I disagree. Dio specifically said,
This is more certainly the same as telling specific people (i.e. the ones who choose abstinence) that they are wrong for believing as they do.
Firts of all, I’ve already said that I’m only talking about abstinence with the context of a relationship. IMO, it is immature and emotionally stunted to refrain from having sex with a person who you love. I’m not saying that people should have sex for the sake of it (although there’s nothing wrong with that).
Secondly, I am merely expressing an opinion. I am emphatically NOT suggesting that anyone should be coerced into doing something they don’t want to do. I am merely looking down my nose at certain choices, not attempting to deprive anybody of those choices… I respect people’s right to believe whatever they want, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect the belief itself. I respect people’s right to smoke or pierce their genitalia. That doesn’t mean I can’t also think they’re stupid choices.
Diogenes:
You respect people’s right to smoke their genitalia?
:eek:
Gives a whole new meaning to “smoked sausage.”
Wow, I feel weird sticking up for DtC, but I just want to keep this discussion on point.
I think it’s unfair to call foul on DtC for giving his (not so humble) opinion. Last time I checked most of the discussion on this board boil down to people being called ‘wrong for believing as they do’. There are dozens of threads where Kerry/Bush supporters are basically called stupid for supporting their guy. How is this particular instance different? Why single out this particular instance to get offended over?
Jeez, I don’t spend much time in Great Debates, and look what happens. I get involved in a Great Debate.
For both my fiance and I, “no sex before marriage” would’ve been a dealbreaker. Both of us feel that sex and physical intimacy is an integral part of marriage, and would view marrying someone without having sex is akin to buying a used car without taking it out on the highway. You can get a kinda-sorta-basic idea of how the car runs, but you have no idea what’s going to happen once you hit 55.
For me, this stems from personal experience. My ex boyfriend–lavish though he might have been in pretty words and promises–was just about the world’s most selfish lover. It was All About Him and His Dick. We had frank discussions about sex beforehand; it was only when we were in bed together that our true colors were revealed. And, from what I hear tell from others who’re still involved in his life, it is STILL about him and his dick. Some girls like that. I don’t. And, if I’d abstained, and things’d worked out and we’d gotten married, that would’ve been a NASTY surprise, probably one that would’ve resulted in divorce.
That being said. . .that’s MY personal experience. I find sex to be a very important part of a relationship. Some people don’t place the same importance on sex that I do, and that’s their choice. Since their priorities are quite different than mine, though, I’m not going to date or marry them. And I’m certain that there are no lack of upstanding, handsome/beautiful, abstaining individuals in this world who would be more than willing to court, date, and marry them. And they’ll be happy. Just not with me. So it goes.
I think what makes this a little different is, unlike the Kerry/Bush thing, each side feels the need to persuade the other side, because we’re all affected by who is elected. But this—this is a very personal thing, and it’s something that doesn’t affect anyone else, really. It’s obviously not affecting anyone else. It’s not hurting anyone else. It basically has zero impact on anyone else, because it’s primarily a personal, private issue.
While having an opinion, that it’s strange or “not for you” is relevant, getting downright hostile (which is what I’ve seen examples of here) is weird. Would some of you get hostile if some strangers liked broccolli? Or had some personal like or dislike that was exclusive to their own private home, and was something that you didn’t have to see, didn’t change the way you lived in any way? Some of us find it extreme, to say the least, to get so pissed off about someone else’s completely private business.
You could say that about any thread about sex or religion or any number of things. The OP asked for opinions and got them. There’s nothing “personal” going on here because we’re not talking about specific people, only a specific sexual practice.
By your logic we could never talk about gay issues because homosexuality is “personal.”
BTW, who exactly is “pissed off” about abstinence? I’m not.
And those same couples are unlikely to talk about it if they are not having it. There are going to be couples who talk, and those who don’t. The ones who don’t might have some chance of finding a problem before marriage, even if they are less likely to solve it. I believe in marriage enough that I want all couples to go in with the best shot at making it work.
We tried that, but we couldn’t keep it lit.
I never said that it shouldn’t be discussed. Here’s what I said:
It is. It’s weird. I don’t know if some of you realize that you are letting off this “pissed” vibe, but several of us have noticed “hostility.” I’ve noticed it before from others (my friend I cited previously). It’s like some of you take it so personally. Like they’re doing something to you by abstaining. That’s weird.
We discuss homosexuality here, but people who are hostile towards gay issues are not viewed upon with a favorable eye, in part because it doesn’t really affect anyone else, is private, personal, and isn’t really anyone else’s business. Same thing should apply with this, I think.
Several people, not just me, have made an observation about the “hostility” towards abstinence. I interpret that as “pissed.” YMMV, but your comments certainly have caught our attention. 
No matter how you spin this, pal, you’re still saying that people are wrong for believing as they do… which runs counter to archmichael’s claim.
You may explain WHY you believe as you do, and that is your prerogative … but you’re still claiming that other people are wrong in their beliefs, which makes archmichael’s claim false.
No amount of spin will change that.
I’m still trying to get an answer to my question about a rational reason for it. If your favorite magical sky pixie says it’s a no-no, fine. If you both just don’t want too, fine also. But I’m hearing stuff about how the abstinent are better prepared than those who do, and a slant that sex before marriage is either just jumping into bed or a product of lust. I don’t believe that for a second. “We don’t want to” is cool, but “anybody who wants to is low quality” (vs. being incompatible) is not so cool.
