SRL Archive - Discussions & Debates

I've noticed that sexual relations are often demonized, especially outside of marriage.

An example is here
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20100619-276393/No-sex-ed-in-Catholic-schools-parents-told

He said this was because “basic sex education could pose a danger to children if it is taught in schools.”

Children may become curious about their sexuality if they learn about it in school, the bishop said.

“It would be like telling them that sex is all right especially if the teacher does not know how to handle the topic well,” he said.

Another example is this.
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd282/Nine1215/Political/aborshun.gif

Now I don't want this thread to be about abortion.


Why does this happen? I would think that since the act happens in private between consenting adults there would be nothing wrong with it. Same argument for gay rights really. What are these bad consequences that happen as a result of young people having sex? especially now that we have developed means to stop conception of children and the spread of disease.

Sex gets better with confidence and practice. Wouldn't it be a good thing to allow people to better understand their body and know what sort of things they like so they can build stronger and more secure relationships?

I've heard some arguments about "corrupting moral fibre", "destroying innocence", "cheapening sex" or "losing self-control". But what does this even mean and why should we be worried? What does it mean to have a corrupted moral fibre and how exactly does extramarital sex bring about this? Do you have evidence for sex becoming `cheap' outside of marriage and why should we take steps to prevent it?

I've seen people get respect for saying they will wait for marriage before they have sex, why is this? Being held in higher regard for holding off your natural urges. Would you also get respect for not eating any food for weeks? What about not drinking water? Would I get respect by sleeping on the floor when I could lie on a comfortable bed? Or walking barefoot when I have good shoes.

Please share your thoughts SRL.

SEX….feels good bro

But seriously, I have no problem with people getting it on as long as they get the consequences.

Waiting until marriage before sex shows a persons self control. Sex isn't a vital part to everyday life and amongst the growing number of casual relationships which base around it, saying no to sex is becoming on par with saying no to smoking or drugs. Sure, all the cool kids do it, but that doesn't mean everyone should. Saying no to sex shows that a person isn't just doing it because their friends told them it was great or because peers pressured them into it, but rather because they are waiting until they're ready - waiting until they find that special person.

I would also say that a lot of people do go without food and the like for various reasons. Fasting is often a way for people to show their faith in something, such as a religion. The idea behind it being that self control shows you aren't an `animal'. Being able to control yourself is something important, I mean people who can't control their rage are often disliked.

Marriage is the classic sign of a loving and committed relationship. While one may argue to what extent that is true, it is the environment in which sex should be involved in. A situation where two people have agreed to put up with each other regardless of what happens (supposedly), which is the situation in which any consequence of sex can be handled. Abortion would ideally be only due to medical problems in this case and to a less severe outcome safe sex would be less of a problem to enforce or to require to a lesser extent as they would ideally be aware of the presence of STD's as well as discussing contraception before.

On top of all this is STD's. While condoms can prevent some, it isn't guaranteed as accidental contact can still occur. As well as that, not all contraception is 100% and so any sex is increasing the chance of conception by a lot. Casual relationships may not be wanting this as an outcome, but it is. While abortion is an option, it's also not for everyone and in a lot of countries is still under somewhat strict limitations in regards to conditions required for an abortion to be legally performed.

As far as morality goes, it does depend a lot on upbringing. Traditionally, sex is taught as an act between two people in love. Indeed, it should be. How can two people show how much they mean to each other if the most intimate thing they can do is what people do with strangers or acquaintances. A `corrupt' morality can be a problem as morality is what makes society function in conjunction with the law. One could say that increasing levels of casual sex may relate to increasing levels of rape and/or underage sex (I suspect correlation, but can't be bothered to find statistics and explain why I think correlation implies causation in this instance).

With regards to sexual prowess, a virgin has no frame of reference. Everything is relative and so if you only have sex with one person, how are you to know whether they are good or bad? Returning to love/marriage, that is also the kind of stable relationship in which you can develop your sex life, as it should be an open relationship with communication between both of you. Not only that, but you can develop it towards both of your ends (heh) rather than to pleasing generic wo/men whom you have no long term interest in.

Innocence is something that is quite affected by sex. With the internet revolution, teenagers are being subjected to pornography from an earlier age. You may say that previous generations had access to said material, however the internet does make quite a point of bringing it up a lot, helping to introduce teenagers to sex at a younger age, but not in a realistic portrayal. Instead, it suggests that sex is something that everyone does with people they don't know as well as other negative points.

Of course, the above relies on you assuming innocence is something to be protected. I think it is, because at the ages discussed sex isn't at all needed. The earlier teens haven't hit puberty yet, so shouldn't really even be thinking of sex at all. The mid teens don't really need encouragement, so to speak, because they are in a complex place in life and sex would complicate it further. Nothing is harsher than the school playground and with sex, it can bring horrible consequences (things from gossip of a girl being a slut or a guy with a small penis to nude photos being shared and so on). Those sorts of things arise from them losing their innocence before they can cope with the consequences they may not have thought of in their youthful ignorance.

I do now just have the problem of how you seem to bring up two independent debates and treat them as the same. I don't see how sex education cannot coexist with an open approach to sex as a special thing. What I think is more appropriate is to highlight how instead of sex education, relationship education is what (I think it is) Sweden teach to young children to help promote equality (in terms of gay rights and the like) and firm, stable relationships. Sex shouldn't be what defines a relationship, because it would be like eating defining life. It's important, but just a small part. Teaching safe sex without teaching about relationships is to give them the wrong ideas about what a relationship is.

Also, Jason2gs likes men.

You and me baby aren't nothing but mammals, lets do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

From: R0b0t1
You and me baby aren't nothing but mammals, lets do it like they do on the Discovery Channel.

The Bloodhound Gang - Bad Touch

I know a kid who is a very strict Christian who just got married at 19, and I'm fairly sure he only got hitched so that he could bone his wife.

Whereas I don't have to get married to have sex with whoever I want. I just think it's pretty obvious which situation is better.

Sex really should mean something though. I personally find girls that have slept around to be a big turn off

From: NCDS
Sex really should mean something though. I personally find girls that have slept around to be a big turn off

yup, I agree. It's funny you always want to bone random chicks until you like the girl and then your mad that she's fucked other guys when in reality that's all you originally wanted to do anyways.

From: NCDS
Sex really should mean something though. I personally find girls that have slept around to be a big turn off

Should it though? It's just a pleasurable act, I feel like I am attracted to the girls I want to date for reasons other than sex, although I enjoy having sex with them. To be honest though, it doesn't mean anything super special.

I think often times we convince ourselves that we "like" someone, when really we don't give a shit about them as a person, we just think they are hot. But with people you truly enjoy being around, sex should just be (in my opinion) a physical manifestation of something you already feel emotionally. If the sex was gone it wouldn't ruin the relationship.

From: Tim0suprem0
Should it though? It's just a pleasurable act, I feel like I am attracted to the girls I want to date for reasons other than sex, although I enjoy having sex with them. To be honest though, it doesn't mean anything super special.

I think often times we convince ourselves that we "like" someone, when really we don't give a shit about them as a person, we just think they are hot. But with people you truly enjoy being around, sex should just be (in my opinion) a physical manifestation of something you already feel emotionally. If the sex was gone it wouldn't ruin the relationship.

But without the sex and sexual attraction, would the gender matter?

I see people are talking about me…how rude.
I, myself, am a virgin and am choosing to stay that way until I find a person I love to lose it to. Not necessarily until marriage however. Whorish behavior is wrong though. Sex isn't just something you do and move on i.e hit it and quit it..

From: Wizzup?
But without the sex and sexual attraction, would the gender matter?

A hole's a hole :kiss:

From: NCDS
Sex really should mean something though. I personally find girls that have slept around to be a big turn off

Sex does mean something. Perhaps you're trying to suggest that having sex often somehow makes it worth less? Well I've already posted reasons why this is silly, perhaps you'd like to respond to them.

"Walking should mean something. Therefore we should never ever walk unless it's in shoes we really really feel comfortable in, and even then only rarely. Everywhere else we should crawl on all fours. If we walked too often it would make walking worthless. I personally find it a turn-off when people walk around too much."

From: Blumblebee
yup, I agree. It's funny you always want to bone random chicks until you like the girl and then your mad that she's fucked other guys when in reality that's all you originally wanted to do anyways.

yep, if anything this shows the hypocrisy of your side. Perhaps you should be pleased that she knows what she's doing instead of being a shy giggling virgin. The sex will be better.


In this thread whenever you apply the word 'should' to something you are making a moral judgement. This thread is about discussing and questioning those moral judgements, so you can just say something 'should' be like this or that without explaining it.

From: Sex
I see people are talking about me…how rude.
I, myself, am a virgin and am choosing to stay that way until I find a person I love to lose it to. Not necessarily until marriage however. Whorish behavior is wrong though. Sex isn't just something you do and move on i.e hit it and quit it..

Similar question as NCDS. Why should sex be like this or that? And why do many of you guys feel like you can look down your noses at people who do have sex.



I feel this issue is a remainder from our past when major institutions moved to control every part of our daily lives. This entire issue is tied up with religion and feminism.

I feel as though I should point to this..

http://goo.gl/XWdc

^ (NSFW)

From: Yakman
Sex does mean something. Perhaps you're trying to suggest that having sex often somehow makes it worth less? Well I've already posted reasons why this is silly, perhaps you'd like to respond to them.

"Walking should mean something. Therefore we should never ever walk unless it's in shoes we really really feel comfortable in, and even then only rarely. Everywhere else we should crawl on all fours. If we walked too often it would make walking worthless. I personally find it a turn-off when people walk around too much."

I have sex plenty. I don't look down on people simply for having sex. I look down on people that sleep around just because they can.

Pardon my language but would you rather stick your dick in someone who has had hundreds of other dicks in it, or just maybe a couple others.

Some people just have higher standards than others and if you don't have enough self respect to care about what your doing with people then you don't deserve any kind of respect from anyone else either.

From: Wizzup?
But without the sex and sexual attraction, would the gender matter?

Personally, I think gender is important to animals to procreate, but if humans consider themselves as "higher beings" (I know this can be construed as arrogant or untrue) then gender wouldn't really matter. A heterosexual male, as a rational, thinking creature, could fall in love with another man.

Feel free to disagree, but then it would suggest that love is really nonexistant and that sex is all that holds us together. But I like to think that we can love and that it is something special :); a facet of our higher understanding, not our sex drive.

did you ever read Don Quixote? More specifically Chapter XIV, Part One? http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_guide/literature/Don-Quixote-Summary-Analysis-and-Original-Text-by-Chapter-Chapter-XIV.id-87,pageNum-114.html

+1 ~ $H!T blackelvis, it is a rare day to find someone else who has read Don Quixote.. * yay

It really is. its a shame books like that aren't so widely read anymore. But to get back on topic, you see what im trying to say? Marcela explains that grisostomo's death was his own doing because she did not lead him to believe that she wanted to return the love that he felt for her. If she would have obliged Grisostomo and filled him with false hope and then later spurned him she would have been partly, if not wholly, to blame for his death.

And to apply this to a more modern sense if one sleeps with another and assumes that this will lead to a more intimate relationship without any kind of consensus of this on the part of the other person, then the first is to blame for their own delusional assumptions. But if one promises something, such as saying "I love you, and only you" to basically trick the other into sleeping with the first, and the first not having any intention to follow through on said love, then the first is wholly to blame for being deceitful and not having honest intentions.
idk, its just what i make of sex in relationships
whats wrong with having multiple partners if your intentions are honest and you practice safe sex? its just sex unless someone applies some other, deeper meaning to it

From: blackelvis
It really is. its a shame books like that aren't so widely read anymore. But to get back on topic, you see what im trying to say? Marcela explains that grisostomo's death was his own doing because she did not lead him to believe that she wanted to return the love that he felt for her. If she would have obliged Grisostomo and filled him with false hope and then later spurned him she would have been partly, if not wholly, to blame for his death.

And to apply this to a more modern sense if one sleeps with another and assumes that this will lead to a more intimate relationship without any kind of consensus of this on the part of the other person, then the first is to blame for their own delusional assumptions. But if one promises something, such as saying "I love you, and only you" to basically trick the other into sleeping with the first, and the first not having any intention to follow through on said love, then the first is wholly to blame for being deceitful and not having honest intentions.
idk, its just what i make of sex in relationships
whats wrong with having multiple partners if your intentions are honest and you practice safe sex? its just sex unless someone applies some other, deeper meaning to it

If only girls were so transparent with their feelings and intentions… Unfortunately I have never met one who is.

^ I assure you, you have. Humans aren't very complex, but for some reason we tend to be portrayed otherwise.

^ Oh, I think that goes both ways. Most humans are less complex than they think they are and more complex than we think they are.

From: i luffs yeww
^ I assure you, you have. Humans aren't very complex, but for some reason we tend to be portrayed otherwise.

I meant in terms of saying one thing, but meaning/wanting another. If we never did this, Aspie's would go unnoticed.

From: Tim0suprem0
If only girls were so transparent with their feelings and intentions… Unfortunately I have never met one who is.

well you know, i was speaking in the most general of terms and ideas

Pick a sin you are willing to live with. Sins of the flesh from consumption to sex. To drugs. To playing video games. To scamming people financially. To corrupting. To plastic surgery.


I would trade the right for a school to teach elementary kids to put condoms on cucumbers in elementary school for child gun rights to have a concealed weapons in and to and from school.

The pedophiles teaching children how to put the condoms on cucumbers will think twice about kidnapping at bus stops.

From: anonymity
+1 ~ $H!T blackelvis, it is a rare day to find someone else who has read Don Quixote.. * yay

It's "Don Quichotte", I saw that on wikipedia it is ``Quixote'' (English page), but that is ridiculous… :/ The original book is Quichotte anyway. Whoever replaced ch with x is one weird person… The pronunciation is totally different too… I know multiple who read it, I don't know why it is sparsely read in America…

^ Are they the same thing? Quixote seems Spanish, while Quichotte isn't? French or something, right? I dunno.

From: Wizzup?
It's "Don Quichotte", I saw that on wikipedia it is ``Quixote'' (English page), but that is ridiculous… :/ The original book is Quichotte anyway. Whoever replaced ch with x is one weird person… The pronunciation is totally different too… I know multiple who read it, I don't know why it is sparsely read in America…

Mum/Mom, Color/Colour, Quantizing/Quantising

Listen to the top hole so you can get with the bottom hole later..

im gay

^ BROOL STORY, CO. a

http://www.krtv.com/news/helena-schools-draft-sex-ed-document-causing-controversy/

From: NCDS
Sex really should mean something though. I personally find girls that have slept around to be a big turn off

I agree 100%.