Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Stray_Bullet
What I do is based on a combination of how confident I am that I'll be with her for the rest of my life, and how comfortable I am (she's my first girlfriend).
She was in a relationship of three years before she was with me (she being the dumpee). They'd done it all (except for sex, which is good for us), so she's not uncomfortable with it. It also, however, drives me a bit to try to catch up to her. I've been pacing it though.
|
That's odd. That's really similar to Angela and me.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dyne
It drives girls wild when you cut the process of going all the way off at the right time.
|
I should think that might be worse than actually going through with it, at least when you're thinking about the other person in the deal....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
I don't know how people can look at the moral aspect of this...I mean, what's immoral about sex? It's a physical expression of passion *originally* intended to be used for reproduction.....how our feelings have led us askew.
|
I don't understand. How does its current use (passion) and biological "original" use (babies) negate the moral aspect.
Anyway, what I think is wrong with sex is that it
is use as an expression of passion, when biologically it is the way to reproduce. I don't believe that two people who do not love each other (and by love, I mean
love not just passion or horniness) can ever possibly be as good of parents as two people who do. Even if the couple does everything in their power to prevent a pregnancy, just simply having sex is like signing a contract for a baby, condom or not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
Personally, what I think justifies sex is the level of commitment in a relationship, and the readiness of the two couples. I don't think 13 year olds should be getting at it, but if you are 16, 17 or older, and you feel that you are ready for that commitment, then by all means.
|
I seriously doubt there are going to be very many 16 or 17 years olds (or even 18, 19, maybe 20 year olds) who are truly ready for the commitment of all the responsibilities that should come with sex. One of those is the possibility of a baby, and there is
no teenager that is ready for the commitment of a baby.
Even if the couple does feel they're ready for it all, they really probably aren't. They don't have a clue what they're truly getting into. It would show more maturity and responsibility if the couple decide to wait until they're older and married than deciding they're "ready" now and got at it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
The most important thing to worry about, realistically, is the cause and effect. I mean, we got the STDs, unwanted pregnancies, and the emotional baggage. If you are prepared to protect yourself, and handle any unexpected situation....then woohoo.
|
See, if a couple was really ready to have sex, they shouldn't have to worry about that stuff. STDs wouldn't be a problem since neither should have slept with anyone at least long enough for any diseases to be diagnosed. If they're ready to have sex, they should be ready to handle a baby, which means no pregnancy would be "unwanted." And if there is any chance for any kind of emotional baggage, they certainly shouldn't be having it. IMO, sex should relieve emotional stress, not add to it (although I admit that I wouldn't be expert on it).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KillerGremlin
I can't view something as obviously biological as sex from a moral standpoint any more.....from an emotional one, sure.
|
How you can say that, I don't know. How does sex being biological have anything to do with morality? What about sex allows to be considered from the emotional angle, but not the moral angle?
/me shrugs and walks away