Sex before Marriage

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
Antises

Postby Antises » Tue Mar 23, 2004 8:03 pm

I agree with the most recent Guest, even though I oppose many things that the SES put forward.

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:51 pm

so does that mean that unmarried people don't "deserve" sex IS an SES view and not just a personal one?

Antises

Postby Antises » Tue Mar 23, 2004 11:22 pm

No, it does not necessarily mean that. I replied as I did because of Mike's comment:

Very strong statement. Is that your personal opinion or the SES' view?
[/quote]

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

Postby mgormez » Wed Mar 24, 2004 8:41 am

Okay, so lets take this a step further. Non-married people have not deserved to have sex ever, is the prevalent opinion by most who replied.


Let me ask: could there be any other achievement/commitment than marriage, that entiteled people to have sex?
Last edited by mgormez on Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Gormez

Misty

Postby Misty » Wed Mar 24, 2004 10:40 pm

Let me ask: could there be any other achievement/commitment than marriage, that entiteled people to have sex?


What does marriage mean to you?

Why do people get married?

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Wed Mar 24, 2004 11:08 pm

I will jump in - marriage is a commitment to a relationship. In this country defact marriages have the same rights as "married" people who have signed bits of paper. I know of people who have NEVER signed bits of paper but are still together, raising a family etc etc. Meanwhile I know many people who HAVE signed bits of paper, and later on signed OTHER bits of paper to divorce each other.

Sex is part of a loving relationship - I see no need to have a signed piece of paper before I have sex with my partner. Yes the relationship may end - but being married is not a guarantee that the relationship will last forever.

I do not consider my past relationships "baggage" as that annoyed troll does - they have been learning experiences. Before I finally married I had a number of longish relationships and one quite long term relationship - with the latter we are both married other people and BOTH couples are good friends.

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

Postby mgormez » Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:51 am

Misty wrote:What does marriage mean to you?



Oh, I haven't made my mind up yet.

Misty wrote:Why do people get married?


You tell me.
Mike Gormez

Antises

Postby Antises » Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:09 pm

A few of my thoughts on sex and marriage (not SES views, but my personal views):

Marriage (between a man and woman, that is, not many wish to follow the example of Nero) is a *sacred* institution and is common to most, if not all, religions and cultures. The fact that it is common to such diverse peoples across many ages suggests that there just might be some sense in it.

a different guest wrote:Sex is part of a loving relationship - I see no need to have a signed piece of paper before I have sex with my partner.


To those entering a true marriage, marriage is more than signing a document (especially if a religious ceremony is involved). You also seem to have mistaken infatuation for "a loving relationship". If it was love, then you'd get married. I strongly believe that, in most circumstances, you can only love one partner in life, one exception being when the law allows you to marry more than once.

a different guest wrote:Yes the relationship may end - but being married is not a guarantee that the relationship will last forever.


It is up to the couple whether they want to make the effort so that their marriage might continue. Thus if both members are truly committed there is definitely "a guarantee". For the same reason, it is not possible to blame the current divorce rate on the institution of marriage.

The current (in my opinion, outrageous) divorce rate is due to the laxity of western, "civilized" law, which allows divorces to be effected with ease. Also, divorce is so common that many (believe it or not) do not see marriage as the union between two people but a document proclaiming their passing "love".

a different guest wrote:I do not consider my past relationships "baggage" as that annoyed troll does - they have been learning experiences.


In my experience, those who have many relationships before marriage become more experienced only in the art of "dumping" or in the rejection of "being dumped" that often arises in premarital relations. Perhaps this is one of the factors causing so many divorces? These people are also the most unhappy, less able to temper their feelings (I am certainly not an advocate of depersonalisation but I feel tempering feelings is important, if only for the sake of ensuring you do not make others unhappy).

One popular argument against marriage is that in the past when marriage was taken seriously by the majority of people, couples were not happy and households were unstable. This argument is unfounded. There is definitely a correlation between the collapse of family life and the rise in crimes by youths, drugs, sex offences, etc. (I'm not saying this is the only factor, but I feel that it is one.)

Another argument, surprisingly, is that divorce is the best thing for the children that resulted from the marriage, since children should not have to listen to arguing parents. Firstly, the problem lies in the parents' inability to control how they react to their feelings. Secondly, even so, (in my opinion) it is better that the parents remained married and maintained the semblance of a marriage for the sake of their children. In my view, if parents are not willing to do this, they do not deserve to have children! I cannot imagine the pain a child feels when he is told his parents are breaking up. It also means that the children will have substantially less faith in marriage compared to the previous generation.

