Jump to content

Home

Abstinence


Emperor Devon
 Share

Recommended Posts

Go back to 1950, Jae. :p

 

To the original point, I agree with you. It's good to see someone else who supports abstinence. :)

 

Oh, I wasn't kidding about the boy having to come in and meet us. No young man is going to sit out in his car and impatiently honk his horn for her to come out. He's going to show respect for her and come to the door, chat a little with us, discuss any ground rules, and so forth.

 

And a point I didn't make earlier--even if one 'messes up' (I was about to type 'blows it' and maybe 'screws up', and then thought about all the naughty little minds here....) or has simply never decided to be abstinent before, there's always a place to start/restart. Just because you've rocked your socks off in the past doesn't mean you can't stop and decide to wait until you're married or have the solid commitment with someone.

 

@The Doctor--just enjoy the time with her. If it works out, great, if not, you'll have some wonderful memories and experiences. I was engaged to a guy at one point before it fell apart. While breaking up was hard, I still have some terrific memories of the times we spent together. And it's definitely better to break up before a marriage than after. Divorce lawyers are not cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, I wasn't kidding about the boy having to come in and meet us. No young man is going to sit out in his car and impatiently honk his horn for her to come out. He's going to show respect for her and come to the door, chat a little with us, discuss any ground rules, and so forth.

 

I meant the "sir" part. Great way to make him feel welcome. :p

 

And it's definitely better to break up before a marriage than after. Divorce lawyers are not cheap.

 

In addition to the costs that come with splitting and dividing things. Divorces are expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant the "sir" part. Great way to make him feel welcome. :p

 

Actually, the 'sir' thing is very much a part of Southern culture. When I lived near Houston for a year, I had to get used to being addressed as 'ma'am' by every child. I grew up in the North where it's just not used with great frequency. One mother absolutely insisted with her child one time that it was not 'yes', it was 'yes, ma'am'. I almost told her that it was OK, he didn't have to use 'ma'am' with me, and when I looked at mom, I realized it was extremely important to her. So I kept my mouth shut and learned to adapt. Our kids use 'ma'am' and 'sir' with folks we don't know well because Jimbo and I decided we liked how polite it sounds, even though we now live in the Great White North where it's used relatively rarely. You know, subtle cultural language differences might be an interesting thread once I get that RP chapter done. :)

 

Of course, if I were a boy meeting an intimidating father for the first time who tells me he's just finished sharpening knives, I don't know that I'd address him as 'Yo, dude!'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our kids use 'ma'am' and 'sir' with folks we don't know well because Jimbo and I decided we liked how polite it sounds, even though we now live in the Great White North where it's used relatively rarely.
You see, that's interesting. The UK is fairly well-mannered, on the whole. I have used the words "madam" and "sir" in contexts such as: "Excuse me madam, you're standing on my foot".

 

But I would personally never use deferential phrases like "yes sir". Not with teachers, not with older people, nobody. Since I am the equal of any man or woman, (and each man and woman is my equal,) I defer to nobody, and my children shall be taught the same thing. Nobody will be allowed to appear as though they are better than my kids, in short. Likewise, I don't expect anyone else to defer to me.

 

I believe that common courtesy should apply to everyone, but serious hierarchical respect, as in militaristic respect... that would have to be earned. I would have to earn it from others, and others would have to earn it from me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I would personally never use deferential phrases like "yes sir". Not with teachers, not with older people, nobody. Since I am the equal of any man or woman, (and each man and woman is my equal,) I defer to nobody, and my children shall be taught the same thing. Nobody will be allowed to appear as though they are better than my kids, in short. Likewise, I don't expect anyone else to defer to me.

 

I believe that common courtesy should apply to everyone, but serious hierarchical respect, as in militaristic respect... that would have to be earned. I would have to earn it from others, and others would have to earn it from me.

