How important is abstinence?

[Junkhead]

As an actually abstinent person, I don't think it's all that important. There are many ways to prevent having children and have casual sex, for one. Relationships are also a thing, so it's not like casual one night stands are one's only option. 

I think it's more about individual value. I value it for myself, but I don't expect everyone else to follow. 

For the record, I was born out of wedlock. My parents married when I was 2-3. 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Soul~!

[Shoblongoo]

17 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

Not the only way. But a viable way.

17 hours ago, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

@Solvaij

 I think attitudes have changed among younger generations to the point that even the thought of abstinence is shamed as being a prude or a weird way of thinking

...there's this weird little theory in political science: "every movement carries the seeds of its own counter-movement."

Sort of like a sociologist's corollary to the physical law: "for every action, there is an equal-but-opposite reaction"

Basically what it posits is that trends in culture and politics and societal attitudes never  just settle at a happy equilibrium;   its a pendulum that's constantly swinging from one extreme to the other and then back again. With the reaching of one extreme being the "action." And the backswing in the opposite direction being the "reaction." 
____________

...so in the case of casual sex outside of marriage, at least as it exists in Western Culture... 

Back in ancient Greek and Roman times the pendulum was pretty deep in mainstream-cultural-acceptance-of-full-blown-degeneracy territory. There were literal gods of sex and intoxication and pleasure cults dedicated to their worship. Bored aristocrats had nothing better to do with their wealth and power than drown themselves in grain alcohol and throw giant slave orgies; it was a dirty free-for-all.      

Then Christianity comes along; largely as a response to the perceived excesses and moral degeneracy of the Romans. and the pendulum swings in the opposite direction. Now lust is a "sin." Now it is said that there's something morally and spiritually wrong with you if you enjoy having anything other than married, procreative sex. And there's all kinds of restrictions and stigmas and punishments put in place against the wicked "fornicators."  

Then the counter-culture comes in the 1960s: the hippies, the 2nd wave feminist movement, the Vietnam War era anti-establishment crowd, "sex, drugs, and rock n' roll." The pendulum swings back again. Now its all about "free love," "sticking it to the man", and "my body; my choice!"  But it doesn't stop there. The pendulum keeps swinging towards its degenerate extreme, where any form of sexual inhibition or moral judgment is frowned upon and graphic, gratuitous sexual content is mainstreamed into the pop culture (i.e. Playboy Magazine, American Pie, Fifty Shades of Gray, multibillion dollar industries around the production of everything from hardcore porn to lifelike sex dolls...)

And at some point the pendulum is going to swing back. People are going to look at the state of the culture, feel like its gone too far, and long for more innocent times. But again; it won't just settle at happy equilibrium. It will swing all the way back to full-on shaming and repression of our basic sexual nature.

Then at some point people will become disgusted with that, and the pendulum will swing back to free love. And so-on-and-so-forth. Its a cycle that never ends.     

...or so the theory goes...
 

Edited March 16, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Infinite Dreams]

I don't believe abstinence is important at all, but I would never judge anyone for making the decision to remain abstinent.  We all have our own comfort zones.

In my opinion, abstinence-only education doesn't work.  There's a quote from Beverly Hills 90210 that I always liked (wow, never thought I would quote this show in a serious manner ):

"If you say that kids don't need condoms because they shouldn't be having sex in the first place, well, you're overlooking two very important things. One is that a lot of kids are having sex. And the other is that they are kids. I mean, it's like if you have a swimming pool in your backyard, you can tell your children not to go in it, you can even build a fence around it, but if you know that they're going to find a way into that water, don't you think you ought to teach those kids how to swim?"

There's nothing wrong with teenagers having sex.  The odds of getting pregnant are extremely low if you use birth control correctly, and I feel like the failure rate is often exaggerated.  The mental health effects of having an active sex life are great, and the risks are pretty low all things considered!  

[Excellen Browning]

3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...there's this weird little theory in political science: "every movement carries the seeds of its own counter-movement."

Sort of like a sociologist's corollary to the physical law: "for every action, there is an equal-but-opposite reaction"

Basically what it posits is that trends in culture and politics and societal attitudes never  just settle at a happy equilibrium;   its a pendulum that's constantly swinging from one extreme to the other and then back again. With the reaching of one extreme being the "action." And the backswing in the opposite direction being the "reaction." 
____________

...so in the case of casual sex outside of marriage, at least as it exists in Western Culture... 

Back in ancient Greek and Roman times the pendulum was pretty deep in mainstream-cultural-acceptance-of-full-blown-degeneracy territory. There were literal gods of sex and intoxication and pleasure cults dedicated to their worship. Bored aristocrats had nothing better to do with their wealth and power than drown themselves in grain alcohol and throw giant slave orgies; it was a dirty free-for-all.      

Then Christianity comes along; largely as a response to the perceived excesses and moral degeneracy of the Romans. and the pendulum swings in the opposite direction. Now lust is a "sin." Now it is said that there's something morally and spiritually wrong with you if you enjoy having anything other than married, procreative sex. And there's all kinds of restrictions and stigmas and punishments put in place against the wicked "fornicators."  

Then the counter-culture comes in the 1960s: the hippies, the 2nd wave feminist movement, the Vietnam War era anti-establishment crowd, "sex, drugs, and rock n' roll." The pendulum swings back again. Now its all about "free love," "sticking it to the man", and "my body; my choice!"  But it doesn't stop there. The pendulum keeps swinging towards its degenerate extreme, where any form of sexual inhibition or moral judgment is frowned upon and graphic, gratuitous sexual content is mainstreamed into the pop culture (i.e. Playboy Magazine, American Pie, Fifty Shades of Gray, multibillion dollar industries around the production of everything from hardcore porn to lifelike sex dolls...)

And at some point the pendulum is going to swing back. People are going to look at the state of the culture, feel like its gone too far, and long for more innocent times. But again; it won't just settle at happy equilibrium. It will swing all the way back to full-on shaming and repression of our basic sexual nature.

Then at some point people will become disgusted with that, and the pendulum will swing back to free love. And so-on-and-so-forth. Its a cycle that never ends.     

...or so the theory goes...
 

This is all well and good but the pendulum has gone back and forth several times over the last two millenia.

[Lord Raven]

On 3/15/2018 at 1:33 PM, Solvaij said:

Yeah... I just don't believe that. I think one of the nice things about being human (and this is kind of a personal belief but whatever) is impulse control.

So they have a natural impulse for sex, and you think human beings control it? Is that your point here? Because that impulse control doesn't prevent two hormonal teenagers from doing it.

Regardless, that's all well and good, but it's a pretty bad idea to trust teenagers will have impulse control.

Edited March 17, 2018 by Lord Raven

[eclipse]

On 3/16/2018 at 4:08 AM, Infinite Dreams said:

The mental health effects of having an active sex life are great, and the risks are pretty low all things considered!  

[citation needed]

My personal risk is insanely high, so it makes very little sense for me to consider otherwise.  But to each their own.

[SoulWeaver]

To jump in, I've never thought about this question. Why? Because, for me anyways, the answer is kind of obvious: God said don't have sex outside of marriage. God isn't about to tell me not to do something without good reason. Therefore, I have no interest in sex before or outside of marriage, at least not on the actual me level - of course, my body wants sex, duh, that's how the carnal natural man works, but it helps to recognize that isn't actually me wanting it before or outside of marriage, that's my imperfect body wanting sex and not really caring about the context or details involved. In part, that's why we're here on earth - to gain full control of our estate(bodies) so that we can be worthy of being put in charge of so much more in the life to come. Of course, some of you will disagree, and that's fine too, particularly for any atheists out there who say my answer doesn't apply or isn't valid. I'd rather not argue this out, though, just so you guys know.

[Excellen Browning]

3 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

To jump in, I've never thought about this question. Why? Because, for me anyways, the answer is kind of obvious: God said don't have sex outside of marriage. God isn't about to tell me not to do something without good reason. Therefore, I have no interest in sex before or outside of marriage, at least not on the actual me level - of course, my body wants sex, duh, that's how the carnal natural man works, but it helps to recognize that isn't actually me wanting it before or outside of marriage, that's my imperfect body wanting sex and not really caring about the context or details involved. In part, that's why we're here on earth - to gain full control of our estate(bodies) so that we can be worthy of being put in charge of so much more in the life to come. Of course, some of you will disagree, and that's fine too, particularly for any atheists out there who say my answer doesn't apply or isn't valid. I'd rather not argue this out, though, just so you guys know.

