Sex And Adultery
Owen1
Join Date: 2003-04-13 Member: 15457Members
Join Date: 2003-04-13 Member: 15457Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">should there be a test?</div> now, i'm thinking to myself, at what point would it be morally right to be allowed to have sexual intercourse;
when the law sais?
when your sexually active?
or when you can be proven to be a responsible adult?
i myself think that there should be a standardising test that is incurred on teenagers at the age at which they hit puberty, seeing if that when people grow, their minds and opinions mature aswell. would any of you rightly take part in a test to detirmine if you deserve the right to have intercourse before the age of 16 (the average in most western societies)? or would it be best to just base it as a recommendation rather than a law?
when the law sais?
when your sexually active?
or when you can be proven to be a responsible adult?
i myself think that there should be a standardising test that is incurred on teenagers at the age at which they hit puberty, seeing if that when people grow, their minds and opinions mature aswell. would any of you rightly take part in a test to detirmine if you deserve the right to have intercourse before the age of 16 (the average in most western societies)? or would it be best to just base it as a recommendation rather than a law?
Comments
I'd rather have a law than a "test". It's not as if doctors are always right, and I don't think that maturity is that easy to gauge as it is.
What I think is probably more important (and this is where I'm trying, albeit feebly, to tie in with your question of morals) is making sure that people are educated properly on the matter by the time they start thinking about engaging in sexual acts. I think Snidely is right about the fact that maturity is difficult to guage, but what you can do is at least make a decent effort to see that people are informed enough to take a mature stance on the matter. What I'd also like to see is parents being encouraged to talk about it more with their children. Granted, this is likely to be embarrasing for both parties, but if you think about it, it's a hell of a lot more preferable to not being told, and having to learn about it from the internet or something.
I see where you're coming from, but I think the current laws seem okay. I think teaching their kid(s) about life is more in the domain of the parent than the school, like Insane said.
Bear in mind that adolescence is all about growing up - and a big part of that is experimentation. Sex, smoking, drugs, drinking... a lot of kids do these things whether they're supposed to or not. I doubt they'll care much about a maturity test. To be honest, I see people who probably wouldn't pass that test pretty much every day - and I'm talking about people aged 25 years and upwards. ):<
If the couple engage in a sexual relationship and find they cant handle it, then they can quite simply stop and wait until they feel they can handle it. Any serious relationship, however, does not require sex, and as such it is not a priority to any healthy relationship.
This is a little arbitrary, but over the past century or so, puberty has steadily started at an earlier age, probably from nutritional improvements. So, many kids mature faster physically than they do mentally and emotionally, and are thus not always able to contemplate all aspects concerning sex. In that case, I think it's up to the parents to teach their children about the dangers (and not just the schools).
"OMG OLD FASIONED!!!111"
The answer (and I'm still struggling to see any reference to adultery) is that you consent within the provisions of law of your state and nation, and when you feel ready to. When you reach the age of majority, the decision becomes yours.
Should you wish to change the laws of the land, you can petition your governmental representative to sponsor a bill raising/lowering the age of consent.
"OMG OLD FASIONED!!!111" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would venture that thoughts like these contribute to the rediculously high divorce rates.
Sex is a basic need, and if you can't get it taken care of at home you're gonna go get it taken care of elsewhere. That's going to send the relationship down the drain real quick. Going into a marriage blind as to whether or not you can meet each other's needs (and enjoy the process) is not a good strategy.
Much more realistic is to live with someone for six months when serious, and then plan to get married, cuz your marriage is also going to fail if you can't stand being around a person every single day for many hours. Dating simply doesn't bring that to a test.
If you're gonna do something, do it right. A failed marriage is much worse (particularly if kids come of it) than "living in sin." The same applies to sex: if there's no love involved, it's not going to be nearly worth the enourmous trouble than sex can cause.
"OMG OLD FASIONED!!!111" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would venture that thoughts like these contribute to the rediculously high divorce rates.
Sex is a basic need, and if you can't get it taken care of at home you're gonna go get it taken care of elsewhere. That's going to send the relationship down the drain real quick. Going into a marriage blind as to whether or not you canb meet each other's needs (and enjoy the process) is not a good strategy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely disagree with you on that one. I think that the cohabiting is what leads to the divorces. Suddenly, when you get married, things change. What you had before is gone. The relationship is completely different. People think that it is the same, but it cannot be. Ok, so I am not speaking from experience, but I can use my common sense.
Sex is not, no mater what you say, a basic need. Food and water are basic needs. There are people who live thier whole lives without it (Nuns, monks...). A Relationship should not be about sex. Thats what prostitutes are for. A relationship is about loving, giving and recieving it. Marriage is not about "sex on tap" If you are getting married so you can have sex, you need to think again.
If you cannot get your sexual deisres fulfilled in your marriage, you need to talk to your spouse. That is what mariage is about, communication. If you do not love your spouse enough to tell her what you feel, you should not have got married in the first place
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Much more realistic is to live with someone for six months when serious, and then plan to get married, cuz your marriage is also going to fail if you can't stand being around a person every single day for many hours. Dating simply doesn't bring that to a test.
If you're gonna do something, do it right. A failed marriage is much worse (particularly if kids come of it) than "living in sin." The same applies to sex: if there's no love involved, it's not going to be nearly worth the enourmous trouble than sex can cause. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think we can turn to facts for the answer to this one. In society over the last 50 years, cohabitaion has risen dramtically. Strangly enough, so has divorce. I think I remeber reading somewhere that the average amrerican marriage lasts 18 months. I wouldn't mind betting that this is because people live with each other for a time, say 6 months, then get married, then realise that it isn't how they thought it would be like, and divorce.
Sorry, but I just don't see how waiting until you get married, something your grandparents, and their parents did, contributes to divorce.
I don't know about the US, but that isn't the case in the UK. Sex under 16 is illegal; and the girl is always assumed to be the victim. I remember how a couple of kids at school got caught; the male was 18, the female was 14. He got expelled, and the event got put down on his criminal record. Furthermore, if she had told the police that she had been forced, he could have easily been done for rape.
For homosexuals, I think the age limit is 18. There was a bill to change it to 16, but I think it was chucked out by the Lords.
Then allow me to provide a case in point. I cohabited for a few years before marrying Mrs B. Of course the relationship isn't the same, but then there'd be no point marrying otherwise.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Sex is not, no mater what you say, a basic need. Food and water are basic needs. There are people who live thier whole lives without it (Nuns, monks...). A Relationship should not be about sex. Thats what prostitutes are for. A relationship is about loving, giving and recieving it. Marriage is not about "sex on tap" If you are getting married so you can have sex, you need to think again <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I disagree here, for a normal healthy marriage I'd say sex is a definite need. No one is saying people are getting married to have sex (you seem to have ignored everything you wrote about cohabiting there), but I would contend that a marriage is more likely to fail without sex. Certainly marriages are about loving and sharing and wanting to be with someone, but its also about sex. I don't want to come across as saying "this is how it is" but as a married person, and someone that frequents forums on marriage and parenthood, I can categorically say that there are lots of people whose marriages are failing through a lack of sex, and none that I can remember flourishing by it.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you cannot get your sexual deisres fulfilled in your marriage, you need to talk to your spouse. That is what mariage is about, communication. If you do not love your spouse enough to tell her what you feel, you should not have got married in the first place <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If they refuse? what? Leave them? Force them?
A marriage is about communication, certainly, but all the talking in the world won't satisfy you if your partner has gone off sex.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think we can turn to facts for the answer to this one. In society over the last 50 years, cohabitaion has risen dramtically. Strangly enough, so has divorce. I think I remeber reading somewhere that the average amrerican marriage lasts 18 months. I wouldn't mind betting that this is because people live with each other for a time, say 6 months, then get married, then realise that it isn't how they thought it would be like, and divorce.
Sorry, but I just don't see how waiting until you get married, something your grandparents, and their parents did, contributes to divorce. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A quick, and irrefutable answer to this one. "You are not your parents, this is not 1960". You may as well say "The victorians had a low divorce rate, and they allowed you to marry 6 year olds, since the divorce rate has gone up, we should start marrying 6 year olds again...." This is the 21st Century, your parents married in the 20th. Whats next, dowries? Inter-clan marriages? Marriages for land? Dragging a woman back to your cave?
Then allow me to provide a case in point. I cohabited for a few years before marrying Mrs B. Of course the relationship isn't the same, but then there'd be no point marrying otherwise.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
How long have you been married?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I disagree here, for a normal healthy marriage I'd say sex is a definite need. No one is saying people are getting married to have sex (you seem to have ignored everything you wrote about cohabiting there), but I would contend that a marriage is more likely to fail without sex. Certainly marriages are about loving and sharing and wanting to be with someone, but its also about sex. I don't want to come across as saying "this is how it is" but as a married person, and someone that frequents forums on marriage and parenthood, I can categorically say that there are lots of people whose marriages are failing through a lack of sex, and none that I can remember flourishing by it.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes, sex is a part of marriage, just as dessert is part of a meal (not quite the same without it) Yes, marriages fail because of a lack of sex, but there are two sides to every coin. Its not just about the sex.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If they refuse? what? Leave them? Force them?
A marriage is about communication, certainly, but all the talking in the world won't satisfy you if your partner has gone off sex.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As I said before, if the only reason you got married was to have sex on tap, then, yes, you would leave them. There are people who get married just for the sex, but they are missing out.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
A quick, and irrefutable answer to this one. "You are not your parents, this is not 1960". You may as well say "The victorians had a low divorce rate, and they allowed you to marry 6 year olds, since the divorce rate has gone up, we should start marrying 6 year olds again...." This is the 21st Century, your parents married in the 20th. Whats next, dowries? Inter-clan marriages? Marriages for land? Dragging a woman back to your cave?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, times have changed, yes society has changed, and, yes it was better in the "old days". I am not saying get married at 6, that it going to the opposite extreme. Notice I said the last 50 years, not the last 4000. I may not be my parents, and this may not be 1960, but that doesn't invalidate the fact that divorce has rised with cohabitation.
Yes, there are many people who cohabit, then get married and live together for the rest of thier lives, but there are also many people who cohabit, get married and then divorce.
Here:<ul>First Cohabitants </li><li>37% Dissolve (10% to 30% intend never to marry)</li><li>10% Stay Together Cohabiting</li><li>53% Marry (50%+ higher divorce rate than non-cohabitants)
Serial Cohabitants</li><li>26% Women Marry (50%+ higher divorce rate than non-cohabitants) </li><li>19% Men Marry (50%+ higher divorce rate than non-cohabitants)
Non-Cohabitants</li><li>55% Stay Married</li><li>45% Divorce</li></ul>Statistically, a relationship that involved cohabitation before marriage is more likely to end in divorce. State all the examples you want to the contrary, but those are the facts.
Numbers taken from <a href='http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/rate.htm' target='_blank'>http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/rate.htm</a> , Sources for that page including studies are at the bottom.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> How long have you been married? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
6 years, cohabited for 3 odd before that. Sweet Jeebus, thats nearly a decade.....
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Oh yes, sex is a part of marriage, just as dessert is part of a meal (not quite the same without it) Yes, marriages fail because of a lack of sex, but there are two sides to every coin. Its not just about the sex. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm glad we agree, sex is not everything, but its a key component.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> As I said before, if the only reason you got married was to have sex on tap, then, yes, you would leave them. There are people who get married just for the sex, but they are missing out. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not really satisfied that answers the question, but since we agree that sex is a key component of a marriage, I think I'll let it pass.
*****
To return to the meat of the topic, I've no doubt there are people that feel they are ready for sex before their legal age of consent, however unless you want to break the law, you cannot indulge in it. At the moment the test is based purely on age. I think thats about as good a test as any.
Sorry, but I just don't see how waiting until you get married, something your grandparents, and their parents did, contributes to divorce. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A quick, and irrefutable answer to this one. "You are not your parents, this is not 1960". You may as well say "The victorians had a low divorce rate, and they allowed you to marry 6 year olds, since the divorce rate has gone up, we should start marrying 6 year olds again...." This is the 21st Century, your parents married in the 20th. Whats next, dowries? Inter-clan marriages? Marriages for land? Dragging a woman back to your cave? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'll have to get the club out of the garage then, I guess <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Anyway, just because divorce rates have gone up, doesn't mean that married couples are less happy. It could just as easily mean that the unhappily married couples are not staying together. I think you'd agree that the stigma against divorce has dropped significantly over the last few decades, from a period where it was taboo, to now where it is unfortunately very common.
I think the divorce rate is a symptom of a much deeper problem that's been around for a long time, but specifically what it is I couldn't tell you.
The whole point to eating and drinking is so that you can survive long enough to have sex, for survival of the species. In <i>any</i> animal, including humans.
I find it really frustrating that people have trouble seperating sex and love. There can be sex without love, there can be love without sex, and there can be love AND sex. Sex is not love, love is not sex.
More on-topic... I don't think there should be a test or anything. <i>Who</i> would judge it? Nobody is impartial on the subject, every judge would probably let their own morals get in the way of the decision. Personally, I think that you <b>know</b> when you're ready for sex. Only you. You might be physically capable of sex, but if you're not mentally capable of understanding what is involved in sex, what the risks are and how to go about it safely, you have no business having sex. If you're twelve, but physically and mentally capable of having sex, go for it. (Any claim that no twelve-year old is mentally ready for sex will be regarded as ageism and receive no response from me. I'm only fifteen, but have been told that I'm much more mature and responsible than people twice my age.)
In my opinion, the only reason why people think it can be mentally disturbing for young people to have consentual sex is because that's what they have been told all their lives, and what they will pass on to their children if they have any. As long as you haven't been damaged or forced in to sex and you wanted to have sex, there is no reason why you should be mentally damaged by it.
Those who live their whole life without sex are really missing out on a great experience.
To actually hold a valid oppinion on this, you would have to live two lives, one with a lotta sex, and one without any.
<a href='http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0891072926/qid=1080449979/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-6127468-1663358?v=glance&s=books&n=50784' target='_blank'>How Should We Then Live: The Rise and Decline of Western Culture, Francis A. Schaeffer</a>
For those of you who may be interested, anyway. That's pretty much exactly my view.
This is a lot less impartial then I like to be, but rape victims can attest that there is definately a phsycological link between any two people having sex. Clearly they feel violated and often are phsycologically damaged. If we accept that sex is a phsycologically binding experiance then we come to a point where it is difficult to determine what damage sexual intercorse may or may not be doing in any given situation, phsycological damage is never easy to assess.
On a somewhat unrelated note, I think most people can agree that it would be the coolest thing ever if you actually did save sex for the person that you want to be with for the rest of your life, although you can't really use that alone as a argument for why you shouldn't have abundant sex with everyone and anyone.