 

That tends to be the attitude in my part of the country also, but it's not down in the South. Children are expected to show respect to their elders, and that's just the way it is for them. Adults are expected to show respect for those who are their superiors in whatever field--I often received a 'yes ma'am' from adults who had come to my office, but I never _expected_ it, and I was honored they considered me worthy of that level of respect. However, if I saw that person in another setting and they had the position of authority, I'd be expected to use the 'yes ma'am/sir' instead. They don't view it as 'militaristic respect', they view it as common courtesy. They view those who refuse to do this (as opposed to those who are just ignorant of their common conventions--they're more than willing to excuse mistakes out of ignorance) as militaristically individualistic, disrespecting of society, and incredibly rude. It's a very different mindset.

 

I'd rather be overpolite than underpolite. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Children are expected to show respect to their elders, and that's just the way it is for them. Adults are expected to show respect for those who are their superiors in whatever field--I often received a 'yes ma'am' from adults who had come to my office, but I never _expected_ it, and I was honored they considered me worthy of that level of respect.
But you see, that's exactly the problem with socially enforced deferential behaviour. In a society where it's considered standard behaviour to treat someone else as if they're better than you just because of age, position in the community or hierarchical superiority, you can never be sure if people are giving you respect because they really respect you or whether they're just showing you superficial respect because it's expected of them.

 

If "respect" is shown for purely arbitrary reasons, it loses all its important intrinsic value. People who deserve respect should get it, and no others should receive it.

 

Just like retail staff these days. They're all instructed to smile at you when you're buying items, and to wish you a "nice day" as you leave. Well now that they're all forced to do it, it takes all the value and good wishes out of the equation. They're not really wishing you a good day, they're just running through a script. And of course, when people are forced to do anything, there must always be an unhealthy undercurrent of resentment present on their part.

 

That's the first problem. The second problem is that someone who is older than you doesn't necessarily deserve your respect. Many older people have been completely rude and unpleasant to me, and thankfully I had the self-belief to throw it right back in their faces. I don't want to bring my kids up to accept disrespect or a lack of common courtesy from anyone, whether they're a teacher, a senior citizen or the local mayor. It's just unacceptable.

 

They don't view it as 'militaristic respect', they view it as common courtesy.
They can view it any way they wish, but I'm sure you'll agree that "yes sir" and "no ma'am" are phrases that are deferential in structure.

 

Just like men and women. The old convention that women should always go through a door first, nowadays is both unfair for men, and insulting to women. Surely we are both equal, and therefore have equal standing when it comes to who precedes whom through a doorway. So that old custom is deferential and therefore obsolete (and frankly amoral).

 

However, I routinely hold doors open for other people when they have right of way, or have been waiting longer, or have heavy bags... But I do so regardless of age, race, sex, etcetera etcetera. Therefore it is common courtesy and not specifically deferential. This is, in my view, an important distinction.

 

I'd rather be overpolite than underpolite.
Hmm, that's a slippery slope. I stop being "polite" when being polite would infringe my own rights as an equal member of society. For instance, I might give money to a representative of a charity on the street, but not a mugger on the street. I might hold a door open for someone with a heavy, difficult to carry bag, but I wouldn't hold the door open for a businessman or woman who tried to barge in front of me in the queue. This is also an important social distinction.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^

I moved the language discussion over to another thread.

 

I assume people are courteous and treat them that way as fellow members of humanity, until they prove themselves otherwise, then all bets are off. I don't get to uppity about it because you never know who's carrying a gun and having a bad day. I'd rather be alive and slightly insulted than point out someone's rudeness only to get shot.

Door-holding custom--happened in the days when womens' dresses were very full. there are just some things that are a lot harder to do in hoop skirts. :) Nowadays, we don't wear that kind of thing (except maybe at Halloween parties), so the convention is not so important. If my hands are free and a mom has her hands full with a baby and a toddler, or a man is carrying something, I'll gladly hold the door for them. I don't demand someone hold the door for me, but at the same token, I don't get offended (like some of my more radically feminist sisters might) if they hold the door for me, either. I just say 'thank you, that's very kind of you' and go on my way.

 

But, I need to return the topic to abstinence, and I'm afraid I don't have anything new or interesting to add at the moment other than it is A Good Thing and should be pursued when possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final thoughts:

 

1) Abstinence sucks. Been there, didn't like it.

 

2) Funny how the people who seem to have the most negative opinions about casual sex are the ones who've never had any.

 

3) It's good that the teenagers who post here aren't having sex. They clearly couldn't handle it at their present level of emotional development, so it's probably for the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2) Funny how the people who seem to have the most negative opinions about casual sex are the ones who've never had any.

 

My thoughts exactly. Sex and virginity only seem to be hugely important to people who haven't had sex.

 

Society seems to manage to create this great myth and taboo around sex.. which inflates it out of all proportion. Then kids and teenagers pick up on this and it becomes a huge issue. Either from the "gotta have sex so i'm no longer a nerdy virgin" side or the "virginity is an important gift, not to be given away lightly" side.

 

Frankly I almost think the kids would be better off if we just MADE them all have sex so that they could get it all over and done with, see it isn't a big deal, learn about how to do it safely and then just get on with their lives. We'd end up with a lot less confused and worried kids, a lot less worried parents and a lot less teenage pregnancies.

 

Might be a bit embarassing for the kids and the parents to drive them to their "Having sex" lesson, with their packed lunch and their birth control though.. ;)

 

-

 

Anyone see the story (in the swamp?) that pregnant teenagers in the UK are smoking because they heard that smoking when pregnant reduces the weight of the baby.. so they think it will make the birth easier? SOmetimes i think all the gvernment information campaigns and sex education is a complete waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Final thoughts:

 

1) Abstinence sucks. Been there, didn't like it.

 

Never said I _liked_ abstinence.

However, I hit my teen/college years at the point when AIDS was hitting the news in a big way and was pretty much a death sentence because we didn't have anything to treat it. And going to college, there was just no way I was going to bring a child into the world (Jae + finals week=Evil Woman from Hell--not conducive to child rearing). No way I could afford to a. jeopardize my life and health, b. jeopardize my education/future career and c. be untrue to my personal moral/religious code in order to have a little bit of pleasure.

 

I didn't have the time or resources available to be able to afford being pregnant (birthing my kids cost $10,000 and $17,000) and raise the children, especially out of wedlock. It would have been grossly unfair to any children to bring them into the world before being prepared for them. The best way to not get pregnant for me was to just not do it in the first place.

 

2) Funny how the people who seem to have the most negative opinions about casual sex are the ones who've never had any.

 

I grew up with an RN for a grandmother, had a dad who volunteered in an ER, and pretty much knew I was going to be in the med field from a very young age. I saw and heard a lot more than most people might see by the time they hit high school, and it did shape my views a lot on casual sex. And that's before the moral/religious aspects of that decision.

 

Because of working in a medical setting, I see the negative effects of casual sex on a fairly regular, almost daily, basis. When you have casual sex, you're pretty much having sex not only with that person, but every other person they've been with, too, in terms of disease transmission.

 

I see kids who are born HIV positive. I hear from women whose lives have been destroyed emotionally by hubby's fling with someone else (I'd probably hear from guys too, if they talked about that kind of thing, but they don't), seen the poverty of unwed mothers and their children (the poorest households are headed by unwed mothers), and see infections caused by STDs and they don't know which partner they got it from. One of my very dearest friends died from AIDS he got from casual sex.

 

These are all long-term and sometimes lifelong effects of a single 10 minute romp. That doesn't begin to address the emotional effects, which tend to be greater for women than men.

 

You may think that casual sex was worth the risk of all that, but I don't. If you're dying in bed from AIDS, the last thing you're going to think of is 'hey, that was a great new technique I learned from Bob there a few years back.'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Abstinence sucks. Been there, didn't like it.

 

I'm not against sex itself, just with sex before marriage. Sure, it'll be a few years or more of waiting, but Jae gave some good reasons for that.

 

2) Funny how the people who seem to have the most negative opinions about casual sex are the ones who've never had any.

 

That counts for little. If I wanted to, I could go out right now and pay a prostitute to do some very bad things. It would probably feel good physically (I can't say for certain, as I've never had sex), but that's definitely it. I highly doubt my opinion would sway either way. In fact, I'd probably be even more against casual sex leter on in life. Whether people have had sex or not I don't think counts. We have plenty of facts.

