Sex before Marriage

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
Guest

Postby Guest » Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:05 pm

mgormez wrote:
Sure, some can love someone and never have intercourse. However daily life teaches us that other couples do have problems and seek counseling.
.


Well, I find it a bit strange for couples to have so many problems just because they are not compatible,to an extent that they have to seek counseling. Ofcourse it's not shameful to ask for help. What's seems a bit disturbing is thaT it leads to such an extreme problem. As Virgil said, amor omina vincit- love conquers all. Perhaps these couples also lack love in their relationship?

Misty

Postby Misty » Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:09 pm

mgormez wrote:On another note, and don't take this personal please, but I don't know how old you are and for all we know you could be a 12 year old girl. That's okay but makes discussing this a bit awkward.


When I was 12 I had no interest in this topic. I'm nearly half a dozen more years older than 12. Don't worry.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:03 pm

Misty wrote:

If it was basic I am sure it would be in our GCSE biology books and sylabus, however is it not, and therefore it is not taught in our biology class.

Sex educations lesson... ooohhh we're not on that bit yet I guess...

Good point! I guess I shouldn't blame the SES for everything! Sorry if I sounded a bit aggressive - it's just that I feel very strongly about people being denied access to what I consider to be highly important information. I think pupils should be given full and frank information about these matters at school but I accept that, in this country, this too often does not happen. It seems we British are rather behind more enlightened countries such as the Netherlands when it comes to sex education. Perhaps that is why we have such a high rate of teenage pregnancies. Here's a link I found about that very subject:
http://www.sheu.org.uk/pubs/eh194jl.pdf


Misty wrote:
It does seem to all make sense to me aswell. Perhaps because my nature is more of a accepting manner than a questionable one. Isn't your first time important? If it is, ofcourse it will mean so much to you. You will do it with the one you love. Wouldn't the moment leave an 'imprint' on you, and on your heart?

Perhaps you shouldn't be quite so accepting? I'm sure the importance of one's first time varies from person to person depending on all sorts of factors. As for it leaving an "imprint" on my "antakarana", "soul" or "heart", this seems to me a rather good example of SES gobbledygook. Could you (or anyone) please explain what you mean by those terms?

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Mon Mar 15, 2004 1:04 am

Misty wrote:
mgormez wrote:On another note, and don't take this personal please, but I don't know how old you are and for all we know you could be a 12 year old girl. That's okay but makes discussing this a bit awkward.


When I was 12 I had no interest in this topic. I'm nearly half a dozen more years older than 12. Don't worry.


Okay, touch? :)

I've written something but Tom beat me with a couple of things on my mind so I've shortend it:

I don't understand the a priori necessity a first real love should be a relationship for life. That's not to say I advocate a free-for-all mentality and behave like a sailor, but people change over the years and so will you and your partner. Just staying together for the sake of the kids or mortgage is not the way to spend your life I'd say.

Love isn't just measured in time but in depth as well. You can have a far more postive life changing relationship in handful of years and remain the best buddies afterwards than others exprience in a life-time.

If you meet someone, learn to know him/her really well, talk a lot, take your time, have a fight and make it up, shed tears for deceased pets, talk about your youth, what you like about winters etc. If it happens then, it is an extension of your love, not a 'lets get it over with' thing.
Mike Gormez

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Postby mgormez » Mon Mar 15, 2004 1:14 am

Anonymous wrote:
mgormez wrote:Sure, some can love someone and never have intercourse. However daily life teaches us that other couples do have problems and seek counseling. .


Well, I find it a bit strange for couples to have so many problems just because they are not compatible,to an extent that they have to seek counseling. Ofcourse it's not shameful to ask for help. What's seems a bit disturbing is thaT it leads to such an extreme problem. As Virgil said, amor omina vincit- love conquers all. Perhaps these couples also lack love in their relationship?


I am no expert on that, but it is undeniable that many regard 'it' as an important part of their relationship.

And perhaps does love conquer all but being in love is something else.
Mike Gormez

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Mon Mar 15, 2004 3:36 am

As for it leaving an "imprint" on my "antakarana", "soul" or "heart", this seems to me a rather good example of SES gobbledygook. Could you (or anyone) please explain what you mean by those terms?

Tom, the antakarana can best be described as the psyche, rather than the soul or heart. It's most often translated from the sanskrit as meaning "organ of mind". In that context, it becomes much less mystical, imo - I doubt people would argue the possibility of first-time sexual intercourse impacting the psyche in whatever manner, be it 'positive' or 'negative'. Psychology through the ages agrees.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:07 pm

bella wrote:As for it leaving an "imprint" on my "antakarana", "soul" or "heart", this seems to me a rather good example of SES gobbledygook. Could you (or anyone) please explain what you mean by those terms?

Tom, the antakarana can best be described as the psyche, rather than the soul or heart. It's most often translated from the sanskrit as meaning "organ of mind". In that context, it becomes much less mystical, imo - I doubt people would argue the possibility of first-time sexual intercourse impacting the psyche in whatever manner, be it 'positive' or 'negative'. Psychology through the ages agrees.


Well, I would say that the "organ of mind" was the brain. (Incidentally, I once got told off at St Vedast for replying, "The mind is a function of the brain," when asked to produce a sentence with the word "mind" in it. Still, at least I wasn't savagely beaten for it.)

Even "psyche" seems a bit mystical to me. That word can be translated as "soul" and can also have metaphysical overtones when used by Jungians and the like.

Of course, if Misty's teacher had simply said that one's first experience of sexual intercourse tends to be quite important to one, that would have been fair enough, although in my case I barely remember my first time and saw it very much as a rehearsal for things to come, if you'll pardon the expression. I suspect, though, that this imprint on the antakarana is considered far more significant than that. Something to do with past or future incarnations, perhaps?

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Sorry, Misty and Katy!

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:09 pm

Sorry, I meant to write "Katy" instead of "Misty" in my previous post!

Tom

Misty

Postby Misty » Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:36 pm

Tom Grubb wrote:Well, I would say that the "organ of mind" was the brain. (Incidentally, I once got told off at St Vedast for replying, "The mind is a function of the brain," when asked to produce a sentence with the word "mind" in it. Still, at least I wasn't savagely beaten for it.)

Even "psyche" seems a bit mystical to me. That word can be translated as "soul" and can also have metaphysical overtones when used by Jungians and the like.

Of course, if Misty's teacher had simply said that one's first experience of sexual intercourse tends to be quite important to one, that would have been fair enough, although in my case I barely remember my first time and saw it very much as a rehearsal for things to come, if you'll pardon the expression. I suspect, though, that this imprint on the antakarana is considered far more significant than that. Something to do with past or future incarnations, perhaps?

Fair enough you don't remeber your first time, as I see it's only a shame that you dont, but then again we're different people and I suppose a different sex.

Speaking from a girl's point of view, the mechanical veiw is not so important as its emotional side, it is the emontional side that touches our hearts. I can just imagine you saying.... "ur heart! ur heart is nothing but an organ!" Emotions must have something to do with the 'heart'... yes, it is true, scientifically speaking our feelings are generated in the brain, however what use is a brain if it has no heart?

I'm sure every girl remebers thier first time, as there is a lot of emotional baggage, especially on thier first time.

Katy's teacher was speaking to a group of teenage girls.

And among everything she said, it is absolutely obvious that sex is absolutely important to one.

I don't think The imrpint on the 'antakarna' has anything to do with the incarnations, it is just a more shorter way of saying: The first person you have sex with will leave in imprint on your heart, it is better if you were married to that person, as you will always have them on your 'heart'.

Misty

Postby Misty » Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:49 pm

I also heard someone fairly young (17)just the other day say: "once you pop, you can't stop!!"

Doesn't it show that having sex before marriage, specially in your teens can lead you to have a multiple partners?

How many relationship as the age of 17 end up long-term, and with someone you will marry?

Should you be serious to have sex with someone?

I personally think that you shouldn't have sex if you can't handle the consequences. This also includes children as there is no contraceptive that ensures 100% that you would not become pregnant. This means enabling then to be brought up in an enviroment with both parents. I feel like Im treading in thin ground again. I am not saying that a child cannot be brought up successfully with one parent, as I have many freinds who are absulety fine living with just one parent. However I feel that having both mother and father makes life more stable for the child. That is why I see it being more practical for someone to have sex only within a marriage.

Tom Grubb
Posts: 380
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:23 pm
Location: London

Postby Tom Grubb » Mon Mar 15, 2004 10:51 pm

Misty wrote:
I'm sure every girl remebers thier first time, as there is a lot of emotional baggage, especially on thier first time.

Katy's teacher was speaking to a group of teenage girls.

And among everything she said, it is absolutely obvious that sex is absolutely important to one.

I don't think The imrpint on the 'antakarna' has anything to do with the incarnations, it is just a more shorter way of saying: The first person you have sex with will leave in imprint on your heart, it is better if you were married to that person, as you will always have them on your 'heart'.


How nice it is to read the words of someone who speaks for all women! Naturally, the women I have spoken to who have given me different opinions from yours must have been lying to me.

It's also nice to see someone supporting lesbian and gay marriages. (I'm assuming that your comment that "The first person you have sex with will leave in imprint on your heart, it is better if you were married to that person" includes those who choose to have their first sexual encounter with someone of their own sex?)

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Tue Mar 16, 2004 10:34 am

How nice it is to read the words of someone who speaks for all women!


Well Misty does NOT speak for me and, from girl talk, for none of my girlfriends either.

Misty

Postby Misty » Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:35 pm

a different guest wrote:How nice it is to read the words of someone who speaks for all women!


Well Misty does NOT speak for me and, from girl talk, for none of my girlfriends either.



Great! Care to tell me which point you don't agree with so that I may learn something too?

Misty

Postby Misty » Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:45 pm

Tom Grubb wrote:
How nice it is to read the words of someone who speaks for all women! Naturally, the women I have spoken to who have given me different opinions from yours must have been lying to me.

It's also nice to see someone supporting lesbian and gay marriages. (I'm assuming that your comment that "The first person you have sex with will leave in imprint on your heart, it is better if you were married to that person" includes those who choose to have their first sexual encounter with someone of their own sex?)


I really do hate scarcasm, I see no point for it, except trying to humiliate the person on the other side. Perhaps it's your personal way of trying to get a point across, however does it hurt to point your views out straight away?

I did not mention anything on the terms lesbian or gay relationships, for I have only been able to accept it as something that happens in this world. However just because I have accepted it, doesn't mean I understand it. I don't understand gay and lesbian relatioships.

Misty

Postby Misty » Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:51 pm

Tom Grubb wrote:Naturally, the women I have spoken to who have given me different opinions from yours must have been lying to me.


I would like to know their opinions, as I would like to know something new.

Lying to you? WHATEVER you please, you scarcam is beyond the point of being irritating!!!! If your maturity is going to lie as low as that... I feel I'm wasteing my time replying to you!.....


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests