Let's talk about ....., baby... (Mature Themes)

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by scrmngfangrl [/i]
[B] cause if your going to breed, then breed.[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]This is one of those ignorant comments I was talking about in my first post.

The human act of making love isn't just for 'breeding' as you say. With that statement you're stripping humans of their emotions and lowering them to animalistic standards. Humans are far more complex than that.

It actually makes me a bit ill to think about it as 'breeding', it means so much more than that to some people, myself included.[/color]

[Maully]

[color=green]terra, about that hormone thing, I've heard the same thing. It's actually a shared trait that most females of pack animals have. It strengthens the attatchment to "the Alpha Male" As to whether it's true or not, I don't actuall know, it came up in a debate I was having much like this with some friend, one of who is a bio major, I figure it's not completely inaccurate.

scrmngfangrl, um, wow. That's really all I've got.

For all you taking about contraceptives and birth control, I'm going to beat Artimis to telling you, the Catholic Church does not condone them. In fact it expressly forbids their use. *scary* Do not execute me as the messenger, I'm just telling you, if the path someone has taken is towards those teachings, them your comments will be falling on deaf ears.[/color]

[outlawstar69]

I've heard about that article; it goes for guys to I think. *Reads Molletta's post* Hmm.. are there any catholic scholars here who would care to elaborate on this? I'm not catholic, and haven't heard about it much. Is there any religious line of reasoning behind it?

[BabyGirl]

[color=deeppink][b]One thing that has been bothering me about this thread is the title. Why doesn't it just say "Let's talk about sex"? It would be much more to the point :P[/b]

Moving on, something that hasn't been discussed in detail is the whole pregnancy issue, so I thought I'd bring it up.

I have been using birth control for 6-7 months now, and more than 75% of the time my boyfriend and I use a second contraceptive. The pill not only prevents pregnancy for me, but it also makes my period extremely regular, short-lasting, and much less painful. Overall, it has had awesome side effects.

However, this month we [boyfriend and I] have gone through a horrible pregnancy scare. It really sucks, thinking that you're pregnant and not knowing why due to the fact that you use two forms of contraceptives. A week after my period was due to start, he and I discussed the issue and thought about the options we had, speaking as though I was definitely pregnant. It was a ****** ordeal.

I went to the doctor's to get tested, already certain that my test would be positive, but it turned out to be negative. Thank gods I'm not pregnant, I guess my period is just missing in action.

Before I got tested, I was so upset about the fact that I could be pregnant after using the pill so diligently and never forgetting to take it. I thought that it was unfair since my boyfriend and I had been so incredibly safe about sex! Those thoughts, more than the thoughts of having to abort, gave me these horrible bouts of stress and worry. It was, most definitely, one of the most horrible things to have to go through emotionally. ...just thought it was a story with sharing in here, just in case anyone else has had this happen you're not alone :)

I am heavily in favor of legalizing birth control and Plan B [morning after pill] everywhere around the world. I think it is a woman's right to have access to it, and it is her partner's right, too. If more young women were educated on birth control methods, fewer teen pregnancies would occur. Then pregnant teens wouldn't have to BE pregnant in the first place. They get shunned for being pregnant, but if the pill isn't available for them and they're not educated on the issue...then what? In certain cases, their being chastized is incredibly unfair.[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i]
[B][color=deeppink]The human act of making love isn't just for 'breeding' as you say. With that statement you're stripping humans of their emotions and lowering them to animalistic standards. Humans are far more complex than that.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]
Maybe it is yourself who is ignorant BabyGirl?

Every thing that is living on this planet either reproduces ASexually or Sexually (or both) and like every other thing on this earth we fall into one of these categories. (Sexual.) There is no denying this as it is very evident and you can even watch the same processes happen in other animals that happen to us. Who ever told you humans were special? Anyway who ever it was was lying as one of our only advantages over other animals is the size of our brains and how we use them, then again that is a very large advantage. *Points to what our brains have achieved around us* But in the sex area we are like every other Sexual reproducing species on the planet it's just that we enjoy it far more, you can breed humans in the same way your breed dogs to get what type you want or any other animal as such. Do you know why? We [b]are[/b] [i]animals[/i] and there is nothing you can say or do (well you could reprogram dna? lol) that will change that.

So yes the 'act of love' is for breeding, the enjoyment is just an incentive.

[Dagger]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]So yes the 'act of love' is for breeding, the enjoyment is just an incentive. [/B][/QUOTE]

Whether or not you believe that animals have emotions, it's impossible to deny that humans possess them.

I don't really understand why you're talking about breeding humans. Frankly, I find the concept quite disconcerting, not to mention repulsive.

If people only had sex in order to conceive children, then why are so many women on birth control? Not everyone wants or needs the love of a child.

Many men and women have sex for the sake of affection or simple pleasure, without any interest in procreation. The "enjoyment" is [i]not[/i] always just an incentive.

~Dagger~

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]Maybe it is yourself who is ignorant BabyGirl?[/b][/quote]

[color=deeppink]:huh: Maybe. I don't think that I am on this issue, but it's all relative.[/color]

[b][quote]We *are* [i]animals[/i] and there is nothing you can say or do that will change that. So yes the 'act of love' is for breeding, the enjoyment is just an incentive. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Thank you for the refresher biology lesson :)

I don't really feel the need to defend my statement, though. I think you may just be looking to knit pick on some minute point simply for the art of disagreeing. Sure you can breed mass amounts of humans, but we don't on a normal day. Sure you simplify us by saying it's basely a breeding issue, which, maybe it is...but I said, "...isn't just for 'breeding'...". 'Just'.

scrmfngrl was saying that she believed 'if you're going to breed, then breed' only to procreate. I found ignorance in that statement, that's all. She completely ignored the fact that sex often houses deeper meanings in the human world. We may be animals, but that doesn't mean we are running around breeding like wild ones, *simply* for the fact of reproduction.[/color]

[future girl]

We had a debate like this in our English class a few weeks ago. I honestly believe that it's none of my business whether a person chooses to abstain or otherwise. Either way, I find some of the arguments backing the ppl against pre-marital sex to be ridiculous. First of all I feel marriage has little to no value outside a court house. Ppl often think that implies that I find the idea of monogomy or commitment to be meaningless as well, but this is not true. An individual can find the person they're meant to be with, sleep with them and have children with them and never marry, just like a person can wait, get married, have sex and then have the marriage fall apart before their eyes in less than a year. It always depends, really, on why you did it. Ppl should go into having sex with some level of maturity, but that's a given anyway.

[Guest cloricus]

BabyGirl I wasn't knit picking or maybe I was... Hmm to hard to think >
No all I was really pointing out (hopefully) was that we are animals and sex is just a reproduction method when you really get down to it and wipe away all the crap; we are just like every other living thing. Any thing on top of that is just to get us to have sex to keep the species going which for some unknown reason seems to be the only one thing we [i]are[/i] meant to do in our lives.

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by cloricus [/i]
[B]No all I was really pointing out (hopefully) was that we are animals and sex is just a reproduction method when you really get down to it and wipe away all the crap; we are just like every other living thing. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]Yes, I agree :)

However, I wasn't talking about the basal structure of sex, I was talking about the entire, broad spectrum of sex. The sex that envokes human emotion and solidarity in relationships. But for someone to think that human intercourse is strictly FOR the act of 'breeding' [that [i]word[/i]] is fairly naive. So in the biological sense you are very right about what you have to say, it just didn't fan out to be a solid rebuttal to my opinion being presented in that certain post.

I do hope I'm making sense without repeating myself :whoops:[/color]

[Guest cloricus]

Yes I agree with you on that. Sorry should have said so, I was just addressing something else further up.

[Artemis]

[QUOTE] [I]Originally posted by Molleta:[/I]
For all you taking about contraceptives and birth control, I'm going to beat Artimis to telling you, the Catholic Church does not condone them. In fact it expressly forbids their use. *scary* Do not execute me as the messenger, I'm just telling you, if the path someone has taken is towards those teachings, them your comments will be falling on deaf ears.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] [I]Origninaklly posted by outlawstar69:[/I]
*Reads Molletta's post* Hmm.. are there any catholic scholars here who would care to elaborate on this? I'm not catholic, and haven't heard about it much. Is there any religious line of reasoning behind it?[/QUOTE]
Thanks Molleta! Bring up the topic and make me explain it! :rolleyes: :bellylol:
Alright, according to the RCC (Roman Catholic Church), sex is for "babies and bonding" or "procreation and intimacy". Pleasure is an added benefit, and, I suppose by God's plan, an incentive. I mean, can you imagine that there'd be very many of us if pleasure wasn't in there? :nervous: Anyway, for sex to be in the "done properly" (for lack of better phrasing at 1 in the morning...) it must fulfill the above listed conditions. Ergo, if you're not open to life while you're committing the act, there's a problem. NFP, by the way, is not simply "Catholic contraception/birth control". For starters, it [I]is[/I] open to life. It simply spaces children better by watching the woman's cycle. Secondly, it won't work without communication b/t the potential parents. This keeps them close and enables them to talk more about other issues as well.
--If that wasn't enough on that topic, I'll pick up [I]Humane Vitae[/I] sometime when I'm not so tired... :sleep:
People commented about Catholics having pre-marital sex. :rolleyes: Being Catholic is not being perfect. Additionally, it's so easy to be lumped into the Church (get baptized at birth, or any point in life) that a [I]ton[/I] of ppl disregard most of or all of the Church's teachings. Ever wonder why I always say I'm a "conservative Catholic"? That's to denote that I actually believe in, agree with (or submit to), and follow all the Church's teachings. (Not to say I'm perfect. I fall, too, but I try to be good... :angel: )
Ok, last thing for tonight... :sleepy:
People have been mentioning a lot about my "eternal bonding" comment. If you'll notice, I said "whether you notice it or not". Don't tell me it isn't there b/c you didn't experience it. *slaps forehead* In many cases, you won't notice it. This is another thing stemming from my ever-present religious background. You have an eternal spiritual connection w/ an person you commit the act with. (I ended a sentence w/ a preposition, and I don't care!) Wow...it's been a long day... Anyway, yeah, it sounds weird, and a lot of ppl will disagree w/ me, but that was my reasoning behing it. (It's a spiritual connection in that your souls are connected. You've given a little piece of yourself to that person.)
And, the reason I didn't elaborate from the start on my first reason is b/c I knew it wasn't worth it. Too many ppl believe too many different things. It would have been a waste of time.
anyway... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz... *drools on keyboard*
Good night!
~artemis~ zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Semjaza]

The basic idea was always that the Church doesn't condone premarital sex anyway... so the idea of someone using birth control doesn't change that. If the person is married and is still using those things, they're more or less going against the "plan". Sex is for procreation, basically, as you just said.

Without reading all the posts in here (there simply are too many at this point), I am not against it. Personally, I've had sex countless times. With the first girl it was just a screwed up relationship and I regret it.... but the other two were another story. The first I was totally in love with and the second I am currently with and feel even more strongly for. Marriage would never change this for me. It felt right so we did it.

What other people do is not my concern. I don't look down on anyone over it... although promiscuity is obviously not a desirable trait. If someone is able to hold out until marriage I totally respect that and think they're strong as hell. I certainly didn't have the guts for it.

[Maully]

[color=green]Sorry, artimis, I didn't mean to drop the ball on you, really, I didn't think there would be need for any more explanation than that...Personally, I never really understoof it myself.

I am also somewhat offended by the "breeding" word, I feel like it lowers me, especially since I have NO plans to [i]ever[/i] have offspring. I am also glad to see that they came to an agreement and I am beating a dead horse...

Jenna, may I say I am inpressed with your candidness. Pregnancy is an issue that should be touched on, I agree. I, myself, have had only one small scare. it' was really nothing serious. I know that I could never abort, but I would give it up for adoption in a heartbeat. I agree that most people are very under-educated about it. It is a very real problem in society, not teens having sex so much as uneducated sex, unsafe sex, and I don't just mean condoms.[/color]

[Artemis]

No hard feelings, Molleta! :laugh: I don't really mind.
Semjaza Azazel, [I]officially[/I] the Church [I]does[/I] condemn pre-marital sex. You just don't see it enforced very often, b/c, well, it's a bit difficult to do that. But, as I mentioned much earlier to Molleta, if you were to decide to marry, the priest is not supposed to let you if you're living together. Normally, you're required to live apart for some time before the wedding.
anyway, I already promised myself I'd go to sleep!! :sleepy:
For the second time: Good night!! zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[AzureWolf]

I don't know... I've always seen premarital sex as selfish, relativistically speaking. If you are willing to go that far with someone and still not marry them, there has to be something wrong in the relationship. Why don't you marry them if they are that central to you? I don't think time would be such a demanding factor.

I really haven't seen any core-cutting comments favoring pre-marital sex yet. I mean, brushing it off as something personal is so easy for one thing. Secondly, it is so wrong. It's two people, not one. If you applied this "it's personal" logic to everything else in life, communities would be nonexistent. Also, when you die, are you the only one affected? Didn't think so. When you take a step back and look at the big picture, "it's my life" doesn't sound so meaningful.

It would be great if we could all just tell everyone to leave everyone else alone, but we know that's not going to help anyone in the long run. IMO, man's greatest achievements were the ones he made with other people.

EDIT: Thought I'd clear up that "selfish" remark. I don't mean you are selfish, but I'm saying when you compare it to people who waited till marriage, it seems [B]a little[/B] selfish. What if the person you married waited for you?

[Solo Tremaine]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AzureWolf [/i]
[B]I don't know... I've always seen premarital sex as selfish, relativistically speaking. If you are willing to go that far with someone and still not marry them, there has to be something wrong in the relationship. Why don't you marry them if they are that central to you? I don't think time would be such a demanding factor.[/QUOTE][/B]

[COLOR=#503F86]There has to be an element of physical attraction in a relationship, otherwise it won't work. The main point is that sex is meaning a lot less than it used to- way back when, people (usually women) could be very severely punished for having sex before they were meant to. Now it's not nearly so big a deal- people are reproducing left, right and centre. I'm not saying that's a good thing by any means, it's just another sign of the times. I don't think sex is something to be taken lightly- although it might not be the biggest step in a relationship, it's certainly an important one, and a very important decision for anyone to make. But if both partners consent to it and are careful then I shouldn't see it as being a problem. If one objects, then the other should be able to respect their choice. If they don't, that's where the problem lies.

I'm still a virgin, but I know I'd never have sex unless I was sure it was both what I and my partner wanted.

Since sex is supposedly the ultimate expression of emotional bonding, that itself is probably the biggest step towards getting married. If it doesn't feel right, it might be a big clue that you're not with the right person.

I understand that it does mean a lot to some people, so I'm not trying to quash anyone's views, heh. This is just what I think.

Marriage is a much larger step in a relationship than sex, I think. Especially as that's where you will most likely formally decide whether to have children and start a life together with your partner. That said, some people get married without having children (like my aunt and uncle), so sex might not be a big part of it anyway. It all depends on who you are, much like almost everything else in life.

Damn, I've forgotten what I was going to say next >.> Probably wasn't very intelligent, heh.[/COLOR]

[Maully]

[color=green]I forgot to say something through-out this whole thing: Just because I chose not to wait, I do not want to quash your views on waiting. It was not the thing I chose to do, though sometimes, in the past I wish it had been. But, this is actually my point, if you do wait, good for you, and it is a respectable decision, it's just not for everyone. Waiting takes a lot of self control, and I commend you for it. [/color]

[future girl]

I don't believe pre-marital sex is selfish at all if it is done correctly. It's selfish when a person lies to get you into bed, talks you into believing things that are not or will never be true just for the sake of taking your pants off. Sex is the businees of the two ppl involved and being such they should know everything that'll arise from it. Obviously the chances of being lied to are rather high now a days, but it's common knowledge for a person to find out what will happen afterwards and why it's happening in the first place. I do agree that it take a lot of strength to abstain, but for some ppl that's just not what matters. I'm a virgin now, but I honestly doubt that I'm gonna wait 'til marriage. I'm not abstaining, I'm just not ******* an guy that knocks at my door. And even if I did, that would be no ones business but mine. I can look far into the future (and even maybe not so far) and see that my death will have some sort of effect on ppl, but that doesn't mean that I'll alter my lifestyle to suit them.

[BabyGirl]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by AzureWolf [/i]
[B]If you are willing to go that far with someone and still not marry them, there has to be something wrong in the relationship. Why don't you marry them if they are that central to you? [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=deeppink]I think this brings up a good issue, too.

At my age, I'm too involved in training for my career, college, and living life to marry the man I love right now. We're too young, or at least I believe I am, and immature to even think thoughts of married life together now. There's the money issue, too. We're both going through the same, extremely expensive photojournalism program, and I'm living off of my parent's money. I think it would be selfish to suddenly expect them to pay for my married life! There's so many more issues that go along with marriage than just 'getting married'.

However, the person I am with now is an incredibly perfect match for me. He's amazing, and I see myself being with him for a long time in the future. We can still live together as though married, but without the wedding bells and the claustraphobic feeling of being eternally bound.[/color]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by BabyGirl [/i]
[B][color=deeppink]I think this brings up a good issue, too.

At my age, I'm too involved in training for my career, college, and living life to marry the man I love right now. We're too young, or at least I believe I am, and immature to even think thoughts of married life together now. There's the money issue, too. We're both going through the same, extremely expensive photojournalism program, and I'm living off of my parent's money. I think it would be selfish to suddenly expect them to pay for my married life! There's so many more issues that go along with marriage than just 'getting married'.

However, the person I am with now is an incredibly perfect match for me. He's amazing, and I see myself being with him for a long time in the future. We can still live together as though married, but without the wedding bells and the claustraphobic feeling of being eternally bound.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE] See, I think I covered this problem with my last comment: if you two are truly meant together, why would you need to hurry into sex if you can't even go through such a simple celebration first? I know there's some one-time finances and the whole family get-together, but again, it is ultimately a trivial matter if this relationship is so meaningful.

IMO, the whole process of marriage serves as a nice buffer for addressing fears and what-not.

EDIT: btw, I take no offense, Solo (or anyone else). Dispersion of opinion is what we are trying to do here. :)

[Maully]

[color=green]Did you even read the post that you quoted? Marriage is not just a one-time cost. Tax grids change, expenses change. If you're not already handling you own insurance you or your new spouse need to do so. Let's see, Jenna's right, asking your parents to financially support you marriage is just selfish. Buying a house, "family" cars. Food for 2, or more, considering. It is absolutely ignorant to think that marriage is a one time cost. It will be years yet before my boyfriend and I are financially stable enough to get married. The meaningfulness of a relationship is only one aspect of marriage, really. It's not just about love and being able to have acceptable sex, there are a lot of extenuating circumstances that come up.[/color]

[AzureWolf]

It's kind of like one of those energy of activation curves: it starts off low, then there's this financial hurdle for marriage, and then it's low again - not as low as it used to be, but significantly lower than the whole hurdle (meaning the transition).

Again, if you can't financially join, why do you have to cheapen the relationship and join physically? I'm not saying to mooch off of anyone after marriage: simply, if you can't support yourselves, it's clear that you two should not be bonding so extensively.

How do you justify something so unclear? Money changes a person, so are you sure that the person you married is the same person you loved?

[Maully]

[color=green]My emotions are not ruled by my wallet. I love my boyfriend. I have since I met him--we waited almost a year before we had sex with each other. I in no way felt cheapend by that experience. He happens to be the right person for me, and we are going to get married, but probably not for sometime, mostly because of financial reasons.

You can keep emotion in check, but you do not really get to choose who you love, at least in my own experience... I can, however, choose when to take on further fianancial tasks. We're just not prepared for that yet, and it has nothing to do with our feelings for each other, just that we don't want our lives togethers to be so full of stress due to those factors that it outshadows our emotional tie. [/color]

[Semjaza]

This is where you've gone off on a tangent that I cannot agree with. To me, marriage is archaic and a waste of money. It only means so much because people want it to. To me, there are other ways to show your love and commitment for eachother. Doesn't mean I won't get married, I just don't think it's the end-all-be-all of existance. I don't measure the strength of my love to a woman by an old traditon. That is another story. However, even for me -- someone who doesn't really care for marriage, this money idea doesn't float ... That truly seems selfish and just right out strange to me.

So if I love this person and can't afford to get married because of financial reasons, I shouldn't have sex with them? How does this even make sense? I understand being against pre-marital sex, but this, to me, is equating love with financial stability, which just doesn't work. Love doesn't base itself on such trivial and superficial things, so why should I be tied down by it?

People go through hardships. Some people will never be able to afford a nice wedding. That doesn't mean they can't support themselves or eachother in general, but weddings are incredibly expensive... and I doubt most people want to run off to Las Vegas and spend $50 away from their family.

That means that is it? That means their love isn't strong enough to show it in a physical way? How is that a better alternative?

I also think people using the word "personal" before wasn't being used in the sense of... "I'm me, I can do what I want." If they love that person, something personal includes that person. It's keeping them in mind and is not purely selfish.