 

3) It's good that the teenagers who post here aren't having sex. They clearly couldn't handle it at their present level of emotional development, so it's probably for the best.

 

I think that's a bit of a generalization. On average, yes, the emotional development of teenagers isn't at that of adults. However, there are exceptions for everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:headbump:headbump:headbump:headbump

 

Okay, this conversation is just heading in a circle, and I'm getting fed up repeating myself.

 

Whether people have had sex or not I don't think counts.
Well, I do.

 

Y'know, I might have said this before someplace, can't remember where...thought it might have been here, but oh well, I feel very, very sorry for people who think sex is just for getting pregnant or catching horrible diseases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Okay, this conversation is just heading in a circle, and I'm getting fed up repeating myself.

 

Y'know, I might have said this before someplace, can't remember where...thought it might have been here, but oh well, I feel very, very sorry for people who think sex is just for getting pregnant or catching horrible diseases.

 

 

Mace, I understand your arguments, I just don't agree with casual sex (which I define as one or multiple partners outside of a committed relationship/marriage). If 'casual' to you means 'sex for purposes other than procreation' then we're talking about 2 different things.

 

16 years of marriage and 2 kids later, Jimbo and I are hardly celibate, ya know. :) We think the physical bonding contributes to the emotional bonding and vice versa, and are quite happy to utilize the marriage bed for activities other than sleeping. We don't mess around with anyone else, however, and quite honestly, don't have a need to. I've got filet mignon here at home--the best anyone else could do is meatloaf, so why eat out? [/ridiculous euphemism]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've got my filet at home too, but I got to sample every single meat the deli section had to offer first, and I regret none of it. In the anti-casual sex crowd, I'm seeing all these horror stories about HIV, pregnancy, STDs and all that, people equating casual sex with sleazy, backroom encounters with slimy hookers with low self esteem, sexual abuse, etc etc etc wall-to-wall negativity, and I'm sick of seeing it because I know through experience that it doesn't have to be like that. Yeah, I pretty much agree with your definition of casual sex, only the difference is I'm cool with it. Using birth control, condoms, and getting checked out regularly at the clinic (and only selecting partners who do the same) you can pretty much reduce the risks to negligible levels. Casual sex actually can be just for fun, and people actually do enjoy themselves. And I did. Lots. With many beautiful women. And many not-so-beautiful women. And, okay, let's be honest here, a few coyote-ugly cases at 9am when the beer goggles wore off. Hell, I spent most of my 20's blasting away in the Grunge band scene. Chicks dig musicians, and we dug them right back. I wouldn't trade those experiences for anything. I won't go into personal totals or anything (not that anyone here would believe me), but I never caught a single STD and I never got anyone pregnant. Those were truly some great times for ol' Mace in the "Getting Knob Polished" department, and me and my moral core are just fine with that. I found it to be inifinitely more satisfying than those lonely, socially inept teenage years where girls of loose morals would bite through screen doors to get away from me. And at the end of it, I came out happily married. Sex to me is one of life's great pleasures, and as much a need to me as breathing or eating. Yes, I'm proud of that. I have my experiences, and nothing can take them away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've got my filet at home too, but I got to sample every single meat the deli section had to offer first, and I regret none of it.

 

Eh, I don't miss sampling/being sampled, to be honest. We've had 16 years to figure out most, if not all, of the things you figured out sampling. :)

 

In the anti-casual sex crowd, I'm seeing all these horror stories about HIV, pregnancy, STDs and all that,

 

Because it happens. A lot. I see the results a lot in my own office, and I don't live in Sin City, I live in a moderately conservative town. I've also read the journal articles on poverty in single-mother homes, rates of STDs vs numbers of partners, effects of teen pregnancies, etc. I've been through the singularly awful experience of watching my best friend, who was this vibrant, wonderful, joyful person, die of AIDS, covered in Kaposi's, his mind fried from encephalopathy, blind from cytomegalovirus, and weighing maybe 90 pounds at the time of his death. If I could prevent one more person from having to go through that, I would. It's not a little problem. It's a big problem. It may never have been a problem for you personally, but it's there just the same.

 

Granted, there are a percentage of folks who will never have any problems, because someone has to be on the other end of the statistics to create an average. You were very lucky. How do you know she wasn't lying about her STD status? It's not like people carry around their doctor's statement that they're clean like vet papers, and it's void the moment they do the wild thing with someone else anyway. And how careful can one be really, if one is soused so bad they had 'beer goggles' in the morning? You might be able to, but I'm not so sure I could have been 100% careful 100% of the time after a few too many rum-and-cokes.

people equating casual sex with sleazy, backroom encounters with slimy hookers with low self esteem, sexual abuse, etc etc etc wall-to-wall negativity, and I'm sick of seeing it because I know through experience that it doesn't have to be like that.

 

Nope, you're right, it doesn't have to be like that. There are plenty of non-sleazy people having non-sleazy, very pleasant encounters. I didn't mean to imply casual sex is equivalent to something like prostitution.

 

(and only selecting partners who do the same) you can pretty much reduce the risks to negligible levels.

 

If you're in a casual relationship, can you develop enough trust in that person to believe that they're being completely honest about their health status? Sure the risk is very low if you are very careful every single time. Most people are not very careful every single time. They're very careful _most_ of the time. But it only takes _one_ time of not being careful to cause problems.

It's still not zero risk, which is why my argument is that abstinence is better/preferable from a simple mathematics/statistics point alone, and that's not addressing the other issues.

 

I'm _not_ saying it's the _only_ choice, however. I'm just debating my side, Mace. :) Being as careful as you were is an option. It carries some more risk, and people have to decide if that risk makes it worth the fun.

It wasn't worth the risk for me in the years before Jimbo and I got together. I also wanted the emotional intimacy before the physical, which is not achievable in a one-night stand.

 

Casual sex actually can be just for fun, and people actually do enjoy themselves. And I did. Lots. With many beautiful women. And many not-so-beautiful women. And, okay, let's be honest here, a few coyote-ugly cases at 9am when the beer goggles wore off.

 

Why would you have casual sex if it wasn't ultimately for fun? And no, I don't require an answer to that one. :) I never said people don't enjoy themselves during casual sex. Obviously people do, or it wouldn't be so prevalent.

 

Doesn't matter what people look like in the dark under the covers, anyway. Beauty/handsomeness does not translate to performance. :D

 

me and my moral core are just fine with that.
Not that I was trying to make this a moral issue, but since you mention it, were your partners' moral codes fine when their beer goggles wore off?

And if you only were with her one night before you moved on to another town, there's no way to guarantee 100% that no gal got pregnant unless you had surgery to prevent it.

 

I found it to be inifinitely more satisfying than those lonely, socially inept teenage years where girls of loose morals would bite through screen doors to get away from me. And at the end of it, I came out happily married.

 

Just about everything in life is more satisfying than the lonely, socially inept teenage years. I wouldn't go back to those years if you paid me a gazillion bucks. But that's a confidence/self-esteem problem, not a 'lack of nookie' problem. You happened to fix the problem using sex as one of the tools, I utilized other methods.

 

Sex to me is one of life's great pleasures, and as much a need to me as breathing or eating.

I'll agree with you completely on that one. :) It really sucked for both of us when Jimbo got deployed, and lack of intimacy was a significant part of that whole suckiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Riiiiiiiiiiight. Hey, can you hear me back there in the 1920's? STD=Sexually Transmitted Disease. It's a disease that's transmitted by sexual contact. That's why it's called a Sexually Transmitted Disease, not a Toilet Seat Transmitted Disease.

XD 1920s? See, according to your post, I'd assume you know that you can have sex on toilets too? So I can immediatly think of at least two possible scenarios one can catch the peenis-flu there. Also, If you actually read my posts (and I think you mostly did), you might have noticed that I say STDs are *not* exclusively transmitted by sexual contacts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ouch. Well I've been there, ****ed that, and yeah it's fun but it's not emotionally fulfilling.