And I disagree with Evil Captor in one respect. It seems there is a distribution for desired frequency of sex. Some people appear not to be interested more than once a quarter. This could be due to psychological problems, or medical problems, but it could also be just how that person is built. I don’t see how you would find this out without a sexual relationship - in our sexed up age few would admit to it, or they might think they are being observant, or a partner might think that the person could be “cured.” These people, not being very interested, would be naturally abstinent. If they marry similar people, everyone wins. If you hope to be compatible by guessing, you’re going to get some percentage of problems, and we’ve seen testimony already.
BTW, my parents got married secretly in the late 1930’s, because they couldn’t afford an apartment and wanted sex. It clearly didn’t hurt the longevity of their marriage, but it seems a shame they never had a real original wedding with parents and friends.
You’re correct. I think they’re wrong. Is this the first time anyone on this board has ever thought somebody else was wrong? Is that against the rukes now?
BTW, you also think that I’m wrong, do you not? And not just about this issue either.
Another thing, here’s what archmichael actually said.
The implication here is more than just expressing a general opinion on a message board. He’s saying that I haven’t specifically tried to tell a specific person how to live his or life. We are talking in generalities here. We all think other people are wrong about certain things, but usually we don’t interpret those opinions as personal vendettas against the private lives of others.
If I say that people “should vote for Kerry,” that doesn’t mean I’m butting into anyone’s life and telling them who to vote for.
If you want to continue the DtC debate, please answer his question:
When did it become the Straight Dope rule that you can’t say someone is wrong for their opinion?
You’re painting yourself into a corner here. A Bush supporter can be called wrong because that vote affects everyone. But a person who reviews Gigli as being the greatest movie ever put on celluloid cannot be called wrong because it’s his person opinion and it doesn’t affect anyone? Huh? What?
“Personal, private issue” What does that mean in the context of someone posting in on a high traffic internet forum.
I don’t see the hostility that you’re talking about. I see people reacting to the judgemental attitude. This is the problem with any religious related debate.
A: I (don’t do XXX)/(or do XXX) because that is what my god/religion commands.
B: Not really much to debate, because how can you debate a matter of faith? So how’s it going for you? Isn’t it hard?
A: Oh, it’s wonderful. Not only does it XXX, but it adds XXX to your life. It really is a better style of life.
B: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Saying XXX is what you choose to do is one thing. Saying that XXX is better, you are going to have to back up with logic.
A: Well [insert personal anecdote here] so you see it does work.
B: Well I seen it where [insert personal anecdote here] so what does that prove. Where is the logic.
The debate usually devolves from there.
To get back on point, is it purely a matter faith? If you are faithful to the abstinence, God will provide a good mate? If you marry someone who is not a match, do you write it off as “all things happen for a reason”?
C’mon, stop sidestepping the issue, JThunder. If you’ve studied biology of indeed watched nature programming much, you’d know that the two major activities are
- Eating
and - Mating
Didja here that? Mating. Mating! MA-TING!
Now, just because the effects of abstaining from mating aren’t as obvious or immediate as the effects of abstaining from eating, doesn’t mean they aren’t there. The sex impulse is powerful, it informs what human beings do and how they behave in all sorts of ways. Damming it up is not a trifling thing, it’s like damming up a mighty river – water levels are gonna rise, pressure will build. Exactly how that affects people varies. Many are able to cope with it and not turn into total whackjobs, but it’s hard to say how different their interior landscapes are from the norm without being able to read their minds.
And I’m not mad at people who abstain. I just don’t have any deep respect for them because they are abstaining. To me, they’re just people who’ve made a choice, and not a very good one. I think what some of you are perceiving as hostility may simply be a lack of the automatically proferred respect for abstaining that some elements of our culture have.
I’ve heard a close cousin of this argument used to suggest homosexuality is unnatural.
It came across as strange to me that anyone would accuse people who don’t have sex outside marriage as either mentally ill or on a certain path towards mental illness.
Human beings control a lot of instincts. Saying it’s unhealthy to only have sex under a certain set of circumstances is like saying it’s unhealthy to constrain your shitting to the bathroom. After all, what would happen to a rabbit or a bear if you forced them into such an unnatural situation of delaying vital functions?
Just like some people believe we are wired to need sex, some people believe human beings are wired to be monogamous and that any other arrangement is going to cause emotional problems in the long run. My mother is not religious, but she always told me that you should wait for marriage because she thinks it’s emotionally safer than having many affairs. I think she was wrong, but I see her thinking.
It’s not weird to think people who abstain are crazy but it’s weird to be so serious about it. There’s a difference between saying, “personally I think people who abstain are weird and crazy,” and saying, “If you watch any nature show you will see that abstaining clearly causes derangement and furthermore, religious people are on a high horse.” That’s just taking things a bit far.
It seems like maybe people have a bitterness towards the idea because they think it’s impossible for someone to abstain without looking down on people who don’t. Either way, it’s surprising to see that the wanton sluts and the prudes can’t happily exist side-by-side in this day and age of tolerance and acceptance.
I don’t think it’s analogous. The drive to have sex is not the same as a drive to reproduce. It is the deliberate and irrational suppression of the sex drive which is unnatural, not the failure or lack of desire to reproduce. Animals don’t have a sex drive because they want to reproduce, they just want to bust a nut. They are horney because their parents were horny and the horniest individuals are more likely to reproduce. That doesn’t mean that sex or the sex drive have any teleogical purpose for reproduction. Reproduction is merely an incidental result of the sex drive, not the reason for it.
Abstinence within the context of a relationship is more akin to already being in a bathroom with a toilet, but refusing to take a shit because there are blue tiles in the shower and you read in a book that an invisible, magic sky pixie will set you on fire if you shit in a bathroom which has anything other than green tiles.