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

Postby mgormez » Thu Mar 25, 2004 5:35 pm

Antises wrote:
a different guest wrote:Sex is part of a loving relationship - I see no need to have a signed piece of paper before I have sex with my partner.


To those entering a true marriage, marriage is more than signing a document (especially if a religious ceremony is involved). You also seem to have mistaken infatuation for "a loving relationship". If it was love, then you'd get married.


This is out and outright rude. I can't believe my eyes!
Mike Gormez

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

Postby mgormez » Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:37 pm

Antises wrote:A few of my thoughts on sex and marriage (not SES views, but my personal views): ...

Another argument, surprisingly, is that divorce is the best thing for the children that resulted from the marriage, since children should not have to listen to arguing parents. Firstly, the problem lies in the parents' inability to control how they react to their feelings. Secondly, even so, (in my opinion) it is better that the parents remained married and maintained the semblance of a marriage for the sake of their children. In my view, if parents are not willing to do this, they do not deserve to have children!


As luck would have it, the children are already born in this scenario. Perhaps you'd like big fosterhomes for the 'politically incorrect' parents who rather divorce than kill each other off slowely, but that does not appeal to me.

Antises wrote:I cannot imagine the pain a child feels when he is told his parents are breaking up. It also means that the children will have substantially less faith in marriage compared to the previous generation.


Likewise, can I not imagine anyone would put a child through the pain of seeing daddy physically beat mum whenever the stress takes its toll, again, and again, and again. Of course the problem lies with the parents, I never said otherwise, but the children are as much a victim, or more so, than the assaulted parent.

You totally negate the fact that the parents can have just married too young and never got the chance trully to know each other and after a few years find they are not compatible, to the point of hating eachother's guts.

Perhaps they married because of the notion that only a marriage is "true love" -- that would be ironic, if it wasn't just sad. Regardless, the family home is not a healthy place to keep children and parents under one roof and large fosterhomes for seized kids is fine in Russia but not in the West.


I am truly shocked at your view.
Mike Gormez

the annoyed

Postby the annoyed » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:28 pm

mgormez wrote:
Antises wrote:
a different guest wrote:Sex is part of a loving relationship - I see no need to have a signed piece of paper before I have sex with my partner.


To those entering a true marriage, marriage is more than signing a document (especially if a religious ceremony is involved). You also seem to have mistaken infatuation for "a loving relationship". If it was love, then you'd get married.


This is out and outright rude. I can't believe my eyes!


I don't see much rudness in those words, would you explain why you can't belive your eyes?

Antises

Postby Antises » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:56 pm

mgormez wrote:Likewise, can I not imagine anyone would put a child through the pain of seeing daddy physically beat mum whenever the stress takes its toll, again, and again, and again.

Antises wrote:...it is better that the parents remained married and maintained the semblance of a marriage for the sake of their children.

Misty

Postby Misty » Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:58 pm

mgormez wrote:As luck would have it, the children are already born in this scenario. Perhaps you'd like big fosterhomes for the 'politically incorrect' parents who rather divorce than kill each other off slowely, but that does not appeal to me.



Isn't it a more stable foundation if children had both a mother and a father living under one roof? If the couple was not married, in a consecquence of a minor argument it is much easier for a man to walk out of the house than if he was married.. am i right? And so marriage make you as a couple much stronger. It ties you with a bond, a bond which I belive gets stronger through the years. I don't understand how two people who 'once' loved each other, could end up wanting to kill each other, it does not seem to make much sense to me. Perhaps they had no idea of the meaning of love when they got married? I belive that true love never disappears, in fact it could exist is many states, however no matter what state it is at- it still exists.


mgormez wrote:
Antises wrote:I cannot imagine the pain a child feels when he is told his parents are breaking up. It also means that the children will have substantially less faith in marriage compared to the previous generation.


Likewise, can I not imagine anyone would put a child through the pain of seeing daddy physically beat mum whenever the stress takes its toll, again, and again, and again. Of course the problem lies with the parents, I never said otherwise, but the children are as much a victim, or more so, than the assaulted parent.


For two people who once loved each other, it seems quite upseting that it could lead to such an extreme as physical violence. Do you think counselling would help?

NO matter how unhappy I would be, I would try and hide it as much as possible from my children. My mum hid her sadness for me, I would do the same for my children too. Ofcourse there comes a time when your children are grown up and it is almost impossible to hid anything from them, however it shopuld be possible to get along with someoen whom you once loved under the same household for your children?

I am not saying, children cannot be brought up by sinlge parents, for I know quite a lot of people who have been brought up with one parent, however it must have been very hard atleast at some point of growing up both for the mother and the child, that is why in a ideal situation it is important for both the mother and father to be under one roof, and living happily as a family. As someone once said, this world is not ideal, however I will make this aspect of life ideal for me, for it is very important to me.

mgormez wrote:You totally negate the fact that the parents can have just married too young and never got the chance trully to know each other and after a few years find they are not compatible, to the point of hating eachother's guts.

Perhaps they married because of the notion that only a marriage is "true love" -- that would be ironic, if it wasn't just sad. Regardless, the family home is not a healthy place to keep children and parents under one roof and large fosterhomes for seized kids is fine in Russia but not in the West.


I am truly shocked at your view.


I understand your view totally, for I also live in this world where everything is just not as black and white. However I look upon the HIndu tradition and wander how so many who have gone through arrannged marriages and still are together. Doesn't compatibilty also matter to them? Doesn't their happiness matter to them? then again perhaps they see more to life than compatibilty, and perhaps they are strong enough to make life happy.

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Sex, Marriage other nice stuff

Postby Alban » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:04 am

The first thing that struck me having read the first 5 pages of this thread, is how many of those people that have been sharing their views with us have actually been married.

The reason I ask is that when I was much younger than I am now, I had similar views on the sanctity of marriage, and the SES probably played more than a small part in instilling those views in me. However, I am also human, and thus I make mistakes. I have told more than one girl that I was in love with her (fully believing it too) and would have been prepared to tie the knot there and then....and no, it wasn't immediately after a stunning session in the bedroom either.

So from that you will realise that I am both in favour of sex before marriage, and a good long period of getting it right before making a commitment.

The point is, we all try our best with what knowledge we have at the time, but as time goes on, we learn more, see more, understand more and wank less!...and before anyone jumps down my throat on that last comment, the point I'm making is that we grow less impetuous and are less likely to jump into a decision that is affected by our desire to have sex.

Marriage can go wrong for so many reasons. There are those who quite obviously should never have got married in the first place, true....but I would suggest that a large number go wrong because people just grow apart. I have seen this in my own parents who have just this month split up after 40 years.

Having gone wrong, the whole idea of "working" at a marriage is IMHO a waste of time. If you have to "work" at it, then you are not meant to be together, and you will only end up resenting your partner (I have seen this first hand too). This "working" on it was very much a view espoused by the SES when I was there, and is one of the many things that I disagreed with.

As for sex before marriage.....why the hell not. If you want to call it baggage then fine, but my baggage has good and bad stuff in it....it's called experience. I had a great deal of fun getting it and would recommend it to my children (obviously while passing on the relevant information required as a responsible parent). I learnt what I enjoy, and what I don't.....and what various partners liked and disliked. I learned from some, and shared with others....and it was all jolly fine....indeed, it is one of the finer things in life that isn't encouraged by the SES...but it beats the pants off Mozart!

And anyway...if we weren't meant to do it so much, then why is it so much fun.

And finally a word on marriage. Where on earth did the idea of marriage come from....humans, right!. You certainly don't see a lot of it in nature (although I believe there is the odd species that sticks together for life). I am for marriage (and am happily married), but see absolutely no reason for it's existance. It strikes me as just another instrument that religion has used to beat us up with over the millenia. So, if peple want to stick together for a long or short period of time, have kids, or stay childless, or indeed have no sex or have massive gay orgies, it really is of no consequence to me...and I suggest that nor should it be to anyone else.

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

Postby mgormez » Fri Mar 26, 2004 12:15 am

the annoyed wrote:
mgormez wrote:
Antises wrote:
a different guest wrote:Sex is part of a loving relationship - I see no need to have a signed piece of paper before I have sex with my partner.


To those entering a true marriage, marriage is more than signing a document (especially if a religious ceremony is involved). You also seem to have mistaken infatuation for "a loving relationship". If it was love, then you'd get married.


This is out and outright rude. I can't believe my eyes!


I don't see much rudness in those words, would you explain why you can't belive your eyes?


Sure:

Infatuation

- A foolish, unreasoning, or extravagant passion or attraction.
- An object of extravagant, short-lived passion.

Source: The American Heritage? Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

==

Infatuation

1 : to cause to be foolish : deprive of sound judgment
2 : to inspire with a foolish or extravagant love or admiration

Source: Merriam-Webster Online



I take offence at being told that basically if a person doesn't marry, he/she is just on the hunt for short lived fooolish affairs, and doesn't know what "a loving relationship" is.
Last edited by mgormez on Fri Mar 26, 2004 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mike Gormez


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests