in the world is insane.

    <3 tristianne.