How Far Is Too Far?

[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.

But, uh, marriage isn't important, morally, to me. It is, however, important because it's a sign of commitment. I don't want to start having sex, have a relationship end, and go into a new relationship already having had sex. I wouldn't know how to pace it properly.

I'm very confident with my relationship... Hell, I felt I had to have been when I asked her, because of the circumstances. Engagement will be enough, I believe.

[Dyne]

I was brought up to have no premarital sex. I've kept my rule religiously.

It drives girls wild when you cut the process of going all the way off at the right time.

[dropCGCF]

Originally Posted by Blackmane

Who wishs they were still a virgin?

I never regret any choice I made in life because it brought me to who I am today.

Kids, don't do it. At least TRY to resist the temptation.

[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.

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.

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.

Plus, with the morning after pill and plan parent hood, it's even more safer nowadays...

I can't view something as obviously biological as sex from a moral standpoint any more.....from an emotional one, sure.

[Ginkasa]

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.

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....

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.

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.

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).

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

[dropCGCF]

Originally Posted by Link1130

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).

What if you were positive that the girl was STD-free and couldn't get pregnant?

[Ginkasa]

Originally Posted by dropCGCF

What if you were positive that the girl was STD-free and couldn't get pregnant?

I'll assume you were being sarcastic...


/me shrugs and walks away

[dropCGCF]

Originally Posted by Link1130

I'll assume you were being sarcastic...


* Link1130 shrugs and walks away

Or you could assume that that's my present situation. She's only been with me and has no uterus.

[Ginkasa]

Oh, well.... I still, personally, wouldn't do it....


/me shrugs and walks away

[KillerGremlin]

Sex is a form of expression, a form of love, and a biological thing. There is no denying that sex is biological. Why do males want to have sex? Because it feels good. Why do females want to have sex? Because they want to feel intimate with their relationship.

Sex can often be an important factor in a relationship. I'm not talking about any old relationship, but if you've been with someone for a long time, then sex might be a part of the relationship that you wish to pursue.

You touch your girlfriend, you make out with her, and you might do other things. She feels intimate, you go home and masturbate. If you are telling me that any physical contact you have with your girlfriend is NOT driven by the physical attraction, and that you never masturbate, then your point about sex being morally correct is totally accurate. But, I have a feeling the moral side of the issue is that you don't want to hit 3rd or 4th base, but you still cum. So, what we have here is, you enjoy a physical element in the relationship, but you choose to avoid ONE certain physical element in that relationship. I know, according to my whacky Catholic faith, they recommend doing nothing but light kissing of the mouth. No making out, no touching, nothing. But, moral lines are blurred, so that's just my 2 cents.

I take the emotional side of sex into consideration, because sex has emotional effects on both partners: namely the female. Having sex sets off hormones, and those hormones can trigger emotional reactions. What's the difference between moral and emotional? The difference is, "I can't have sex because my religion forbids it," and "I don't want to have sex because I don't want to emotionally shatter my relationship."

No, a teenager is not ready to have a child. Hence all the contraceptives out there. Right around....oh, I dunno, the age of 12 or 13 your biological clock ticks. Hard. And then it's girls girls girls. It's only a matter of time before you REACT on that, and as it turns out, one reaction happens to be sex. The question I ask you is: out of a population of 6.6 Billion and climbing, how many people can fight their natural biological clock? As far as STDs go, the pictures they show you in Health class, if you've taken Health, are somewhat over-exagerated. Yes, STDs exist. But, in reality, if you do the population density math and all that other fun stuff, not 1 out of every 4 girls you talk too has an STD.

How can I say anything? Who knows. Personally, I am a virgin. I am waiting for the right person, and I'm not in any hurry to jump the gun. But, at the same time, as a 17 year old male, I know a lot of people that have had sex (as in intercourse). I'm not going to condemn them to the hottest pit of hell, because as a 17 year old male, I know how the male body works, and I know how hormone driven every 17 year old kid is.

[Ginkasa]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

Sex is a form of expression, a form of love, and a biological thing. There is no denying that sex is biological. Why do males want to have sex? Because it feels good. Why do females want to have sex? Because they want to feel intimate with their relationship.

That's somewhat sexist. Males can also wish to have sex to feel more intimate, and I'm fairly certain it feels good for females as well. In fact, I know a few girls who have sex because it feels good, and a few gus who are waiting to do it because they want it to be a special and intimate thing.

[quote=KillerGremlinSex can often be an important factor in a relationship. I'm not talking about any old relationship, but if you've been with someone for a long time, then sex might be a part of the relationship that you wish to pursue. [/quote]

That's where personality enters. I think if you've been in a relationship for a long time, you should pursue sex no more than when you've been in it a short time unless you're married.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

You touch your girlfriend, you make out with her, and you might do other things. She feels intimate, you go home and masturbate. If you are telling me that any physical contact you have with your girlfriend is NOT driven by the physical attraction, and that you never masturbate, then your point about sex being morally correct is totally accurate. But, I have a feeling the moral side of the issue is that you don't want to hit 3rd or 4th base, but you still cum. So, what we have here is, you enjoy a physical element in the relationship, but you choose to avoid ONE certain physical element in that relationship.