 

Neither is golf, but its enjoyable and people do it for fun. They don't blow it all up into some self-fullfilling prophecy of imense emotional proportions.

 

What is emotionally fulfilling is being with someone you love, not sex. Whether its talking, playing golf or whatever. Sex is an activity that is fun, and all things are more fun with someone you love.. but that doesn't mean you should link the two in some way they are not. No one says "i'm not playing golf until i get married, because it won't be emotionally fulfilling unless i do it with someone i love".

 

Did anyone here not KISS anone until they married? I'd guess not. Does that make kissing your other half any less emotionally fulfilling because you kissed someone else first? I very much doubt it..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now golf is emotionally fulfilling with family and friends.

 

Seriously, what I'm saying is yeah it's fun, but to be honest you may as well just frig yourself, less hassle. That's not to say I'm against sex outside of marriage, long as you don't hurt no one you can lay any piece of meat you like. In fact I tend to lean against those who push for abstinence, on the simple basis of it that it gives the moral police an excuse to kick up a stink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neither is golf, but its enjoyable and people do it for fun. They don't blow it all up into some self-fullfilling prophecy of imense emotional proportions.

 

What is emotionally fulfilling is being with someone you love, not sex. Whether its talking, playing golf or whatever. Sex is an activity that is fun, and all things are more fun with someone you love.. but that doesn't mean you should link the two in some way they are not.

 

You're coming at it from a guy point of view. :) It's not just some thing you "do". It's something you share with someone else. It takes a certain amount of trust to crawl under the covers with someone, and I think it requires women to trust more than men. Aside from the one night flings, there are a whole host of feelings associated with this activity that are impossible to separate out if you're going to have a relationship with that person.

 

No one says "i'm not playing golf until i get married, because it won't be emotionally fulfilling unless i do it with someone i love".

 

That's cause I'm not making love to the golf ball, I'm making love to the person.

 

And before someone gets any ideas about golf balls, just remember, don't do anything you don't want the ER staff laughing about in the lounge after they've treated you. :)

 

Did anyone here not KISS anone until they married? I'd guess not. Does that make kissing your other half any less emotionally fulfilling because you kissed someone else first? I very much doubt it..

 

Kissing doesn't have the same level of intimacy, and it's far different degree of giving/receiving/sharing than sex. So yeah, sex is more special than kissing, and a lot more emotionally/physically fulfilling than kissing. I don't regret kissing the other men in my life, and I had a fine time when I was dating. But it just never had the same level of intimacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry about the man's perspective thing.. it happens occasionally. Dunno why. ;)

 

However I don't really see WHY it should have a different emotional impact for girls than for guys. Other than the old genetic programming differences.

 

I wonder how much of it is to do with society conditioning girls to think that its something deeply important and emotional?

 

I remember once (long long ago) reading an article about the south pacific islands. Apparently on those islands sex was thought of as a perfectly normal recreational activity. There were no taboos around it at all. If two young people were walking along and happened to meet each other then one could proposition the other, and if they both felt like it then they could get right down to it there and then. And if anyone else was walking pst they wouldn't pay it a second thought.. as it was considered totally natural. Supposedly they had almost no trouble with rape or any of the other sex related problems we have here in the west.

 

Of course then the misionaries turned up, made them put on more clothes, told them everythign they were doing was wrong and linked up sex and marriage and love in their heads. So i guess now they are like us. (messed up, repressed, confused, worried, etc..).

I'm really not at all convinced they weren't much better off before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why it has a different emotional impact--we girls can get pregnant. You guys can't. It's physically easier (in general, there's always exceptions) for a man to take advantage of a woman than vice versa.

 

The Great South Pacific Experiment would fail bad here in the Great White North. Unless it's July 18th, it's way too cold to just stop, drop, and roll.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry to pull up an old post, but:

Dude, one of the horrible, horrible things about growing up is realizing your parents were right about a lot of things that you swore they were totally full of sh!t about before.

Ahaha! So true. You have no idea how often that happens to me.

 

Oh wait, you probably do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...