Moral standards: societal, religious

[Andrew]

Anyway, I can't think of anything that "grinds my gears" right now so someone post something controversial.

Sen. Stevens (R AK) Blocked the Bill for Public Knowledge of Government Spending

So the government can spend whatever whenever whereever and you wont know!

[Cyborg]

Try dinner and a movie first. ;)

So you'll going to cost me $20? Still cheaper than a hooker.  ;)

[nemafakei]

Ah, the school of "Abstinence is all very well, but you've got to go for it while the exchange rate's good."

[TMA_1]

I am sorry for moving this off topic again, but I just have to say this.

That satire comic still is mystifying to me. The man in the picture looks very much like the classic WASP, and his clothing takes on the appearance of the American Flag. Because of this, wouldnt the creator of the little drawing want to say the exact opposite to complete the satire of it all? It seems like the creator ruined his drawing because of it! Help me here!

[Acriku]

I am sorry for moving this off topic again, but I just have to say this.

That satire comic still is mystifying to me. The man in the picture looks very much like the classic WASP, and his clothing takes on the appearance of the American Flag. Because of this, wouldnt the creator of the little drawing want to say the exact opposite to complete the satire of it all? It seems like the creator ruined his drawing because of it! Help me here!

The man is supposed to look like that because it takes your standard propaganda WASP whatever look and puts something in words that a WASP would never make. It's the irony of it :P

[Cyborg]

LOL.  Cyborg, have you been drinking? On what planet do you think it

[Edric O]

This is where I rant about a culture that seems to take hedonism for granted and demands an explanation for why you shouldn't seek personal gratification as your primary goal in life, instead of asking the much more pertinent question of why you should.

Saying that premarital sex is bad because you could get STDs or get pregnant is essentially a cop-out on our side (by "our side" I mean the pro-abstinence side, which I absolutely support). It is a form of retreat, accepting the hedonistic morality of our opponents and trying to find hedonistic reasons why premarital sex is bad.

I have no intention to retreat. I flat out say that premarital sex is bad because it is immoral, because life is not about getting as much personal pleasure as you can, because self-control is a virtue that must be encouraged, because we are rational human beings and not instinct-driven animals. Sexual promiscuity breaks social bonds, makes relationships unstable, alienates individuals from each other and creates precisely the kind of atomized, individualistic society that we have today.

You don't even need to go into religion to find reasons why promiscuity is immoral, but, if we are to go there, I must point out that the sacrifice of personal enjoyment for a greater cause is precisely what Christianity is all about, and don't expect to receive salvation if you refuse to carry your cross.

As far as the argument that "people are going to have sex anyway", it completely misses the point. The popular attitude towards sex is determined by the culture you live in. Western teenagers have sex not because it is natural, but because they live in a culture that tells them to have sex. There is sex on television, sex in movies, sex in literature, sex in advertising, there is a deluge of porn on the internet, fashions in clothing are dictated by what is perceived to carry the most sexual innuendo, and most important of all, there is peer pressure to have sex.

But you're right, abstinence education is worthless, because of the one thing about teenagers that is constant across cultures: rebellion against authority. If we wish to educate our teenagers to be less promiscuous, this education must not come from authority figures. It must be based primarily on organizations run by teenagers themselves, and a little media involvement wouldn't hurt.

[Acriku]

This is where I rant about a culture that seems to take hedonism for granted and demands an explanation for why you shouldn't seek personal gratification as your primary goal in life, instead of asking the much more pertinent question of why you should.

I'm challenging a premise right here. I doubt anybody is seeking personal gratification through sex as their primary goal in life. Even if it is so, all the power to them. It doesn't mean they are hedonists, or even that it will remain a goal in their life. My argument is, there's little to no reason (beyond personal experience and such) why someone should not have sex. Key word: should. Not could. Not would. Should. For someone to tell another to not have sex, while they sit on their high moral post, it is rediculous.

I want to pick a bone with you - you say premarital sex is bad because it is immoral - now, I assume the morality here that is being offended involves whether to seek personal/physical pleasure often. Now, I'm not advocating being a downright whore (man or woman) who sleeps with anything that smiles back at him/her. There's a line that is drawn between that and having a healthy sexual relationship. For someone, say yourself, to say that they are being immoral because they haven't had that magical bonding ceremony that usually freaks people out more than romanticizes things, it's rediculous.

Say there is a 23 year old guy and a 22 year old girl, who are having a nice relationship and obviously feel a chemistry with each other. After a nice dinner, after a couple months of being together, they decide to have sex that night. The guy hightails it to the local gas station for condoms, while the girl plays around with her scrunchie in the car. Yada yada yada, they make breakfast and go on their daily lives.

Now, how is this immoral and how does it become moral if they had become married first?

Before you answer, consider the divorce rates in the US.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Very good points Edrico.  However, the reasons you give for pre-marital sex being bad are also hedonistic in some areas.   Reasons of "Unstable relationships" & "atomized society"  are no different from the reasons of "STD's" & "pregnancies".

@Khan --> I am not being apocalyptic.... I'm being anecdotal.  I'm telling YOU that I know people with STD's.  I was awestruck by the beauty of one girl... before i found out she had herpes.  I remember kids in highschool saying "damn my herpes is burning like hell today".  And of course i grew up in a time when AIDS was in its prime.  EXCUSE ME.... for not wanting to die like millions of others from STDs.  Saying that i am over-reacting is an ignorant stance to take given how many people have died of AIDS.  Most people who have AIDS dont even KNOW they have it !!.

@Dante-->  Virgin doesnt equal pure ?  Sure i can understand why'd you would say that.  We are all wretched humans to begin with.  But personally i would prefer to tongue kiss a girl who hasnt already had 10 penis's in her mouth and the accompanying semen and pubic hair to go with it.  Call me Crazy. Sure, its all probably washed out by the time she gets to me... but just the thought is enough. I mean what *Physically* seperates promiscuous people from a prostitutes?  I wouldnt want to have sex with a prostitute for the same reasons i wouldnt want to have sex with a promiscuous woman.  Because they both have had too much expose to too many men.  What's to say the promiscuous girl hasnt slept with some of the exact men the prostitute has...and contracted the same diseases?  The promiscuous girl doesnt seem anymore palatable to me just because she isnt getting paid. Thats a mere technicality.

@Acriku -->  True.. when you get married magical money fairies dont appear and build a financial foundation.  I dont think thats the point tho.  Its all about the heart and mind.  The point is that if you are willing to marry someone... it means the COMMITMENT is there to take care of each other emotionally and physically. Personally i believe marriage is just an external ritual symbolizing something internal.  I mean if my wife and I had been on a ship that wrecked on an island and we had no way to get access to a priest and be married officially... would that stop us from having sex?  No of course not. You can be married to someone in your heart, so that even without the marriage license its ok to have sex.  The ship-wrecked example clearly demonstrates that how you feel for someone in your heart is more important than a material piece of paper that says the government recognizes you. The point is not that you sign the marriage license and something magical happens.... its more than that... its that if you are of the MIND to marry someone ... then you will most likely care for them very much..... which creates the proper atmosphere for getting intimate and having children.  Of course, going back to the shipwrecked example, You dont have to get get married formally to actually have married-like feelings for someone....you can live with someone and have children with them and care for them, etc, etc and not have a marriage license.  Its just that in a modern society where you arent shipwrecked and have access to obtain marriage licenses pretty easily... society just feels that its better to have the external piece of paper to symbolize your commitment to your partner.  Society likes symbols.

Guns

[Edric O]

I'm challenging a premise right here. I doubt anybody is seeking personal gratification through sex as their primary goal in life.

You obviously don't know some of the people I know, then.

And in any case, I'm not necessarily talking about personal gratification through sex. I'm talking about personal gratification in general, which seems to have become the default goal in life that everyone is expected to have in our culture. Promiscuity is only one symptom of the much wider disease of individualism.

Even if it is so, all the power to them. It doesn't mean they are hedonists, or even that it will remain a goal in their life.

Um, actually, yes it does. That's the definition of hedonism.

My argument is, there's little to no reason (beyond personal experience and such) why someone should not have sex. Key word: should. Not could. Not would. Should. For someone to tell another to not have sex, while they sit on their high moral post, it is rediculous.

I am 20 years old and I practice what I preach. And you have not provided a reason why people should have casual sex. You seem to be leaning towards an implicit argument that sex is good because it feels good - but I'm sure you're aware of the problems with saying that people should do whatever feels good. (and I would hope you are also aware of the problems with the harm principle if you were about to invoke that)

I want to pick a bone with you - you say premarital sex is bad because it is immoral - now, I assume the morality here that is being offended involves whether to seek personal/physical pleasure often. Now, I'm not advocating being a downright whore (man or woman) who sleeps with anything that smiles back at him/her. There's a line that is drawn between that and having a healthy sexual relationship. For someone, say yourself, to say that they are being immoral because they haven't had that magical bonding ceremony that usually freaks people out more than romanticizes things, it's rediculous.

It is not the ceremony that matters, it is the commitment and the responsibility. The ceremony is nothing; it is merely a symbol, one that can be changed or done without if need be. What I am saying is that you should only have sex with a person when you are ready to commit to spending the rest of your life with him/her and when the both of you are ready to take full responsibility for each other's well-being. Marriage is not about the silly ceremony or the legal paperwork or the annoying relatives. It is about treating the other as part of yourself. The only part of the marriage ceremony that I consider to be really necessary are the vows.

Say there is a 23 year old guy and a 22 year old girl, who are having a nice relationship and obviously feel a chemistry with each other. After a nice dinner, after a couple months of being together, they decide to have sex that night. The guy hightails it to the local gas station for condoms, while the girl plays around with her scrunchie in the car. Yada yada yada, they make breakfast and go on their daily lives.

Now, how is this immoral and how does it become moral if they had become married first?

It is immoral because the two are obviously not ready to commit fully and wholeheartedly to each other. It is immoral because it will diminish their capacity to make such a commitment later on, by destroying the significance of the one activity that can serve as a perfect seal for this commitment. If you can have sex with any man or woman you have a crush on, what do you have left to share only with the person you wish to spend your life with?

That's the core of the problem, really: When sex becomes trivial, all relationships become shallow.

Before you answer, consider the divorce rates in the US.

You don't see any causal link from promiscuity to the rising divorce rate?

[GUNWOUNDS]

Before you answer, consider the divorce rates in the US.

 Sure there are divorces, but it would be interesting to see if the majority of the divorces in the USA are with people who didnt wait till marriage to have sex.  That would be an interesting statistic indeed.  Promiscuity linking to Divorces....hmmmm.... Edrico is on to something.

Edrico said:

It is immoral because the two are obviously not ready to commit fully and wholeheartedly to each other. It is immoral because it will diminish their capacity to make such a commitment later on, by destroying the significance of the one activity that can serve as a perfect seal for this commitment. If you can have sex with any man or woman you have a crush on, what do you have left to share only with the person you wish to spend your life with?

That's the core of the problem, really: When sex becomes trivial, all relationships become shallow.

Cant say it any simpler than that.......oh and before anyone says "oh but its just sex" .... stop and think about whether it would hurt you if the one you love had sex with someone else. Of course it would.  So therefore sex isnt just a "casual act", like eating or jogging.  Its definitely something more special and should be treated as such.

Guns

[nemafakei]

"Now, how is this immoral and how does it become moral if they had become married first?"

Right - here's the thing: not all marriage is good. Marriage is entered into too lightly nowadays. That's not to say the 1960s were great - I'm glad we're mostly over the problem of marriage being a property relationship. Therefore I'd not only say that these two in your example were being irresponsible, I'd say they'd be fools to have got themselves married beforehand, too.

Now, that's not to say promiscuity (in the sense we're talking about here) and divorces are directly linked. You could easily argue it the other way, after all - people who are all for abstinence may be quicker to jump through the hoops. I think it has far more to do with the trivialisation of marriage itself. This comes partly from the perpetuation of the message that infidelity is something to be forgiven and expected, especially infidelity by men, partly from the effective portrayal of marriage as a licence to have sex from certain parts, and partly from society's romanticism of grand gestures - exponential arms-races of doing the spectacular.

"Reasons of "Unstable relationships" & "atomized society"  are no different from the reasons of "STD's" & "pregnancies"."

The first two are societal externalities more than direct consequences, the last two affect you directly and profoundly. Someone who goes around being promiscuous will feel little effect of the atomisation they cause on their own life.

On the other hand, STDs and pregnancies aren't great arguments for abstinence, as they can easily be solved by a little forethought, as Acriku has pointed out.

"*Physically* seperates promiscuous people from a prostitutes?"

Dunno about physically, but promiscuous people more often than not have a choice in the matter.

[Dante]

In reply to Gunwounds' section for me, see the comment about a man once being able to divorce his wife if she wasn't a virgin. Now he never actually says this explicitly, nor really implies it, so it may be just my interpretation, but what I get from the message is that Gunwounds views women as property and that he wouldn't want one that someone else has already 'used.' Very romantic sentiment there.

And chatfsh, I'm not saying that abstinence is useless. As I mentioned before, it's really all one to me whether other people choose to have sex or not. It's when they turn it into some holier-than-thou moral argument that I get annoyed.

Och is all very well and good, but I've been branching out into several other vowel sounds for years now. The younger generation is no longer content with using just one.

Commitment is commitment. If it requires a physical seal or event in order to mark it then someone's force of will is lacking.

[TMA_1]

speaking of premarital sex, I was thinking of this issue last night. Often many will say that we cannot stop older children from this act, and this certainly can be true. But we have seem to have given up on abstinence all together, figuring that if you are going to do it, at least do it safely.

What is the difference say with narcotics? We cannot stop our young adults from using oxycontin, but hell we will never stand for it! it is dangerous! it can lead to a dead end life! so we must advocate complete abstinence! even though the young adult population has realatively easy access to it and will make their own choices...

and yet premarital sex can cause STDs and unplanned pregnancies, which can destroy the cycle of life as much as becoming a junky. So why do we advocate a stance of abstinence for one pleasurable yet potentially harmful thing, and give up on teaching abstinence for another?

Please dont answer if you do not wish to directly answer this question.

[Andrew]

What is the difference say with narcotics? We cannot stop our young adults from using oxycontin, but hell we will never stand for it! it is dangerous! it can lead to a dead end life! so we must advocate complete abstinence! even though the young adult population has realatively easy access to it and will make their own choices...

So sex is addictive, expensive, you can overdose on it and you can lose everything in life. Gotcha. :P

Interesting story, after the bars last night we went to a friends place. The person and her "friend" (I'm gonna say druggie/dealer/supplier friend) were doing hot knives. We left shortly after. I don't think the older sister was impressed with the younger sister doing drugs. Wasn't expecting them to be doing that (19 year olds), but anyone can get any drug at any time anywhere. I know the drug abuse problem has gotten worse over the years.

Coke parties are now a common occurance compared to a decade ago when I never heard of any. Well, I think back then people were doing lsd and shrooms and going to raves. Raves have died so I don't think those drugs are used as much. Harder drugs are used now.

[GUNWOUNDS]

So sex is addictive, expensive, you can overdose on it and you can lose everything in life. Gotcha. :P

1.) Yes sex is addictive

2.) Yes sex is expensive when you factor in having to raise a child or having to take medications for the rest of your life to control herpes or AIDS.

3.) Yes you can lose everything in life if you get a terminal disease, or if you have an unwanted pregnancy that stops you from going to college, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

Look at Magic Johnson..... look at how AIDS ruined his life..... wife wont touch him..... he's a laughingstock.... nobody wants to touch him or get near him... and he's shortened his life by X amount of years.  He's only saved by his massive amounts of cash that grant him the best treatment available.

Some poor ignorant little 16 yr old wont have that luxury.  But hey, we need more people to work at the burger King's , McDonald's , Walgreens, and the ShopRites so i guess having kids ruin their lives helps fuel the blue collar workforce.  Carry On.

Guns

[Andrew]

1.) Yes sex is addictive

2.) Yes sex is expensive when you factor in having to raise a child or having to take medications for the rest of your life to control herpes or AIDS.

1. That must be why all my friends tell me to not get a girlfriend (pain in the ass). Yet they are all still with one.

2. I was thinking more of the expense of condoms and birth control. Which would prevent most other expenses (diseases).

[exatreide]

it's not premarital sex if you don't plan on getting married.

[Andrew]

Nice ex!

Don't forget if you take it up the butt your still a virgin and jesus is ok with that.

As shown by Melanie Martinez who did these parody videos years ago but was recently fired form pbs tv kids show because of them.

Here's the video

the other video too

So if you are part of a religion is it ok to molest children because god needs sacrifices?

Child molestation case rocks the Ozarks

These cults should be outlawed.