Actually, we were discussing how to tell when a relationship is exclusive. You’re the one that dragged your morality into the discussion and shot it off the rails.
I know this a total role reversal for me, but can we be a bit nicer to someone who has clearly just started posting on this forum? I know Jesse Leigh is somewhat brining this on herself by making non-evidence based assertions then promptly moving the goal posts, but I don’t think what she’s saying warrants the amount of hostility being displayed.
I had the good sense to not post until I learned how this forum works. Is that too much to ask?
I’m not being hostile. I merely pointed out that she was using the “no true Scotsman” argument, which is precisely what she was doing.
I don’t think we need to go out of our way to be nasty to newcomers, but we also should not bite our tongues when they say something we disagree with just because it might hurt their feelings.
Okay, point taken. I’ll go back to being my normal caustic self. 
Thanks for the laugh, I needed that one.
Sorry, Illuminatiprimus.
G’morning all!
To those of you who were gracious enough to type a kind word, I thank you. I’m not up on every turn of phrase so I appreciate the latitude.
I’ve been the Admin/owner of a discussion forum for a decade, give or take, so my skin is sufficiently thick enough to take whatever you feel I deserve. I’m going to be mistaken from time to time, even dense about some subjects, as are all of you. None of us knows everything, which is in large part why we come here - it’s interesting, and we learn a little more each time we do.
I laughed at myself for not knowing a saying about Scotsmen, when I’m from Scotland, but if we can’t laugh at ourselves when the joke’s on us then perhaps we shouldn’t venture into discussion forums where nowhere is it promised that people will be kind.
I did not introduce sex and morals into this discussion, I simply gave my opinion and understanding, which is worth what you paid for it. 
As discussion forums go, I like this one and find the members here are generally respectful of one another, and are, in short, an interesting group with which to interact.
I’m not easily offended, so don’t give it another thought - I won’t.
Shalom Aleikhem (Peace be upon you) - Jesse.
Just picking out another stupid argument in all this garbage. Yup. No one would ever have a broken heart if they just had sex when they were married. Because that must the only cause for broken hearts is sex before marriage. No one could possibly ever be disappointed in love if they weren’t having sex.
Where do you find this drivel, or do you come up with it yourself?
G’morning Tokyo Player!
Just a suggestion, but you might want to read the thread before you post. I’ve already addressed this and amplified my meaning and intent. I respectfully suggest that you backtrack and read a little. There’s a reason why we have two ears and one mouth. - Jesse.
That’s not how I read it.
It seems clear to me that Jesse Leigh is saying that Illuminatiprimus did not have sex “within the bounds of ‘Holy Matrimony’”. She did not say that marriages where abortions, heartaches, STDs, and what else have you were not “within the bounds of ‘Holy Matrimony’”.
Whether or not this is a good argument is up for question, but let’s at least address the argument she is making.
G’morning!
My initial intent was not to present an absolute, but to postulate that if we raised the bar and looked at marriage, making love, and making babies as sacred and ‘Holy’ there would be far fewer abortions, heartaches (caused by these things), STD’s, divorce, and related unpleasantries.
AIDS is the leading cause of death in the world today.
Abortion is everywhere commonplace - we don’t value human life.**
Making love has been reduced to ‘a fuck,’ or ‘casual sex.’
Marriage - more than half of all marriages in the western world end in divorce.
Our ‘Casual’ approach/lifestyle isn’t working.
** since 1973 more than 35 million babies have been aborted in the U.S. alone. That’s more deaths than in ALL the wars in the past 300 years combined.
http://www.htmlbible.com/abortstats.htm
We don’t respect or value each other, our children, or our integrity, and we don’t appear to understand the meaning of commitment. If we did, the question in the lead post wouldn’t need to be asked.
Shalom aleichem - Jesse.
Emphasis and editing mine.
I’m calling double plunger load of toilet fodder!
The OP reads: What event officializes a 1 on 1 relationship? How do you get from that to abortion??!!
Start another thread if you want to preach!
G’morning SixSwordS!
How do you get from that to abortion?
It’s simply one of the outcomes of ‘casual sex,’ which was discussed as part of what defines a 1 on1 relationship. If you’d quoted my entire post, you’d have shown that I see a danger in treating any human relationship casually because of the effects we’ve seen as a result of our doing so.
If I’d wanted to make abortion an issue I would have done a far more thorough job than merely making mention of it.
Have a great day - Jesse.
What exactly are you advocating? Simply treating sex as if it were a sacred act? Sex ed? Using protection with partners? Waiting 'til marriage?
It is up to you whether you choose to see intercourse as ‘a fuck.’ The prevalence of abortion is only a tragedy if you perceive it that way. Men who have sex with men account for over 70 percent of AIDS cases in the US. I assume, if you think serious relationships leading to stable marriages are a panacea to the world’s ills, you’re advocating making gay marriage legal. Or make divorce illegal?
Whose ‘casual lifestyle’ are you referring to, anyway, if not your own? Certainly you can’t point to a different place or utopian time unless you’re going to advocate, say, arranged marriage or against birth control. Help me out here.
Jesse Leigh, you state
but that is in direct opposition to your actual wording, which was
(bolding added for emphasis)
To say that these things wouldn’t exsist if only we left love making to married couples is pretty “absolute”. Beyond that, your approach to this thread has had very little to do with what constitutes a 1 on 1 relationship, and you actually have not answered the question at all, only heaped judgement onto other people and their values. I know you are new here and we love having new people around, but let me warn you that you would do better to start a separate thread for issues of morality, sex, and matrimony if you want to discuss those things and leave this thread for those who want to answer the question that was asked by the OP.
Morning!
All through this thread we’ve discussed dating, how people date in different places and countries,what constitutes a date, when sex should be introduced, or if it should, and so on.
I offered my two cents worth with everyone else and when I didn’t make myself clear enough, I amplified my answer to ensure that my intent and meaning wasn’t taken out of context.
What I would do is irrelevant since we’re discussing this issue objectively (I thought). Most of you see nothing detrimental arising from casual intimacies and I don’t share that viewpoint.
Perhaps only those who agree with one another should discuss any given subject. Is that what you’re advocating?
I’m nobody special and nobody needs to listen to me, so if you’d rather, I can simply bow out of this thread. I have an opinion, most of you don’t like it, and I’m certainly not going to argue about it. So, I’ll leave you to discuss it within your comfort zone.
Have a great day - Jesse.
Please don’t think that we don’t want your opinion on the topic. We would love to hear what you have to say! However, your first statement in the above quote about what was being discussed isn’t really correct. Everyone was basically answering the question provided or expressing their surprise at the answers that had been given and then you popped up with what appears to be an attack on the lifestyle of others that did not in any way answer the question. That is the problem we are having here. Like I said, feel free to start a thread on morals and premarital sex and all that jazz if you’d like but don’t derail this one because you want to make a point.
I don’t think it’s your view (and agreement with or lack thereof) that is necessarily the problem, it’s that it’s not very relevant to what is being discussed in this thread. No one’s telling you to go and not darken the doorstep of the Straight Dope again, just that what you’re saying is hijacking the original conversation.
Maybe you haven’t realised but we’re quite keen on keeping threads on topic here so if a thread starts to diverge enough from its original point people will often state they want to discuss the new issue more and start a new thread rather than carry on down a train of conversation which isn’t relevant to the OP. I know some boards operate differently and threads can be a bit more evolutionary, but as I said it’s not the case here.
Just a friendly suggestion.
Jesse, if you’d like to engage in a discussion about the perils of casual relationships, it’s best to start a new thread - that’s the usual etiquette around here when a discussion starts to move in a direction that’s totally different from that intended by the OP.
It’s not that we’re averse to different viewpoints (in fact, you’ll see we tend to be a very argumentative bunch and there’s nothing we love more than sinking our teeth into a good debate). It’s just that it’s not fair to the OP to derail their thread by discussing something that is only tangentially related and discouraging any further on-topic discussion in the process.
ETA: or what pbbth and Illuminatus said…
Ooooh - triple post!