American Heathens

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 5:38 am

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/pr ... index.html

Can't you yanks keep yer peckers in their place.

woodchip · Post by **woodchip** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 7:49 am

Why no FC....can you?

Testiculese · Post by **Testiculese** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:44 am

Kinda kills the \"We're good Christians\" vibe. However, in reality, sex is sex, everyone wants it, no matter what religion you are.

\"Life is short, get off as much as possible\"

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:34 am

That still seems a bit inflated. If that is true, then only about 85 people at my school(Grades 8-12) are still virgins.

Come to think of it, that does seem reasonable. I guess it's back to the blanket stereotyping and distance from my peers again, particularly the female ones.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:56 am

I'm not too surprised at the numbers, although I might have guessed more in the 85-90% range. If you think that a high percentage of teens and young adults are successfully abstaining, you're living under a rock.

I suppose it's not a \"reality-check\" for me, because of from my own experience:

I am a Christian, and grew up in an extremely conservative household. From early on, I was taught (by my parents, youth group leadership, the Christian high-school home-schooled community I was part of, etc.) the virtue of abstaining from sex until marriage. \"Stay pure\" was a common message I heard at youth camps, and I was one of the hordes of Christian teenagers who had signed those \"I commit to stay pure\" cards.

Fast-forward to today... from what little I know, even out of all those well-intentioned peers in youth group and high-school, very, very few actually abstained from sex before they got married. My closest buddies had had sex before they got married, and a number of the Christian girls in my graduating class were pregnant by their senior year. It was a little better among my friends at the Christian university where I did my undergrad work, but overall the results were mostly the same: despite sincere intention to abstain by many, very few were actually successful.

Even from my own personal experience, I can understand why this is true. Abstaining from sex before my wife Michelle and I got married (which we're glad we did, for many reasons) was probably the most difficult, yet rewarding, pre-marriage issue we dealt with. And it certainly wasn't due to any virtue of my own; there were times where despite every bit of moral sense I had, the physical draw of sex was almost too much to handle.

Anyway, I guess I'm saying that my own experience suggests that even for young people in a Christian community (where the virtue of abstinence is made a priority), most usually have had premarital sex by their college years, so it's not really a \"reality check\" to think that the percentage is high for the nation as a whole.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:53 am

Foil wrote:Abstaining from sex before my wife Michelle and I got married (which we're glad we did, for many reasons) was probably the most difficult, yet rewarding, pre-marriage issue we dealt with.

Why Foil? If you don't mind me asking. If you do then you can tell me it's none of my buisness.

If it's from a strictly religious point of view then don't bother answering because we'll get that whole scripture-said-this-and-that arguement, which leads nowhere.

I just want to know what advantages you think there are getting married without experiencing pre-marital sex.

FC

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 12:20 pm

Flabby Chick wrote:http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/12/19/pr ... index.html

Can't you yanks keep yer peckers in their place.

Actually, the article says that we can't keep 'em out from where they belong.

Mobius · Post by **Mobius** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 1:51 pm

WORD DC!

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:18 pm

DCrazy wrote:Actually, the article says that we can't keep 'em out from where they belong.

LOL it took less posts than i thought it would.....

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 2:46 pm

Flabby Chick wrote:I just want to know what advantages you think there are getting married without experiencing pre-marital sex.

My perspective:

He got the joy of learning sex with his spouse. No other persons habits or looks interfering in the two of them forming a strong and happy sexual relationship. No worrying about how your current lover compares to previous ones. No worrying about whether your partner is comparing YOU to previous lovers.

Sex is not something that can be learned in the abstract, sexuality is DIFFERENT for every couple, and a couple that has never had sex with anyone else is free to become experts in how to have sex with each other.

Of course, the objection will be raised that you can have pre-marital sex, and then get married, and therefore you have never have sex with anyone but that partner.

True, but if your intention is to never have sex with anyone besides your spouse, having sex before marriage is like painting a house before you have legal rights to the title. It's better to wait until all of the papers have been signed, because MANY people have thought everything was a done deal, only to have it fall through at the last minute.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:24 pm

Flabby Chick wrote:Why [abstain] Foil? If you don't mind me asking. If you do then you can tell me it's none of my buisness.

Well, it is none of your business

, but I don't mind you asking.

The ethical basis for my decision is purely religious (I don't want to derail this thread into another scriptural debate, either), and I have some personal reasons as well, similar to what Kilarin mentioned. There's an emotional benefit of not having a "history" from before married life. Plus, I suppose I'm a bit of a romantic, and have always wanted to be a "lifelong one-woman man".

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:14 pm

Fair enough.

Bet51987 · Post by **Bet51987** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:31 pm

I'm waiting too. Although my reasons are not religious they are along the same lines as Kilarin and Foils.

Bee

Grendel · Post by **Grendel** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 8:45 pm

Shadowfury333 wrote:That still seems a bit inflated. If that is true, then only about 85 people at my school(Grades 8-12) are still virgins.

Wrong. Reread the article.

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 10:26 pm

Grendel wrote:
Shadowfury333 wrote:That still seems a bit inflated. If that is true, then only about 85 people at my school(Grades 8-12) are still virgins.
Wrong. Reread the article.

Good point. Let me restate: In the worst case scenario, only about 85 people (out of 1700) are still virgins, meaning that if I consider everyone from grades 11 and 12, and a subset of grade 10's, potential partners, that amounts to 500 women, of which—in the worst case—only about 25 are still virgins. Thus, the odds that I'll find someone who is still a virgin—again, in the worst case—are about 1 in 20.

I don't like those odds, and for me, relationships are largely about odds. I look at a potential candidate the same way an actuary looks at an insurance policy.

Genghis · Post by **Genghis** » Wed Dec 20, 2006 11:26 pm

Shadowfury333 wrote:Good point. Let me restate: In the worst case scenario, only about 85 people (out of 1700) are still virgins

I think you're making an unwarranted statistical assumption. The study says 95% of Americans have had premarital sex, but high school students are a subset of Americans. Furthermore, the older a person is, the more likely they are to have had premarital sex. At the end of high school, the average person still has over 50% of their post-pubescent life to get laid before they are married. To back this up, googling for a few studies shows that about 50% of high school students are still virgins.

Dakatsu · Post by **Dakatsu** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 1:21 am

Haven't had sex, don't plan on it for another 5-10 years. I actually practice this weird thing, called falling in love. Uncommon really, it involves a mental and emotional attraction between two people. Look it up in the dictionary.

I would also prefer not to get locked up in prision for underage sex and never get to see my sweetheart again!

Besides, she has cute lips, pretty eyes, (suckable toes)

, I am fine with just that!

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 3:09 am

I actually practice this weird thing called falling in love also and if you like it or not Sex is a sizable part of love and a huge chunk of what makes a marriage work. If a marriage doesnt have a good sex life there will be no marriage.

I can't understand a couple that marry as virgins.(saying that i'm not condeming people who want to form a relationship that way like i said to foil) Experience makes you, better,imaginative and more understanding of what the partner needs.

Forget about preferences such as oral sex and stuff. What happens if you get married and find out that one persons libido is sky high whilst the others is very low? I guarentee all the love in the worled won't save the marriage.

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:20 am

Genghis wrote:At the end of high school, the average person still has over 50% of their post-pubescent life to get laid before they are married. To back this up, googling for a few studies shows that about 50% of high school students are still virgins.

Well, that improves the odds dramatically. I can handle 1 in 2 odds for virginity.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:36 am

Flabby Chick wrote:...Sex is a sizable part of love and a huge chunk of what makes a marriage work. If a marriage doesnt have a good sex life there will be no marriage.

Agreed, although I tend to think of it more along the lines of sex as a reflection of the quality of the marriage relationship. (If the general relationship is healthy, the physical relationship is good, and vice versa.)

Flabby Chick wrote:I can't understand a couple that marry as virgins.(saying that i'm not condeming people who want to form a relationship that way like i said to foil) Experience makes you, better,imaginative and more understanding of what the partner needs.

No offense taken.

I agree about experience with one's parter; I certainly know more now about what my wife enjoys than I did on our honeymoon (and not just physically, it applies in general). You might think that this made our wedding night a lesser experience, because we didn't know each other sexually. In fact, it made it that much more memorable and special - we got to learn with each other, and experience all the awkward moments together, without pressure.

Flabby Chick wrote:..What happens if you get married and find out that one persons libido is sky high whilst the others is very low? I guarantee all the love in the world won't save the marriage.

Quite true.
What I don't necessarily agree with is the premise that one needs to have had sex in order to know whether sex is going to be an issue in marriage. With time, you can get a very good sense of a person's 'physical/touch' needs from the way they hold hands, hug, kiss, etc.

Foil · Post by **Foil** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 9:54 am

Shadowfury333 wrote:...relationships are largely about odds. I look at a potential candidate the same way an actuary looks at an insurance policy.

Despite the stereotype, actuaries aren't just "all about odds". For insurance actuaries especially, they deal with moral and ethical questions as well. (I just interviewed for an entry-level actuarial position a week ago, so trust me on this.

)

All that is to say: statistical odds may give you an idea of direction (where, when, how best to invest your time), but since relationships are uniquely illogical, emotional things, your intuition will serve as a better guide when you're with someone.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 10:11 am

Foil wrote:What I don't necessarily agree with is the premise that one needs to have had sex in order to know whether sex is going to be an issue in marriage. With time, you can get a very good sense of a person's 'physical/touch' needs from the way they hold hands, hug, kiss, etc.

For sure with time, honesty and trust, two people who have waited till marriage to have sex can find each others needs. What happens though if one persons needs are greater or lesser than the others, this will inevitably lead to a conflict within the relationship no?

Only by having pre-marital sex with differing partners can one gauge ones own sexual preferences and appetites, thus putting you in a better position to choose the right partner.

When you think you've found the right partner then pre-marital sex with that person is (in my opinion) essential. How else would you know if you're compatible or not? What an absolute torture it would be for two people in love not being able to express themselves during sex.

On the other hand there must be exceptions to "my" rule, as you and mrs Foil, and mr and mrs Lothar can attest to.

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 7:04 pm

Foil wrote:All that is to say: statistical odds may give you an idea of direction (where, when, how best to invest your time), but since relationships are uniquely illogical, emotional things, your intuition will serve as a better guide when you're with someone.

I meant from a personal security standpoint. After I've gotten past the background checks, then intuition is free to take over.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Thu Dec 21, 2006 8:40 pm

When you think you've found the right partner then pre-marital sex with that person is (in my opinion) essential. How else would you know if you're compatible or not? What an absolute torture it would be for two people in love not being able to express themselves during sex.

pop over to The Marriage Bed and you can find lots of stories from people who had premarital sex and thought everything was fine, then got married and suddenly it quit working.

I would say that the problem is exactly the opposite of the way you state it. Sexual style is unique to every couple. It's something they have to work out among themselves, for themselves. Your sexual tastes aren't just something you are born with, they are also something you develop. And a couple should develop their sexual styles WITH each other so that they can be truly compatible. Fitting like a lock and key.

If you first learn to make love to one partner, then switch, you now have to learn how to make love to the new partner, and its NOT the same skill. Learning to make love to each person is a DIFFERENT skill. having developed talents in pleasing the previous partner may actually make it more difficult to learn how to please and be pleased by the new partner.

A guy who's only had sex with one woman in his entire life doesn't have a lot of conflicts about what kind of breasts he likes. He likes the ones on HIS woman, because they are the ones that have been pleasing him for years. No other breasts have done that, how could they compete?

If you want to be sexually compatible, don't have sex until you are married and then, together, develop a style of lovemaking that pleases both of you.

We had a long discussion on this topic in this thread.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:18 am

This is a \"never the twain shall meet\" kind of discussion...never mind.

Shadowfury333 · Post by **Shadowfury333** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 12:46 am

Flabby Chick wrote:This is a "never the twain shall meet" kind of discussion...never mind.

Yeah, you guys might as well agree to disagree. Kilarin has already pointed out one multi-page thread on this topic, we don't need another.

Isaac · Post by **Isaac** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 3:52 am

People who don't have sex tend to get married earlier. “50% of American marriages will end in divorce.” –some stupid site I just looked at. If sex isn't something you're wishing to have, you can spend more time finding the right person. Yes, sex should be a factor in deciding weather some one is right for you to marry. Aaaannnddd…. Sex is a great way to be sure your partner is of the opposite sex!
I was raised catholic and was even ‘confirmed.’ And I know it’s a sin to have premarital sex. The rule was written before condoms! Of course it’s going to be a sin! If your kids think they’re going to hell for having sex then you don’t have to worry about them. It’s like how eating meat was a sin. With out refrigeration “a pork chop might kill ya.” Now I can test a relationship by living with a girl for a month. Plus I can see personal flaws that need to be adjusted when living with a girl: I admit I was wrong THEN explain my point of view in a different way in a calm low voice… argument = win…. Sometimes. There's more things i changed but that one's my fav.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 4:51 am

Just as a btw....there is no subject that hasn't been rehashed at some point or other on this board.

Except for evolution that is!

Firewheel · Post by **Firewheel** » Fri Dec 22, 2006 9:21 pm

Well, at least this year we managed to avoid discussing whether Christmas was evil or not... ooops... should've kept my mouth shut.

Kilarin · Post by **Kilarin** » Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:00 pm

Flabby Chick wrote:Just as a btw....there is no subject that hasn't been rehashed at some point or other on this board.

When I posted the link with "We had a long discussion on this topic in this thread.", I didn't MEAN "Shut up, we've said this before". I was just pointing to it since it had lots of views from both sides for anyone who was interested, and in particular because I had started it out with an article that expressed my view in some depth and I didn't want to just repeat myself in THIS discussion. Since the search button here doesn't work, I tend to point at previous conversations that I think are relevant if I happen to know where they are.

BUT, looking back at it, it looks EXACTLY like I was was asking you to drop the topic. That was not my intent, but I think I owe you an apology anyway. I'll be more careful about the way I phrase such links in the future!

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 5:27 am

Flabby Chick wrote:For sure with time, honesty and trust, two people who have waited till marriage to have sex can find each others needs. What happens though if one persons needs are greater or lesser than the others, this will inevitably lead to a conflict within the relationship no?

Only by having pre-marital sex with differing partners can one gauge ones own sexual preferences and appetites, thus putting you in a better position to choose the right partner.

When you think you've found the right partner then pre-marital sex with that person is (in my opinion) essential. How else would you know if you're compatible or not? What an absolute torture it would be for two people in love not being able to express themselves during sex.

People don't express themselves in sex (or money, for that matter). It's te media's fault that you get that impression.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 6:25 am

People don't express themselves whilst having sex? What a ridiculous thing to say Tiger'.

Kilarin, no need for an apology sunshine.

TIGERassault · Post by **TIGERassault** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:44 am

Flabby Chick wrote:People don't express themselves whilst having sex? What a ridiculous thing to say Tiger'.

Well, no, of couse they would. But not much more than just regular time together.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 9:00 am

I don't agree.

but hey, it's Xmas....who cares!!!

Ford Prefect · Post by **Ford Prefect** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 11:04 am

Flabby- How Christmasy can it be around your place?

Nice of you to agree to disagree anyway. I will pick your side on that particular statement.

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:07 pm

Loads of ex-pats round the bbq is our christmas. Though i can't move very much due to a phucked disc..the drugs are great though.

DCrazy · Post by **DCrazy** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 1:18 am

Flabby Chick wrote:LOL it took less posts than i thought it would.....

Damn, even when we're just talking about it I'm too early.

Sorry for the delay, I needed a nap.

(OK I'll stop

)

Flabby Chick · Post by **Flabby Chick** » Thu Dec 28, 2006 3:15 am

You're just a clever sod DC

American Heathens

American Heathens

Re: American Heathens

Re: American Heathens

Re: American Heathens