That's weird?

I mean, not that I've ever... Uh.

So, only 16 to buy a dildo huh? I woulda thought it'd been 18, like it is to buy porn.

lol back massager....

The store spencers is were i found out the dildo thing actually.

My girlfriend bought a dildo in Hawaii, but it went missing in her house...

Which is VERY worrying.

can we get back to the main topic? are we at a consensus? does everyone agree that sex before marraige is not bad?

Frankly, I have no problem with sex before marriage. I'm a very personally conservative person, so I can't particularly imagine myself having sex with more than a handful of people(overall, not at the same time), but on the other hand, I don't particularly want to get married for some good time. I think the key is just responsibility. That means different things to different people, but to me it means birth control and a small amount of people. But of course, to me, small amount of people is different to what it might mean to others.

ok, then its a fact :).... not really, but a consensus.

[quote=blood pig][quote=Bryan T]lol back massager....

The store spencers is were i found out the dildo thing actually.[/quote]
I had a friend by a dildo from there when she was 14.

and Sex before marriage is ok in some situations.
Unless you're like..
2.

and it's your cousin.

and that kind of freaky shit.[/quote]

Gross...but its been known to happen unfortunatly. And oddly enough I have a (girl) friend who asked me (i dont know how serious she was...) to buy her a giant dildo for her birthday. I'm actually considering do it just for laughs and giggles. Wrong of me?

would you say this is off topic? it is kinda borderline i guess. but um. that is kinda different. anyhoo...

Sex is just a reporduction process. To religion, such as Catholic Chruch would say "its not as full-filling without mariage" or something like that. Nothings wrong with sex, before or after mariage.

[quote]Also, like they have already said, just be smart about it. ALWAYS use a condom, 1% chance is better than 90% chance. If your partner is a constant partner, consider birth control. You should also get tested after the first time, and if you have multiple partners (nothing wrong with that) get tested every 6 months (it's for your own protection).[/quote]

Lol, Know that!

[quote=heBREW Coffee]Im not a big fan of this forum set up, its hard to cite your points. But anyways, this seems to be really a point of view discussion so I will offer mine.

Paragraph 1: Its culture. Simple as that. All you can do is be respectful of this culture as possible, and hope that things work out. Confronting the parents with "Screw you brainwashed theists" (Obviously I don't mean that you said this literally, but you get what Im saying) will not help you out, and also is not the way to go because you are attacking the culture rather than understanding and respecting it. If you truly want to understand why a Christian thinks the way he or she does, consult the Christian, rather than the people on these boards (not slammin the boards but making a point) Also, really try to acknowledge there viewpoint, and not diminish it because: A)they arent going to change it for you; and B) You have no intellectual right to.

As for you biological points:

1. We can reproduce at 12. Why Not?
Because this lifestyle could not survive in our culture. Honestly, imagine the financial and emotional burden that a family would bear after having 30 kids in 30 years. It may be biologically possible, but no environment (even before the dawn of civiliazation) - especially our culture would ever allow it.

2. Im at my peak at 18. Why Not?
Coincidentally I just read an article on this. Youre at your peak in sperm in hormone production - not so much in quality of lovemaking. Since we have established that our culture doesnt allow for you to impregnant as many women (Rick James... Bitch?) as possible from the age of 12-50, the amount of sperm you produce really doesnt matter, since you arent going to be using it all of it anyways.

3. All this Seamen... Why Not?
Basically same arguement as before. You can't utilize every single seamen in an effort to impregnant all you come across, because you will be up to you ass in child support. Its a culture thing dude, not a biological thing. Also, even when you do expell seamen (Tee hee) the vast majority die en route, with only one survivor fertlizing and egg occasionally. So you see even nature wastes seamen!

Bottom Line. Culture. Culture. Culture. In our culture, unprotected, and rampant sex, for the sole means of reproduction is stupid, and rightly so. In specific to marriage, it has become a culture created security device so that you can't knock up scores of women, and skip town. You can knock up one woman, after you get married. This marraige binds you to provide for any potential children. Is there anything really wrong with that? Protecting the young seems fine to me. Now granted we have condoms in such, but those are also just cultural means to ensure that we dont have millions of impovershed children running around without parents (yet to a degree one can argue that we do, but thats a seperate issue.) See, marriage, contraception and outercourse, are all just means to protect from negative potentialities. So thats why some people advocate no sex before marriage.[/quote]

"Its about the science of the situation. Not the morals, diseases, or emotional effect sex can have on people. This post is about the science of humans, and when they are ABLE to reproduce."

Your opinion is directed towards the ethical and emtional part of my little rant. I however was talking about the SCIENCE of sex.

Think about it.

[quote=AndyB123]I posted this on the sam harris site ( author of The End of Faith) a long time ago, I'm wondering how you all will react to it. I'd like to hear your thoughts.

"This is my first post on this site, but it is something of great importance to me. I am 15 years young and have always kept an open mind towards most things, recently I started dating a conservative church going Christian, who’s parents are more intolerant of other religions, ideas etc. than anyone I’ve ever had the misfortune to meet. After a few months or so her parents pulled me aside and told me that they had the suspicion and absolute reason to believe we were having sex. This of course was not true but I could tell it was a very big issue for them. They made changes and now I have basically stopped dating the girl. I’m very confused on why many Christians make sex before marriage such an enormous deal.

I’ve thought about it for a while and I’ve found a few undeniable reasons to why humans are not nessisarily supposed to wait until marriage to have sex.

Firstly humans of both genders start producing the tools used to create new life, around the ages of 10-18. At this time, ANY two people of different sexes can have sex and have a baby.

I’ve personally heard that men reach a sexual peak at the ripe age of 18 year old, and start a downward spiral after that. Where women’s sexual peaks rise until they reach stages of menopause (I do not know if these fact are completely true). Wouldn’t the fact that men reach a sexual peak that early prove that men should have sex for procreation earlier? By the time a man can legally get married – in most states – he will have already hit this peak. And people that wait to get married later on in life, will have long missed their sexual peaks, in which they are most sexually active.

Also throughout a mans life, seamen is constantly being made, if this seaman is not used within a certain amount of time, one way or another, it is expelled from the body during nocturnal emissions. The seaman expelled is rendered useless. This happens from middles stages of puberty at ages as low as 10. Therefore the seaman that is not used during sexual intercourse because a person is waiting for marriage is lost.

Lastly, nothing in the laws of marriage changes any one person physically. The moment you say, “I do” your body does not shift and form and seamen is made. Your body is able, at earlier stages of life. Not directly after your marriage. This is the same for many other things as well. The moment you turn 18, and are eligible to vote, you are not suddenly filled with the correct political knowledge in order to vote.

Men and women are physically able to have sex at earlier stages of life, and are able to as soon as puberty hits. If the fictional characters of the bible, Adam and Eve were to have waited for the holy matrimony of marriage, than there would be no human race (according to the bible).

I would thoroughly enjoy feedback of all kinds. Negative and positive. It is very important that I hear some.
AndyB"

At first I got some interesting feedback. Mostly people telling to "talk to my parents", and to save it till I'm older. But this post isnt about ME. Its about the science of the situation. Not the morals, diseases, or emotional effect sex can have on people. This post is about the science of humans, and when they are ABLE to reproduce. Also please dont take this as a cry for help. Its not about my situation that I care about.

Thank you for your feedback :)[/quote]

I wouldn't use the term sexual peak, but maximum reproduction potential. The male, once completely matured, does constantly produce less and less semen, though I doubt that the amount made compared to potential semen made is too low of a percentage to be concerned of untill it reaches somewhere around 60-70%. I doubt males will have troubles procreating untill the age of 50-60 years of age. As soon as a baby girl in concieved, genetics determine how many eggs the female will have. So, as long as there are no errors that spontaneously occur in eggs causing malformation, I am almost certain that a females sexual organs are perfectly capable of reproduction untill eggs run out. The exception is the Mother's physical condition, being the host of the baby (which acts as a parasite) not necessarily her age, though her age does play a role in he physical condition. And since males constantly produces semen, there's no problem apparent to me if semen is lost on the wall, or in a dream, because we have plenty of it to go around, haha.

Look,

Education of knowing what the body does and knowing what deseases you can contract from certain acts is important. Monogomy doesnt garuntee a deasease free relationship. Your partner can lie to you. Married people do have extra caricular affairs as well. So even that is not a garuntee. Or they could have had a prior relationship where they did pick something up and either don't know, or hold that from you.

The best defense against desease is education and knowing your partner and getting tested. Blanket solutions based on clechi's are not.

I practically lived with my x-wife for 3 years before we got married. But I also knew her background and she was willing to get tested and so was I.

I do have to say however my prior experiances to that marriage were risky and did take pause a couple times in my life to wonder if what I did could cause me health problems. I was fortunate.

Take sex seriously. Certainly abstanance is one solution, but is just as innifective as improper use of condoms if all paramiters of a relationship are not considared.

Education of how the body works, understanding risk factors and knowing your partner with the willingness to get tested. Solutions are not born out of ignorance, no matter what you chose.

I had a healthy relaitionship with my parnter but we were also mature enough to do the right thing and not fear talking about it.

I say that it's my choice of whether or not I want to have sex before I marry. It's also my choice of who I want to have 'stick it in me'.

I believe that this issue is really just up to the beliefs of the two individuals. I've had sex, but I am in no way a slut which most closed minded people might call me. Sure, many people are careless with sex, but that doesn't mean that EVERYONE should wait until marriage. If I'm ready for something, I'm going to do it whether or not others think it's the right thing to do. I'm all about self gratification. I'm not going to deny myself a pleasure because some one else would rather wait until they said "I do".

As long as the sex is being done without ignorance or disregaurd of certain outcomes, It's fine by me.

I am actually semi-open to the possiblity that abstinence untill marriage could be a good idea. Currently, I think it is a bogus Christian/conservative/fundamentalist inspired ethic worth no more than Christianity. And trust me, I am not fond of Christianty. Can anyone hold a reasonable debate against me as to why sexual abstinence makes sense? And if this discussion trails off into another topic, so be it. Actually, I just want to discuss something of interest. Feel free to argue with me!

marriage is as fake as state lines. the natural world is not aware of these human made segregations, and something as natural as sex should not be looked down upon simply because it doesn't comply with our fake drawn lines of marriage.

in short, i very much like what you said. yess..-pixie

Consider this when your thinking about an answer:

Christians believe that pre-marital sex is immoral. But, they believe that "God" created the universe. That, in itself, is a contradiction. If "God" doesn't want humans to procreate until they are married, then why would he/she/it create humans to be capable of reproduction at such an early age?

Sex before marriage goes more into depth than christianity. I know a lot of people who are not christians and won't have sex til mariage because they believe waiting is right. I think its the boundaries you set for your self. Everyone sets their own morals and standards I mean its a hard subject because its no ones choice but your own. I mean I see nothing wrong with it if that is what you decide is best for you. But it could not hurt to wait also with all the sex disease but hey you may marry someone not open and get a sex disease from them. I think if you going to have sex use protection and hey if you want to be safer go and get tested together. It is up to you if you wait or want to have sex before you find the perfect person for you whom ever it may be.

Ok I hear about this alot and I don't see why you guys don't see why God says no premarital sex. Well if you don't see the condition of the world is in now I can see why but most of you do. Since prayer in school and God-related things were taken out of schools and other places alot of things increased such as teenage pregancies. Since people don't like to wait and have "fun" the rate of a teenage girl having a baby has went up dramatically since the 70's I believe.You say God don't want you to have fun? It seems he's trying to save you from a bad life. Condoms are not 100% good protection because they have little holes and let's just say its not pretty what happens if you just try this too many times. Look at people with AIDS and other STDs. Are you really telling me God don't want you to have fun? God created sex for us because he knows we need pleasure but he created for the purpose for a husband and his wife. So they may feel the full effect of love and not get little pieces of it from sharing it with all these different people.

[quote=Christfolyfe] Ok I hear about this alot and I don't see why you guys don't see why God says no premarital sex. Well if you don't see the condition of the world is in now I can see why but most of you do. Since prayer in school and God-related things were taken out of schools and other places alot of things increased such as teenage pregancies.[/quote]

This is a false correlation. Firstly, prayer in school was not taken away, it just can't be led by school officials. However, while the changes may have happened at the same time, they do not correlate. For example, The amount of Christians and Muslims in prison are far higher with respect to the proportion of their population. This does not mean that religion leads to crime. Poeple who are poor are more likely to be religious, and people who are poor are more likely to commit blue-collar crimes. Therefore, it would SEEM that religion causes criminality, even though it doesn't.

Secondly, even if your point were fully valid

[quote]Since people don't like to wait and have "fun" the rate of a teenage girl having a baby has went up dramatically since the 70's I believe.[/quote]

Not true. The odds of a SINGLE teenage girl having a baby has gone up dramatically since the 70's. This is mostly because now daughters are not being given away at that age, to be brides, as was the common practice for a long part of human history. I agree with you to an extent, however. I do not believe abstinence as the only way. However, I do believe(personally) in a certain level of abstinence, not till marriage, but I do agree that a lot of people are having too young, and too irresponsibly. Firstly, this has no effect whatsoever on the truth of religion. Secondly, this is something education could easily fix.

[quoteYou say God don't want you to have fun? [/quote]

I never said that

[quote]It seems he's trying to save you from a bad life.[/quote]

You're really question-begging, assuming the existence of God and justifying his actions from it. But arguments must stem from the evidence, not the evidence be selectively gathered to fit the conclusion.

