Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shouldn't that first sentence read "Whenever I get married?" Or do you think your personal opinions actually matter to the rest of the world? You state everything like it's an absolute, when it's really just your opinion... especially when you're addressing people of mixed beliefs, thus the whole "it's a sin" concept doesn't even matter to many of us. Delusions of grandeur seem to run rampant among the Christian sect.
And I'm shocked people still think it matters if you have a piece of paper (marriage contract) or not, but to each his/her own.
No, I'm shocked by the fact that AnUnidentifiableMale considers it okay for children to have sex. It's disturbing that he even thinks that. Apparently we have a pedo on here. Not sure why no one else pointed that out.
Yup...a piece of paper and a cheap ring make all the difference in your economic situation..
Yes, they actually can. People who sign on the dotted line are more apt to take it seriously than those who don't. Is it a guarantee? No.
But I would agree what would help more is a reduced emphasis on the role of romantic love as a valid criteria for marrying someone. This is not to say it doesn't matter, but it's level of impotance needs to be taken down a couple of notches.
Elizabeth Gilbert, who did extensive research on marriage for her book Committed found that:
If you look at the history of marriage, anytime you see a conservative culture of arranged marriage being replaced by a more liberal culture of romantic marriage ... you will see divorce rates start to rise immediately.
and
It turns out that love is a very fragile notion upon which to base a very important and complicated institution. I think most people throughout history would look at the way we choose our marriages today and just think, my God, these people took huge risks. They risk their future, financial stability, property and their heirs on something as fragile and delicate as romantic affection.
Yes, they actually can. People who sign on the dotted line are more apt to take it seriously than those who don't. Is it a guarantee? No.
But I would agree what would help more is a reduced emphasis on the role of romantic love as a valid criteria for marrying someone. This is not to say it doesn't matter, but it's level of impotance needs to be taken down a couple of notches.
Elizabeth Gilbert, who did extensive research on marriage for her book Committed found that:
If you look at the history of marriage, anytime you see a conservative culture of arranged marriage being replaced by a more liberal culture of romantic marriage ... you will see divorce rates start to rise immediately.
and
It turns out that love is a very fragile notion upon which to base a very important and complicated institution. I think most people throughout history would look at the way we choose our marriages today and just think, my God, these people took huge risks. They risk their future, financial stability, property and their heirs on something as fragile and delicate as romantic affection.
Happiness is irrelevant, huh? There is a reason why large parts of the society in countries where arranged marriages is the norm are moving away from old traditions and establishing new traditions of choosing your own spouse based on who you want to be with. It's no accident that the movement is lead by young people who are educated and have been exposed to different ideas and ways of living - once people know better they do better because they value happiness and satisfaction.
Our society is full of people who stay in loveless marriages for the reasons you mentioned - financial stability, property and heirs - and they are miserable. I just don't think that's a small, irrelevant detail.
Its called pulling out. You don't have to be a parent to get it on.
Is this like the 1950s or something?
Ummm, I wouldn't recommend the "pulling out" method as effective birth control... why do you think Mormons and Catholics have so many babies, despite most of them approving of natural family planning?
No, I'm shocked by the fact that AnUnidentifiableMale considers it okay for children to have sex. It's disturbing that he even thinks that. Apparently we have a pedo on here. Not sure why no one else pointed that out.
I don't think he actually feels 9-11 year-olds should be having sex, I think he was just saying "if that's when a person is sexually mature and feels ready, that is the right time for them." It's rare for a child that young to be sexually mature, either physically or emotionally, so the point is fairly moot.
P.S. Making such a comment doesn't imply he's a "pedo," as unexpected as it may have been.
I think that really depends on the individual and their mental, emotional, and physical health. It requires physical stamina to literally have sex, mental stability to be responsible about it, and emotional stability to deal with the effects of it. I don't believe that any two people are at the same place at the same age, so I don't think there is a specific number I can give. There are also so many different circumstances someone could be in. Do they love the person they want to have sex with? Are they going to have to see the person every day if things get complicated? Do they have any personal baggage they haven't dealt with that they need to (intimacy issues, history of abuse, etc.)? If the person having sex doesn't use conception, do they have the financial means to support themselves if they end up having a child? Are they in a place in their lives where a child would feel welcomed? If they prefer to use birth control, do they know how to use a condom? What kind of social reactions from their communities will they have to face based on their decisions?
I don't think all those answers can be summed up in a number, like "16" or "22". I don't even think saying "wait till you get married" is a catch-all, because I feel that some people get married before they are really ready for that kind of commitment. I think it's really a situation that each person has to evaluate for themselves, and that some people will think they're ready before they really are, and there isn't much we can do about that.
ETA: I also think that it's an ongoing process. I am constantly learning new things about myself everyday, and the people I have relationships with. I don't think there is a day when we're "over" learning about our sexualities.
Yes, they actually can. People who sign on the dotted line are more apt to take it seriously than those who don't. Is it a guarantee? No.
But I would agree what would help more is a reduced emphasis on the role of romantic love as a valid criteria for marrying someone. This is not to say it doesn't matter, but it's level of impotance needs to be taken down a couple of notches.
Elizabeth Gilbert, who did extensive research on marriage for her book Committed found that:
If you look at the history of marriage, anytime you see a conservative culture of arranged marriage being replaced by a more liberal culture of romantic marriage ... you will see divorce rates start to rise immediately.
and
It turns out that love is a very fragile notion upon which to base a very important and complicated institution. I think most people throughout history would look at the way we choose our marriages today and just think, my God, these people took huge risks. They risk their future, financial stability, property and their heirs on something as fragile and delicate as romantic affection.
I don't think that taking it seriously or not is what really causes marriages to fail. I think it has to do with the fact that people sometimes marry when both parties involved are still changing at very fast rates. Well, when you change yourself, you change the relationships you're in. It's hard to keep a relationship going when people on both ends are rediscovering themselves at such a rapid rate. They may both have the best and most loving intentions at heart, but that doesn't change the fact that people generally go through a lot of personal development between the ages of 20 and 30--which makes maintaining a marriage within that age-bracket that much harder.
When should you become sexually active?
When you are fully prepared to take the responsibility for your actions - protect yourself from diseases, deal with a child that may be conceived even if all birth control is practiced.
Waiting for marriage is a nice fantasy for overprotective parents, but it rarely happens. The best way to prepare your children is to be completely honest with them about all of the ramifications and responsibilities of sex and procreation, and teach them to respect themselves - as fully functional, reasonable, and responsible human beings with normal sexual drives - so that they are not abused and/or taken advantage of. Fear, threatened retributions of a god, and "because I said so!" don't teach a child anything - except to rebel. Guilt and shame over natural inclinations are not productive. We taught all of our children that "love" is romanticized BS - look for someone with the same attitudes, beliefs, and goals in life, and make an informed and intelligent decision as to whom is worth your dedication, commitment, and time; who will be a lifetime partner in mutual support and success rather than a convenient roll in the back seat of a Vega.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