That is, yes, the biological fact of it. However, despite your claims that you can see it from an emotional viewpoint, you clearly aren't right here. Yes, people make out because it feels good. Yes, people might masturbate afterwards. Yes, it pretty much leads to the same biological effects on parts of our bodies.

But its the emotional aspect that changes everything (and morality fits in there as well). Sex is much more intimate and personal than making out for a lot of people. It means more than just kissing or touching. I believe that such intimacy should be saved only for the one person that I want to spend my life with.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

I take the emotional side of sex into consideration, because sex has emotional effects on both partners: namely the female.

This is also somewhat sexist...

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

What's the difference between moral and emotional? The difference is, "I can't have sex because my religion forbids it," and "I don't want to have sex because I don't want to emotionally shatter my relationship."

Actually, the first one is the religious aspect. Just because someone follows their religion doesn't necessarily mean that they, themselves, believe the deed is wrong. He just doesn't want to burn in hell (or something. S'like a guy who thinks it should be alright to drive however fast he wants, but follows the speed limit anyway to avoid a ticket.

The moral aspect would be choosing to not have sex because you believe that it is wrong. I find it to be immoral to have sex outside of marriage. That is the moral aspect.

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

No, a teenager is not ready to have a child. Hence all the contraceptives out there. Right around....oh, I dunno, the age of 12 or 13 your biological clock ticks. Hard. And then it's girls girls girls. It's only a matter of time before you REACT on that, and as it turns out, one reaction happens to be sex. The question I ask you is: out of a population of 6.6 Billion and climbing, how many people can fight their natural biological clock? As far as STDs go, the pictures they show you in Health class, if you've taken Health, are somewhat over-exagerated. Yes, STDs exist. But, in reality, if you do the population density math and all that other fun stuff, not 1 out of every 4 girls you talk too has an STD.

It doesn't matter how many contraceptives there are or how many are used. Even if a couple uses every possible way to prevent pregnancy, it could still happen, no matter how unlikely. The couple should be prepared in case that happens, and nobody under 20 could possibly be ready for that.

I'm sure plenty of people could "fight the biological clock" if they actually tried. I'm not saying there should be no relationships, just sex. It is very possible to have relationships, even physical relationships, without resorting to sex.

And who cares what the statistics are on STDs? If you're having sex every time you feel your "ready" you're still going to have to worry about it. That shouldn't happen. I shouldn't have to worry about whether my girlfriend has some STD when we get married and have sex either because she is also a virgin or we've been in a mutual relationship long enough to not have to worry about her having any (and vice versa).

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

How can I say anything? Who knows. Personally, I am a virgin. I am waiting for the right person, and I'm not in any hurry to jump the gun. But, at the same time, as a 17 year old male, I know a lot of people that have had sex (as in intercourse). I'm not going to condemn them to the hottest pit of hell, because as a 17 year old male, I know how the male body works, and I know how hormone driven every 17 year old kid is.

I'm not saying to condemn people to hell because they've screwed someone. I just don't think people our age could possibly ever be ready in a relationship to have sex. We are not mature enough or experienced enough. I can not tell you how many times I hear people in the halls of my school talking about how they love each other and how they'll be married and together forever. I'm sure most, if not all, of those people have sex.

And you know what? Nearly all of those kinds of relationships seem to last no longer than a few months. Sometimes even a few weeks. Afterwards, the two are virtually hating each other and calling each other scum. You think people who are capable of that kind of flip-flopping are responsible enough to recognize whether they're ready for sex or not?

And I'm not just blowing steam. Most people that I've spoken to that had sex in high school, both adults and teenagers, wish that they hadn't done so. A whole lot of the time its because they wish they had waited for the right person rather than wasting on a failed relationship when they weren't ready.


/me shrugs and walks away

[Stray_Bullet]

Originally Posted by Link1130

That's somewhat sexist. Males can also wish to have sex to feel more intimate, and I'm fairly certain it feels good for females as well. In fact, I know a few girls who have sex because it feels good, and a few gus who are waiting to do it because they want it to be a special and intimate thing.

I'd say women definately physically enjoy it.

Oh... unrelated fact:

Most surveys suggest that approximately 94% of teenage males "admitted" that they masturbated and about 70% of teen females "admitted" to this also.

Masturbation has nothing to do with intimacy. Yes, you can ignore this because masturbation and sex are not the same... but if well over half of women do masturbate, then you can't ignore that they enjoy it physically.

[Perfect Stu]

I hit on the first date.



It's probably true...

[DeathsHand]

I don't like touching people and I don't like people touching me (in any way, shape or form), therefore making it hard to say...

I'll wait until I'm married, simply because I never will be...

You get the idea...

[Blackmane]

Masturbation is much less than sex. Masturbation is just the release of some sexual energy. It is more just a primal satisfaction of urges while sex is the true bonding of two people through lovemaking. Sex is something more, even to people who mainly just like it for gratification.