[quote]Condoms are not 100% good protection because they have little holes and let's just say its not pretty what happens if you just try this too many times.[/quote] This is true, but between the morning after-pill,

[quote]Look at people with AIDS and other STDs. Are you really telling me God don't want you to have fun?[/quote]

Again, not saying that

[quote]God created sex for us because he knows we need pleasure but he created for the purpose for a husband and his wife. So they may feel the full effect of love and not get little pieces of it from sharing it with all these different people.[/quote]

Again, question begging, God didn't create sex, sex is a natural process by which procreation is enacted in a more efficient way than asexual reproduction.

[quote=skittlesrock]Sex before marriage goes more into depth than christianity. I know a lot of people who are not christians and won't have sex til mariage because they believe waiting is right.[/quote]

I agree. I personally do believe in waiting for a certain amount of time, however, I think marriage is not it. I don't believe in the institution of marriage. I do plan to spend the majority of my life with the same person. I don't know who that is, but I would like that. However, I don't plan to get married. I might have a civil union, partially in protest of the non-existence of gay marriages, partially because I don't believe in the value of marriage(the word). But the government telling people who to have sex with, who to marry, how to have sex with them: that is not what America is about.

[quote]I think its the boundaries you set for your self. Everyone sets their own morals and standards I mean its a hard subject because its no ones choice but your own. I mean I see nothing wrong with it if that is what you decide is best for you. But it could not hurt to wait also with all the sex disease but hey you may marry someone not open and get a sex disease from them. I think if you going to have sex use protection and hey if you want to be safer go and get tested together. It is up to you if you wait or want to have sex before you find the perfect person for you whom ever it may be.[/quote]

This is exactly what I would suggest. Education about sex, such as protection and infection etc... are far more important than any instillation of ideals, because ideals are just that, ideal(and only to some people). The real world implications are far more important.

Exactly. I don't necessarily approve with people having sex at the age of like 12, but A) it's their choice, and B) it's better to have people well educated so they know how to take best care of themselves. Educating people is the best you can do.

[quote=Guruite]yeah, we should not have 12 year olds having sex... like we should not have them drinking ... but we don't need to make it out to be a sin[/quote]

Course, because you and me can go ahead and make these personal choices for other people. Sounds like 'Liberty!' to me!

You and me shouldn't sell beer and drugs to minors? Why? Goddamn, why is it suddenly SO much better when you reach an certain age? Why can't I challenge their critical thinking skills before I sell them beer? How about this, you answer this riddle, and I am convinced you can be thoughtful.

The word 'Candy' can be spelled with 2 letters. Can you figure out how?

I didn't write this, but it was hard, so I used it.

ha :) your response to the riddle made me laugh, you got as far as i tried to go. but anyhoo,. my thoughts on this, they follow my thoughts on abortion. Regardless on whether you think it is "right" or "wrong" , you have to take into consideration that if someone wanted an abortion badly enough they would either get the abortion or if that isn't available they can have a miscarriage. You can't stop someone from beating their stomach to kill the child. Same with sex and alcohol. the underage people will always find a way to do them. so why limit them, just advise against and teach until they are knowledgeable enough to not fuck up. Ah... and the person who had said the thing about liberty... pure liberty is ridiculous, if anyone could do whatever they want everything would be torn apart. My friend chris was just running by this with me a few hours ago. its called social contract theory... in which it states we live in conditions that are not ideal, and in order to move away from these bad conditions men need to make a contract with each other to establish rights or wrongs. allowing unity to take place. Which in term establish some sort of government. pure liberty would just fail because everyone would have separate views and not willing to conform to a common goal. (wooh this is off topic, my thoughts on this topic are stated near the middle, ^^^ just so you know...)

I have no problem with people who are rational to make a choice, however many children cannot. It would be child abuse to make babies smoke crack (I think) and i also think that you should carry that concept to leaving drugs around where toddlers can take them. I think that the line that we draw is when we consider someone no longer a child, but an adult. This now comes by age - that is a dumb system. But so is a Riddle. The best system of determining whether someone is an adult (i think) is by a psychological evaluation... we would then get registered and have no more protections.

We should not allow children drugs... no I don't believe that we should have hard punishments for children who get into their parents cupboards... but it is the same principle as selling kids a gun that can only shoot themselves - it dosent hurt anyone but themselves, but they are not mature enough to understand the danger of it. (which is why we need a maturity test)

Okay, I have no problem if a 12 (or even younger) year old wants to buy beer. As long as he/she has been evaluated by a psychiatrist, has been found competent and mature enough, and accepts the burdens (Draft, trial as adult, the ability to be kicked out of the house by parents).
[quote]
But, you must remember it is ALWAYS a crime to force people to smoke crack cocaine, baby or no.[/quote]

haha, of course