Pre-marital sex

[Metman07]

RA's latest -and unusually long- blog entry is on this subject. He is of the opinion that pre-marital chastity is a good idea that it is rejected by atheists and liberal Christians simply because it is often an idea advocated by orthodox religion. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Personally I'm of the opinion that it depends on the circumstances. What really changes when people get married? They have a ceremony and get a piece of paper changing their legal status. I will agree that fucking on the first date often doesn't bode well for the long term future of the relationship. But couples can be committed to each other without getting married. In America marriage doesn't necessarily entail commitment at all.

And why must sex only come with commitment? Highly intelligent lifeforms have sex for pleasure. Bonobos and dolphins have sex for fun all the time. Using modern technology and a little caution, people can have sex without producing children or contracting diseases.

[joni]

I think it's important to make sure you and your prospective spouse are sexually compatible before you bind yourselves to each other with a legal contract.

I wouldn't buy a car before test driving it. And I would be really pissed to be stuck with a car and then and find out it's prone to premature ejaculation. :)

[Zarathustra]

Value judgments are made by people, and not innate to that which we assign them. If I want to find value in having a sexual relationship with someone, I can only do so by valuating the act of sex. The only way to do this is to be selective with my partners.

[Victus]

Marriage being an abstract concept for me, I see little reason for sex to be contingent on it. Single mother, but not single-father, families have a tendency to provide poor socialization to children, leading to higher rates of antisociality, especially amongst children with 'fearless' temperments. While this is the case, the current divorce rate is over 50%, meaning that even if a child was born in wedlock, there is an equal probability that they will be raised by a single parent, quite likely their mother.

As long as people take due care (condoms, check-ups at clinics), there is no reason why sex should be limited to the married. Especially in the US, where marriage is apparently something only some people can have.

[Demigod79]

I don't think pre-marital sex is that big a deal, as long as people do it responsibly (e.g., use contraceptives). Besides, it's not like marriage is an absolute guarantee a stable family environment, as shown by high divorce rates. I think the more time you spend with someone, and the more you get to know them and try things together the more successful the relationship will be. Thus I am for pre-marital sex (although only if it's done responsibly) and living together before marriage.

Besides, if pre-marital sex was banned then I think there will be higher a numbers of youngsters getting married just to have sex (you can't expect youngsters to avoid temptations until they're old enough for responsible family life). This of course means higher divorces rates and broken families. Marriage should be family-oriented, not sex-oriented.

[Tenspace]

We're monkeys. We fuck. Do it responsibly. Don't fuck children. Don't fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck.

Did I miss anything?

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

I'm the type of guy who likes to have a back-up plan. I wouldn't get into a sexual relationship unless I were prepared for the possibility of contraception failure, which means I'd have to have known my partner for a long time and think of her as a great potential long-term partner and mother, and I'd have to have a good job that brings in enough money to support a kid or two.

[Jake]

Marriage is bullshit to begin with.

We're monkeys. We fuck. Do it responsibly. Don't fuck children. Don't fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck.
Exactly.

[anthonyjfuchs]

First of all, the "institution of marriage" is utterly unnecessary to society at large. It serves purely legal purposes including insurance, inheritance, and taxes. The legal document of a marriage certificate is absolutely meaningless if two people decide that they want to spend the rest of their lives in a monogamous relationship with each other, because they can do so without any legal recognition whatsoever. Marriage is really about announcing your "love" to the world, which makes it one big spectacle that's more about getting attention than about demonstrating your actual dedication to another person. No one else needs to see you announce your love; the only person who needs to know about it is the person you claim to fuckin love.

I don't understand the problem that people have with sex outside of marriage. If you don't want to have sex before you're married, then good for you; live by those high-faluting standards of yours, and in the meantime, keep `em to yourself. It's not up to you to make personal decisions for anyone else. As long as people are educated enough to have sex that is safe from unwanted pregnancy and disease, LET THEM BE. It's not your fuckin life; it's not your cock, or your twat. Mind your own FUCKIN BUSINESS. I seriously don't get it.

Don't fuck children. Don't fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck.
Isn't it strange that this wasn't covered in the Big Ten that Moses brought down from the Flaming Shrub?

The J-Xian god is apparently so frivolous that these are its primary concerns:
1. Don't worship those other baseless beings; I'm the only baseless being you are to worship.
2. Paintings, statues and stained-glass windows are NOT cool, dude.
3. If you intend to lie, don't say "I swear to god" first.
4. Chill out on Sunday. I'm all-powerful, and even I took a fuckin break.
5. Respect your parents. They're abusive drunks? RESPECT `EM!!
6. Don't kill each other. Unless I tell you to. Then kill each other for my entertainment.
7. Don't have perfectly consentual sex with anyone already engaged in a marital contract.
8. Don't steal shit. Unless it belonged to people I told you to kill. Then it's yours.
9. Don't lie about your neighbors in court. You call it "perjury"? Oh, then...as you were.
10. I know your neighbor has some cool shit, and I know we covered stealing back on #8, but it's such an important point that I don't want you to even allow yourself to "want" the same stuff as your neighbor. It's that important; I needed two rules to get the point across.

Apparently, rape and pedophilia don't rank as high as paintings of god and taking Sunday off. Fuckwits.

[Eva]

open question:
how many of you had pre-marital sex while still being theists and how did you rationalize it (or deal with it)?

same question for theists....

this should be interesting.

[Tenspace]

Don't fuck children. Don't fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck.
Isn't it strange that this wasn't covered in the Big Ten that Moses brought down from the Flaming Shrub?
That's because fucking children and forcible sex were acceptable back then. Note there are no exclusions to slave ownership either.

[Choobus]

We're monkeys. We fuck. Do it responsibly. Don't fuck children. Don't fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck.

Did I miss anything?
\

yeah, don't fuck relatives.....

[Gnosital]

open question:
how many of you had pre-marital sex while still being theists and how did you rationalize it (or deal with it)?

same question for theists....

this should be interesting.
Not having had a choice in the matter, my earliest sexual experience (age 8) was a significant formative event in my eventually becoming atheist.

[EvelKnievel]

yeah, don't fuck relatives.....
You forgot to specify blood relatives.

But that goes without saying. And I just said it. Fuck, I'm an ass.

[darwinfish]

ah but if they never plan on having children, is consentual incest wrong?
it's fucking disgusting but is it 'go-to-jail' wrong?

anyway, I'm quite enjoying my pre-maritals yet I'll fully admit that I'd never fuck anyone I didn't plan on spending my life with. If shit doesn't work out, I'll be pissed. Oh sure, there's people who elicit "I totally want to jump that guy" thoughts, but I'd never act on them. No one need think this is the ultimate path to follow either. If you find some chick or guy that just wants to fuck, go nuts (but please don't go breaking the fragile little hearts of nieve semi-adults).

[Choobus]

yeah, don't fuck relatives.....
You forgot to specify blood relatives.

But that goes without saying. And I just said it. Fuck, I'm an ass.
To be honest with you, I think if you need to make that distinction, you have already gone too far, Yeah, it helsp avoid the mutant babies, but fucking people who are in any way connected to your own family is asking for trouble. It's like taking a dump on a pillow, but making sure it's not your pillow: the liklehood is that it's still going to raise a stink.....

[Professor Chaos]

Ah, the old philosophical question:

"If Choobus takes a shit on a pillow, and noone's there to smell it, does it still raise a stink?"

[Choobus]

Ah, the old philosophical question:

"If Choobus takes a shit on a pillow, and noone's there to smell it, does it still raise a stink?"
Exactly

[anthonyjfuchs]

how many of you had pre-marital sex while still being theists and how did you rationalize it (or deal with it)?
I was still technically BAC when I gave up the goods (which were, at that point, mere "mediocres"), and I actually held out on my girlfriend-of-the-time because I wanted to uphold the whole "wait for marriage" standard. As I recall, I was a pretty liberal J-Xian to begin with, so I think I rationalized my carnal sinfulness as a momentary lapse into weakness that Jeebus would forgive if I was truly sorry, as well as a cosmically harmless romp that the Real Gawd wouldn't really care about given that He has much more important shit to deal with.

I rationalized it like that every time I had sex, with every girl who bedded me.

[James]

What about fucking dolphins?

http://www.zoophile.net/dolphin.php

Once comfortable, though, females initiate a series of muscular vaginal contractions that rub the entire length of your member. They may also thrust rhythmically against you, so enjoy the experience while you can, since you will rarely last longer that a minute or two. Just prior to her climaxing, she will up the speed of her contractions and thrusts. It is interesting to note that the times I have mated with females, they have timed their orgasm to mine. Whether they do this consciously or not, I do not know, but it is a great feeling to have two bodies shuddering against each other at the one time.

One thing to note. Whether you masturbate or mate a fin, male or female, always spend time with them afterwards. Cuddle them, rub them, talk to them and most importantly, show them you love them. This is essential, as it helps to strengthen the bond between you.
Good advice.


I don't think sex before marriage is wrong at all, in fact, I would encourage it.

Hailing from a country that can boast the highest teenage-pregnancy rate in Europe, I would say that pre-marital sex in the U.K in incredibly common. I, and most of my friends (we are sixth formers, about to start uni, I'm 18 for example), have been having sex for at least a few years (not necessarily with each other, although its all good).

I think that 'waiting' to have sex until marriage is healthy, and I cannot imagine not having a non-sexual relationship, as it develops a closeness which I believe should be established long before the apparent 'commitment' that marriage claims to offer.

I know of one person, a girl at secondary school, who was a fucking Xian nutjob who reckoned that she was going to wait, but she ended up knobbing her boyfriend anyway (who later turned out to be gay after he dumped her (they had been going out for about 4 years, and we all knew he was gay - he was the campest of the camp, ha ha). Now she is so incredibly horny that she'll try it on with anyone - but still claims, of course, to be Christian.

[EvelKnievel]

What about fucking dolphins?

http://www.zoophile.net/dolphin.php
WARNING! In the considerations of safety, youshould NEVER let a male dolphin attempt anal sex with you. The Bottle-nosedolphin member is around 12 inches, very muscular, and the thrusting andthe force of ejaculation (A male can come as far as 14 feet) would causeserious internal injuries, resulting in peritonitus and possible death.Unless you are the masochistic type, you will have a hard time explainingyour predicament to the doctors in the emergency ward....
:o

[James]

I made that mistake. It tore me a new one.

[Choobus]

where is the support group for those who have been "dolphined"?

[Gathercole]

Re: blood relatives of the same generation. If it's consensual, what's the problem? The good people at www.cousincouples.com would take issue with your dark-age prejudice. This week's famous cousin couple: Charles Darwin and Emma Wedgewood.

[MrsMoe]

I'm old fashioned. I think fucking around and whoring it up is jsut plain nasty. Waiting until you are married however is the other extreme.

[thenormalyears]

Who are all these people with a few hundred posts that I have never seen before?

[calpurnpiso]

where is the support group for those who have been "dolphined"?
:lol::lol:.....that's for the dolphins to know and you to find out...:lol:

[Metman07]

Re: blood relatives of the same generation. If it's consensual, what's the problem? The good people at www.cousincouples.com would take issue with your dark-age prejudice. This week's famous cousin couple: Charles Darwin and Emma Wedgewood.
I wasn't aware that Darwin married his cousin. I'm surprised the creationists haven't used that against him yet.

[thenormalyears]

Re: blood relatives of the same generation. If it's consensual, what's the problem? The good people at www.cousincouples.com would take issue with your dark-age prejudice. This week's famous cousin couple: Charles Darwin and Emma Wedgewood.
I wasn't aware that Darwin married his cousin. I'm surprised the creationists haven't used that against him yet.
Oh they have, but you know Darwin did this back in the day before we knew why it was bad to do this.

[James]

I wasn't aware that Darwin married his cousin. I'm surprised the creationists haven't used that against him yet.
It would be ironic if they did, considering that the opposite, marrying someone from a different 'gene pool' is the basis of diversity, and eventually (although a bit simplistic) evolution.

Unless Darwin supposed that having inbred children would lead to a positive mutation?! :lol:

[anthonyjfuchs]

Re: blood relatives of the same generation. If it's consensual, what's the problem? The good people at www.cousincouples.com would take issue with your dark-age prejudice. This week's famous cousin couple: Charles Darwin and Emma Wedgewood.
Totally. My younger cousin's hot, and brilliant to boot.

[Tenspace]

His realization at the inheritance problems prompted many of his later studies. He couldn't bear watching his children suffer - keep in mind, it was not unacceptable to marry your cousin back then. Darwin's work on this subject helped shed light on the problem of inbreeding. The Darwins and Wedgwoods had been interbreeding for many generations. He was saddened by the thoughts that he contributed to his children's "weak constitutions".

[James]

But surely, if evolution had no basis, was a 'religion' then interbreeding would not make a bit of difference, as we are all 'God's creatures' hailing originally from Adam and Eve.

Why would we reach a point with human development where inbreeding was suddenly damaging (after all, according to theists, we are all interbred, having come from a single couple), and diversity was needed, if evolution wasn't correct?

Could this be classed as further evidence against creationism?

[darwinfish]

no because god magic trumps all "evidence", remember?

[ranma1/2]

We're monkeys. We fuck. Do it responsibly. Don't fuck children. Don't fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck.

Did I miss anything?
\

yeah, don't fuck relatives.....
well if they are mentaly sound and not kids and you havent had any undue influence, then sure fuck em..

[ranma1/2]

Re: blood relatives of the same generation. If it's consensual, what's the problem? The good people at www.cousincouples.com would take issue with your dark-age prejudice. This week's famous cousin couple: Charles Darwin and Emma Wedgewood.
I wasn't aware that Darwin married his cousin. I'm surprised the creationists haven't used that against him yet.
Oh they have, but you know Darwin did this back in the day before we knew why it was bad to do this.
hell christians have been interbreeding for centuries..

maybe thats why so many of them are so fucked up.

[WITHTEETH]

Well if Eve came from adams Rib that should count too.

[James]

I expect he had a few bottoms ribs removed...

[Sternwallow]

We're monkeys. We fuck. Do it responsibly. Don't fuck children. Don't fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck.

Did I miss anything?
\

yeah, don't fuck relatives.....
Wait a minute! You don't think it's OK to have sex with relatives, using the various protections to prevent pregnancy? I thought the only reason not to have sex with your sister or mother etc. was the high risk of impairment to an infant. If you are sterile, what difference can it have who you have sex with?

Given my superior genes, if I had a sister, she would be flat-out Hot. We would automatically have much in common. Would you, Choobus, deny me the distinct pleasure of her company in non-procreative pleasure?

[Sternwallow]

What about fucking dolphins?
Ambiguous question:
What about fucking the dolphins?
What about those fucking dolphins?
What about dolphins fucking each other?
What about being fucked by dolphins?
What about fucking dolphins who are close blood relatives?

[Sternwallow]

I don't think sex before marriage is wrong at all, in fact, I would encourage it.
For the sanctity and longevity and stability of marriage between two compatible people, I would consider making premarital sex mandatory.

[Livingstrong]

Marriage should be only about legal issues, not about moral values. That is another Christianity BS.
Sex is sex. Protective sex. Responsible sex, amongst consenting adults.
Not incest please nor necrophilia nor zoophilia.
We should keep sex amongst adult human beings.
As an Atheist I like to live my life by common sense and logic.
I don't believe in chastity, I believe in having sex responsibly, and why not?, in having lots of sex with LOTS AND LOTS OF PLEASURE!

[Jahrta]

RA's latest -and unusually long- blog entry is on this subject. He is of the opinion that pre-marital chastity is a good idea that it is rejected by atheists and liberal Christians simply because it is often an idea advocated by orthodox religion. What are your thoughts on the matter?

Personally I'm of the opinion that it depends on the circumstances. What really changes when people get married? They have a ceremony and get a piece of paper changing their legal status. I will agree that fucking on the first date often doesn't bode well for the long term future of the relationship. But couples can be committed to each other without getting married. In America marriage doesn't necessarily entail commitment at all.

And why must sex only come with commitment? Highly intelligent lifeforms have sex for pleasure. Bonobos and dolphins have sex for fun all the time. Using modern technology and a little caution, people can have sex without producing children or contracting diseases.
I'll take it one step further - I don't think religious people should have sex...at all.

[Livingstrong]

I'll take it one step further - I don't think religious people should have sex...at all.
Yeah! I agree!

[I_wish_I_believe]

Marriage was a huge evolutionary advance back in the day before religions were spawned. For one thing it allowed everybody to get laid, not only dominant males, and for another it provided a more stable environment for raising kids which was important as more knowledge had to passed e.g. agriculture, fire-making, hunting etc. Just to emphasize the first point: a few days ago I was watching animal planet, the show was about some kind of ape, there was the dominant male with tens of females around him, and one poor ape was so horny that he took advantage of the few moments when the alpha male was not paying attention to make his move on one of the females, the poor guy was fucking and looking over his shoulder, a hillarious scene.
Here in Saudi i think marriages serve as some kinda screening device. For one thing pre-marital relationships are considered extremely immoral ( i heard about a guy who got his junk cut off by his love's brothers when he was caught with his pants down, another guy who i know got beat up to a 2-day comma for the same thing, as for girls, i know some freakingly scary things which i dont feel like telling right now).
So to pass your genes and have kids and also live to tell the tale in saudi u gotta be married. But marriages itself is extremely expensive, you got to pay tons of money, arrange four huge ceremonies/parties (which i'd be glad to talk about in detail if anyone is interested), and -it goes w/o saying- buy a house. So in a sense, marriages here serve the same function that allows the dominant ape to have sole fucking rights. If you're poor and cant gert married, you must be really smart about who, when, and where you fuck, otherwise you risk a lot.

[Livingstrong]

. For one thing pre-marital relationships are considered extremely immoral ( i heard about a guy who got his junk cut off by his love's brothers when he was caught with his pants down, another guy who i know got beat up to a 2-day comma for the same thing, as for girls, i know some freakingly scary things which i dont feel like telling right now).
I_Wish,
How do gay and lesbians manage to have sex in Makkah without getting killed? :o

[calpurnpiso]

. For one thing pre-marital relationships are considered extremely immoral ( i heard about a guy who got his junk cut off by his love's brothers when he was caught with his pants down, another guy who i know got beat up to a 2-day comma for the same thing, as for girls, i know some freakingly scary things which i dont feel like telling right now).
I_Wish,
How do gay and lesbians manage to have sex in Makkah without getting killed? :o
......Hmmm...I bet by getting a student visa and come to the USA where people are so naive and dumb that sex is for the taking with boys and girls....the more christ-psychosis infected they are the EASIER it is to make them adore Penis-Christ...:lol:
I bet in Makka only the aristocracy are able to bypass the islam-psychosis and enjoy good gay-sex...:)

[Choobus]

We're monkeys. We fuck. Do it responsibly. Don't fuck children. Don't fuck someone who doesn't want to fuck.

Did I miss anything?
\

yeah, don't fuck relatives.....
Wait a minute! You don't think it's OK to have sex with relatives, using the various protections to prevent pregnancy? I thought the only reason not to have sex with your sister or mother etc. was the high risk of impairment to an infant. If you are sterile, what difference can it have who you have sex with?

Given my superior genes, if I had a sister, she would be flat-out Hot. We would automatically have much in common. Would you, Choobus, deny me the distinct pleasure of her company in non-procreative pleasure?
MY main concern would be the banjo-kids. If you're shooting blanks then bang your sister by all means. As long as it doesn't affect anyone else then you should be able to fuck anyone you want, no matter how stomach churning other might find it to be. This applies to everyone apart from Ann coulter, who should have her womb confiscated in case she tries to use it.

[I_wish_I_believe]

actually gays and lesbians have an easier time fucking than straights over here, which is fucking discriminatory. The thing is, they can pass as "just friends" in front of people. As for straights, this defense does not usually work. My ex would have the color fade off of her face when she saw someone who looks like her father driving down the street while shes with me. But somehow we managed. Usually after her father drops her off at the college she would step in, stretch a bit and maybe yawn, then step back out where horny me is waiting in his car, then we would go off to whatever motel room god takes us. then we would have sex like two perverts who finally met. Now taking her back to college i had to be carefull, i dont wanna run into her hairy father with his beloved daughter in my passenger seat, so usually i would drop her off at the corner while she has her full veil/black robe disguise on. So as you see, dating is a dangerous mind bending affair over here, but we manage somehow some way.

[thenormalyears]

\

yeah, don't fuck relatives.....
Wait a minute! You don't think it's OK to have sex with relatives, using the various protections to prevent pregnancy? I thought the only reason not to have sex with your sister or mother etc. was the high risk of impairment to an infant. If you are sterile, what difference can it have who you have sex with?

Given my superior genes, if I had a sister, she would be flat-out Hot. We would automatically have much in common. Would you, Choobus, deny me the distinct pleasure of her company in non-procreative pleasure?
MY main concern would be the banjo-kids. If you're shooting blanks then bang your sister by all means. As long as it doesn't affect anyone else then you should be able to fuck anyone you want, no matter how stomach churning other might find it to be. This applies to everyone apart from Ann coulter, who should have her womb confiscated in case she tries to use it.
Gosh I thought I was the one from kentucky here. Dang

[Livingstrong]

actually gays and lesbians have an easier time fucking than straights over here, which is fucking discriminatory. The thing is, they can pass as "just friends" in front of people. As for straights, this defense does not usually work. My ex would have the color fade off of her face when she saw someone who looks like her father driving down the street while shes with me. But somehow we managed. Usually after her father drops her off at the college she would step in, stretch a bit and maybe yawn, then step back out where horny me is waiting in his car, then we would go off to whatever motel room god takes us. then we would have sex like two perverts who finally met. Now taking her back to college i had to be carefull, i dont wanna run into her hairy father with his beloved daughter in my passenger seat, so usually i would drop her off at the corner while she has her full veil/black robe disguise on. So as you see, dating is a dangerous mind bending affair over here, but we manage somehow some way.
That's cool. All in The Name of Good Fucking Sex, uh? ;)

[Sternwallow]

Marriage should be only about legal issues, not about moral values. That is another Christianity BS.
Sex is sex. Protective sex. Responsible sex, amongst consenting adults.
Not incest please nor necrophilia nor zoophilia.
We should keep sex amongst adult human beings.
As an Atheist I like to live my life by common sense and logic.
I don't believe in chastity, I believe in having sex responsibly, and why not?, in having lots of sex with LOTS AND LOTS OF PLEASURE!
What do you have against necrophilia and zoophilia? How are they any different than having sex with a vegetable? Who is harmed and how?

[I_wish_I_believe]

Marriage should be only about legal issues, not about moral values. That is another Christianity BS.
Sex is sex. Protective sex. Responsible sex, amongst consenting adults.
Not incest please nor necrophilia nor zoophilia.
We should keep sex amongst adult human beings.
As an Atheist I like to live my life by common sense and logic.
I don't believe in chastity, I believe in having sex responsibly, and why not?, in having lots of sex with LOTS AND LOTS OF PLEASURE!
What do you have against necrophilia and zoophilia? How are they any different than having sex with a vegetable? Who is harmed and how?
The following arguments seem weak if you look at them in an abrtact kind of sense, but its how i justify these matters to myself. In necrophilia you're having sex with the body of a person against their will, even after someone's death their body still belongs to them and you should not be able to steal it, burn it, eat it, fuck it or do anything to it for that matter, that is unless they specified that you can do so in their will, which is pretty unlikely. Having sex with animals is a big taboo for some stupid reason though. I'm not saying it is not god damn disgusting, but that it is not reason enough for it to be so rejected. It is not like you are forcing them to do anything (in most cases) plus you are not doing any harm to them. Just look at how horny your cat gets for you when she is in heat and you will know what I'm saying.

[thenormalyears]

The dead have no will, a will implies a mind. Unless your last will and testament says "I don't want to get fucked anymore", it would technically be open season.

[Livingstrong]

Marriage should be only about legal issues, not about moral values. That is another Christianity BS.
Sex is sex. Protective sex. Responsible sex, amongst consenting adults.
Not incest please nor necrophilia nor zoophilia.
We should keep sex amongst adult human beings.
As an Atheist I like to live my life by common sense and logic.
I don't believe in chastity, I believe in having sex responsibly, and why not?, in having lots of sex with LOTS AND LOTS OF PLEASURE!
What do you have against necrophilia and zoophilia? How are they any different than having sex with a vegetable? Who is harmed and how?
The following arguments seem weak if you look at them in an abrtact kind of sense, but its how i justify these matters to myself. In necrophilia you're having sex with the body of a person against their will, even after someone's death their body still belongs to them and you should not be able to steal it, burn it, eat it, fuck it or do anything to it for that matter, that is unless they specified that you can do so in their will, which is pretty unlikely. Having sex with animals is a big taboo for some stupid reason though. I'm not saying it is not god damn disgusting, but that it is not reason enough for it to be so rejected. It is not like you are forcing them to do anything (in most cases) plus you are not doing any harm to them. Just look at how horny your cat gets for you when she is in heat and you will know what I'm saying.
I_Wish_,
I think Sternwallow was not being serious at all.
I HOPE you are not being serious either, specially about the cat thing! :o
I adore cats and animals in general. If they are horny that doesn't mean we have to fuck them; that doesn't give us the right to do anything to the cat or any other animal.
If a 12 years old boy or girl is horny, does that give you the right to fuck her/him?????????


P.S. Dead bodies don't have any will anymore. But it is gross anyways.

[Livingstrong]

Marriage should be only about legal issues, not about moral values. That is another Christianity BS.
Sex is sex. Protective sex. Responsible sex, amongst consenting adults.
Not incest please nor necrophilia nor zoophilia.
We should keep sex amongst adult human beings.
As an Atheist I like to live my life by common sense and logic.
I don't believe in chastity, I believe in having sex responsibly, and why not?, in having lots of sex with LOTS AND LOTS OF PLEASURE!
What do you have against necrophilia and zoophilia? How are they any different than having sex with a vegetable? Who is harmed and how?
Well, when you put it thaaaaaaat way!
I prefer cucumbers; bananas might break inside. :lol:

[myst7426]

Are there any female atheists who live in Illinois and want to engage in some pre-marital sex with me?

[brad89]

Are there any female atheists who live in Illinois and want to engage in some pre-marital sex with me?
I don't think there's any in my neck of the woods.=D

[nine999999999s]

Besides, if pre-marital sex was banned then I think there will be higher a numbers of youngsters getting married just to have sex (you can't expect youngsters to avoid temptations until they're old enough for responsible family life).
I work with a very intelligent 19-year old fundamentalist Christian, and judging from what she says, in this tiny Southern town a hell of a lot of kids get married very early because otherwise they can't have sex. Her own boyfriend broke up with her because things were getting too hot'n'heavy for his sensibilities. So basically she got dumped because they felt too much for eachother. I felt so bad for her.

I tried offering helpful suggestions: "Couldn't you just get married now and use birth control?" "Yes, but he doesn't want to get married yet." "Is it really realistic to expect people in this day and age to refrain from sex when most of the drawbacks can be eliminated?" "Well, we are supposed to stand apart from the world, etc, etc." There's not much hope, I'm afraid; she was homeschooled, church is her whole life. Sigh. What a waste.

[nine999999999s]

yeah, don't fuck relatives.....
Wait a minute! You don't think it's OK to have sex with relatives, using the various protections to prevent pregnancy? I thought the only reason not to have sex with your sister or mother etc. was the high risk of impairment to an infant. If you are sterile, what difference can it have who you have sex with?

Given my superior genes, if I had a sister, she would be flat-out Hot. We would automatically have much in common. Would you, Choobus, deny me the distinct pleasure of her company in non-procreative pleasure?
Oh, please tell me you're not serious. Mutual consent isn't the only factor to consider, because people can consent to things that are enormously harmful. As soon as it stops being taboo to boink your relatives, every yahoo of the sort who gets pregnant 3 times by 3 different guys will get pregnant by relatives. I'm glad premarital sex is no longer the taboo it once was, but it's hard to deny that since then the out-of-wedlock birthrates have soared. It seems that most people operate on nothing better than social pressure, and to remove that pressure can have terrible results.

Not only that, but what would happen to family relations if everyone was sexually available to eachother? What does it take psychologically to be attracted to close relatives, not to mention dead people or animals? What does it do to the person who acts on those attractions? To the people who know that more and more people are doing such things?

There seems to be a tendency on this forum to say that absolutely anything goes as long as you don't murder someone against their will. Satisfying every desire that shows up is not the path to happiness. This is one of the few legitimate reasons people are leery of atheism. (Probably the only legitimate one, actually.) Someone screws their sister and people say, "Well, they were wearing protection, so what's the problem?" A woman breastfeeds her 8-year-old (see General Discussion, "Is this Gross?"), and we scratch our heads, saying, "Gosh, I really shouldn't be so grossed out by this. I should be more open-minded." There are more important things than the freedom to screw animals and relatives, not the least of which would be a genetically and psychologically healthy populace.

[Sternwallow]

Not only that, but what would happen to family relations if everyone was sexually available to each other? What does it take psychologically to be attracted to close relatives, not to mention dead people or animals? What does it do to the person who acts on those attractions? To the people who know that more and more people are doing such things?
I am touched by your concern for the psychological well-being of corpses and animals. I doubt that they reciprocate the feeling. However, given sterility, natural or artificial, and thus no risk to the genome or to any individual children, I haven't seen any force other than social taboo that might cause psychological problems in the participants. Non-procreative sex can be a happy sharing of pleasure, without mental entanglements, between strangers. Why not equally casually between relatives?

Why must it imply that all relatives would be sexually available to each other? I think that is an unfounded supposition.

I know it is generally frowned upon and people who consider doing it are made to feel very guilty, but I have not yet seen any substantive reason against it. Perhaps I'm wrong and there is ample research. If so, I'd be interested in seeing some of it.

[nine999999999s]

I am touched by your concern for the psychological well-being of corpses and animals. I doubt that they reciprocate the feeling.
My concern is not so much for the animals, and not at all for the corpses. My concern is that actions have psychological consequences. Having sex with a person forms a unique bond. What happens when that experience is had between siblings and they fall in love? Or when someone has sex with a cold body in rigor mortis? What are they getting out of that that they can't get from masturbation -- what is the dead body adding to the experience for them? Have you noticed what happens to little girls who get fondled by their daddies?

When we notice that a taboo has formed around a behavior, it is instructive to ask what purpose it has, not to say, "Well, no reason comes to mind not to, so why not? It's only social convention." It may well be that the taboo is mere superstition, but it could also be vitally important in keeping order and encouraging virtue. Often the function of a taboo is to set up a safety buffer around a dangerous activity so that one is warned way ahead of time that one is encroaching on very dangerous territory. To make a trivial example, I have a policy never to carry a balance on my credit cards. Not that paying a few dollars of interest every now and then is so terrible, but that's still a very slippery slope to play around with. This is why sex with relatives absolutely cannot be tolerated: the slope is slippery and very steep, and the stakes are as high as they can be.

Why must it imply that all relatives would be sexually available to each other? I think that is an unfounded supposition.
Once you allow brother/sister relations, what's left?

I know it is generally frowned upon and people who consider doing it are made to feel very guilty, but I have not yet seen any substantive reason against it. Perhaps I'm wrong and there is ample research. If so, I'd be interested in seeing some of it.
If you see a sign saying "Caution: Danger. Do not proceed," do you just continue on your merry way, citing a lack of evidence? There are some patterns that every culture on earth has in common; one is language capable of expressing past, present and future; another is having a story about the beginning of the world; another is a taboo against sexual relations with immediate relatives. It may well be that any early societies without that taboo simply died out from inbreeding.

[Sternwallow]

My concern is not so much for the animals, and not at all for the corpses. My concern is that actions have psychological consequences. Having sex with a person forms a unique bond. What happens when that experience is had between siblings and they fall in love? Or when someone has sex with a cold body in rigor mortis? What are they getting out of that that they can't get from masturbation -- what is the dead body adding to the experience for them? Have you noticed what happens to little girls who get fondled by their daddies?
The non-consent of the little girls makes even fairly benign behaviors dangerous. I have seen no little girls identified as having been daddy-fondled. Please enlighten me, what should I be looking for?

When we notice that a taboo has formed around a behavior, it is instructive to ask what purpose it has, not to say, "Well, no reason comes to mind not to, so why not? It's only social convention." It may well be that the taboo is mere superstition, but it could also be vitally important in keeping order and encouraging virtue. Often the function of a taboo is to set up a safety buffer around a dangerous activity so that one is warned way ahead of time that one is encroaching on very dangerous territory. To make a trivial example, I have a policy never to carry a balance on my credit cards. Not that paying a few dollars of interest every now and then is so terrible, but that's still a very slippery slope to play around with. This is why sex with relatives absolutely cannot be tolerated: the slope is slippery and very steep, and the stakes are as high as they can be.
I have specified that the sex I am talking about is strictly non-procreative. Possible damage to a resulting child, as far as I know, is the only reason that relational recreational sex is taboo. Not just a social convention. Under sterility conditions, this taboo is no more relevant than the one against lighting three cigarettes on one match or never mounting a horse from the left. So change my characterization to "Well, under some conditions it is harmless to anyone else, so why not? It has become an obviously outdated and easily surmounted social convention." Now that we have pork that is not disease ridden and we know how to cook it properly, the total taboo against eating pork can be modified to read “Never eat inadequately cooked pork raised in uncontrolled or un-inspected conditions”. I therefore propose a new taboo “Never have sex with a near relative if a baby might result”.

Why must it imply that all relatives would be sexually available to each other? I think that is an unfounded supposition.
Once you allow brother/sister relations, what's left?
To me someone being “sexually available” means someone else can just step up to them and begin sexual activity without having to ask or otherwise receive consent to do so.

I know it is generally frowned upon and people who consider doing it are made to feel very guilty, but I have not yet seen any substantive reason against it. Perhaps I'm wrong and there is ample research. If so, I'd be interested in seeing some of it.
If you see a sign saying "Caution: Danger. Do not proceed," do you just continue on your merry way, citing a lack of evidence? There are some patterns that every culture on earth has in common; one is language capable of expressing past, present and future; another is having a story about the beginning of the world; another is a taboo against sexual relations with immediate relatives. It may well be that any early societies without that taboo simply died out from inbreeding.
Of course they would have died out because of interbreeding, but we're talking about intersex here, not interbreeding. The sign warns against doing something that is (or can be) no longer dangerous. Tradition is indicative, but it is not compelling in light of our new methods and understanding.

How is sex with a corpse different from sex with a pig or with a hole carefully cut in a melon in a field, warmed by the afternoon sun or with a slab of room temperature or warmer liver? I know the logistics differ. Please tell me why there would be any psychological difference.

Understand that I am not drawn to these things myself. I just don’t see any cosmic significant difference between ejaculating into a tissue or a sample cup or a picture of Aunt Flossie or a special latex contrivance internally shaped for the storage of bananas. Of course “spilling your seed on the floor” is right out!

[nine999999999s]

All right. First of all, I don't want to sound like I think bestiality and necrophilia are high crimes. A quick google search seems to show that people convicted of these crimes tend to spend a month or three in jail and pay a couple grand in fines. That sounds reasonable to me. I mean, it's not like they're going around shooting people for looking at them funny. I figure adult consensual incest should be treated the same way.

Ultimately, I think the question should come down to this: Which is more important: To allow indulgence of every wayward desire or to ensure the longterm viability of the species? I know that you're qualifying it to sterile people, but once taboos come down, they come down for everybody, sterile or not. Like I said before, the existence of reliable birth control hasn't stopped a virtual epidemic of unplanned pregnancy, and we likewise shouldn't count on sterilty or birth control to prevent mutant babies. This territory is just too dangerous to fool around with.

Also, I think there's a deeper issue here. Not every moral question has a first principle which answers the question in advance. It's strange to think that John Stuart Mill's mutual consent idea has gone from a good rule of thumb to an incontestible absolute, while the prohibition against incest has become debatable. There's more to "the good" than consent and desire consummation. To quote Einstein in a different context, "such an ethical basis I call more proper for a herd of swine." We can do better than that. Except for the weirdos spilling their seed upon the floor; they're just hopeless. ;)

[Sternwallow]

All right. First of all, I don't want to sound like I think bestiality and necrophilia are high crimes. A quick google search seems to show that people convicted of these crimes tend to spend a month or three in jail and pay a couple grand in fines. That sounds reasonable to me. I mean, it's not like they're going around shooting people for looking at them funny. I figure adult consensual incest should be treated the same way.

Ultimately, I think the question should come down to this: Which is more important: To allow indulgence of every wayward desire or to ensure the longterm viability of the species? I know that you're qualifying it to sterile people, but once taboos come down, they come down for everybody, sterile or not. Like I said before, the existence of reliable birth control hasn't stopped a virtual epidemic of unplanned pregnancy, and we likewise shouldn't count on sterilty or birth control to prevent mutant babies. This territory is just too dangerous to fool around with.

Also, I think there's a deeper issue here. Not every moral question has a first principle which answers the question in advance. It's strange to think that John Stuart Mill's mutual consent idea has gone from a good rule of thumb to an incontestible absolute, while the prohibition against incest has become debatable. There's more to "the good" than consent and desire consummation. To quote Einstein in a different context, "such an ethical basis I call more proper for a herd of swine." We can do better than that. Except for the weirdos spilling their seed upon the floor; they're just hopeless. ;)
:):)

[Gathercole]

I still don't see a reason why adult brother-sister incest should be illegal, because I don't see who it harms. Also, we should NEVER, NEVER, NEVER make laws based on the "viability of the species." If we did, the very first thing we would do is prohibit people with below-average IQ's from breeding. This would unquestionably be good for the species.

[nine999999999s]

I still don't see a reason why adult brother-sister incest should be illegal, because I don't see who it harms.
The harm is not always immediate, and it isn't just restricted to the people involved. The problem is the acceptance of incest itself and what it would inevitably lead to.

Also, we should NEVER, NEVER, NEVER make laws based on the "viability of the species." If we did, the very first thing we would do is prohibit people with below-average IQ's from breeding. This would unquestionably be good for the species.
Viability only means "capable of living, growing, working, or developing" (paraphrase from http://m-w.com/dictionary/viability) -- and not vitality or betterment. This isn't about a police state grabbing the reins of society and making us do its bidding; it's about setting down laws that enforce the bare minimum of acceptable behavior, leaving the rest up to individual choice. The idea that laws against incest must lead to eugenics is belied by human experience. The only society to have engaged in mass eugenics was Nazi Germany, and the piddling little moves we made (sterilizing the mentally retarded) were abandoned long ago as morally abhorrent.

Anyway, there's a logical fallacy in saying that "viability of the species" should never be taken into consideration because eugenics is wrong, and the rationale for eugenics is viability (or vitality) of the species. The fallacy is that, "eugenics," encompassing many different aspects, is bad; therefore all its component parts are bad. It's like saying "the Beatles were great; therefore Ringo was great." It's perfectly consistent and acceptable to discard some aspects while keeping others.

[skribb]

Pre-marital sex? I'm against MARRIAGE for heaven's sake!

Here's the deal: Start pounding people when you reach the age of consent. Stop pounding people when you become a senior citizen. Now, stop whining :)

[RenaissanceMan]

Pre-marital sex? I'm against MARRIAGE for heaven's sake!

Here's the deal: Start pounding people when you reach the age of consent. Stop pounding people when you become a senior citizen. Now, stop whining :)
What do you have against senior citizens? Sure, noone wants to SEE them have sex... that's why there are locks on doors.

[myst7426]

Pre-marital sex? I'm against MARRIAGE for heaven's sake!

Here's the deal: Start pounding people when you reach the age of consent. Stop pounding people when you become a senior citizen. Now, stop whining :)
Come on over to my house.

[mandangi]

I support pre-marital sex. Why should we prevent our sexual desires until marriage?

[Choobus]

I support pre-marital sex. Why should we prevent our sexual desires until marriage?
Tell that to your gay uncle.....

[mandangi]

Tell that to your gay uncle.....
There are no gays in our relatives. Gayism is very less in India. Pre-marital sex is also rare in India but i support pre-marital sex.

[Choobus]

yeah, whatever mandingo. I'm sure you have fucked "gayism" deep in the ass...

[darwinfish]

maybe this was just a hallucination, but I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary where it was revealed that the first sexual encounter for most males in India is with another male. It doesn't actually mean they're gay though. Most probably just wanted to have a little fun before being saddled with a demanding wife who doesn't really like them anyway.

Still, "Gayism is very less in India" seems a little ignorant to me.