Which religion do you adhere to? Some form of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam?

[Infinite Dreams]

On 3/17/2018 at 4:16 PM, eclipse said:

[citation needed]

My personal risk is insanely high, so it makes very little sense for me to consider otherwise.  But to each their own.

Ah, yeah, I read earlier in the thread that you can't use hormonal birth control or condoms.  That's really unfortunate.    I totally understand why you wouldn't want to risk it in that case!  

Which part of my quoted text were you requesting a source for?  If it was the part where I said "the risks are pretty low", I should clarify that it was just my own opinion based on the failure rate of the birth control methods.  For example, the birth control pill (my method of choice) has a perfect use effectiveness of 99.7% and a typical use (taking into account human error) effectiveness of 92%, which is what I would consider a very low risk of pregnancy.    However, I do understand that others may not view it the same way as me.  I found the percentages from this site: https://www.optionsforsexualhealth.org/birth-control-pregnancy/birth-control-options/effectiveness.

If it was the other part of my post, well, I'm finding it difficult to find good sources.    I found a lot of stuff on google, but most of what I found didn't seem too reliable to me... I'll admit I'm pretty inexperienced when it comes to finding reputable sources on the internet (I haven't written a paper since 2008).  It seems that a lot of studies are locked behind a paywall; however, I did manage to find this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01677.x#ss41.  

Edit: I noticed that people in this sub-forum have been using links to news sites and stuff like that as a source of information, so I guess those are okay?  I wasn't sure.  If anyone is looking back at this and is interested, here's a couple of the links I found that have some info about the psychological benefits of sex.  I've felt these effects myself, too, so I believe in this.

https://www.healthline.com/health/healthy-sex-health-benefits#in-men-and-women

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-03/regular-sex-benefits-your-mental-health-too-the-conversation/8322520

Edited March 22, 2018 by Infinite Dreams

[Solvaij]

On 3/16/2018 at 8:25 PM, Lord Raven said:

So they have a natural impulse for sex, and you think human beings control it? Is that your point here?

Yes. That's what I said.

On 3/16/2018 at 8:25 PM, Lord Raven said:

Because that impulse control doesn't prevent two hormonal teenagers from doing it.

But... It can. And does.

On 3/16/2018 at 8:25 PM, Lord Raven said:

Regardless, that's all well and good, but it's a pretty bad idea to trust teenagers will have impulse control.

I don't think I said anything about that?

[SoulWeaver]

11 hours ago, Excellen Browning said:

Which religion do you adhere to? Some form of Christianity, Judaism, or Islam?

I am LDS, so Christianity.

[Lord Raven]

36 minutes ago, Solvaij said:

Yes. That's what I said.

Okay, so what part are you disagreeing with? I don't actually understand.The issue is that abstinence based education is actively harmful because teenagers don't participate in abstinence. If you want to read the statistics, a whopping 41% of high school students have had sex. The rate of teen pregnancy and sex has gone down 13% partially due to increased usage of contraceptives.

It's extremely common. The issue is not how to curb it, the issue is how to prevent it from ruining lives through pregnancy. Abstinence won't fix it; even though the rate has gone down, it's clearly happening very often and teaching kids how to safely do it as opposed to never do it is far more productive. Especially because sex is a very natural part of life.

In summary, I don't know what point you're making. Teenagers have pretty poor impulse control and addiction issues. They're notorious for poor judgment. Saying "don't have sex" won't fix that, but at least teaching safe sex on all phases will help significantly.

Furthermore, abstinence only education has been shown to poorly curb sexual interactions between teenagers. Contraceptive use has significantly decreased teen pregnancy.

On 3/15/2018 at 2:09 PM, Silver-Haired Maiden said:

That. That in its entirety exactly. I think attitudes have changed among younger generations to the point that even the thought of abstinence is shamed as being a prude or a weird way of thinking of things and I've often said that believe it or not you can actually keep your privates in your pants (or whatever other thing you wear) so yes, it is still a viable way of handling things.

Not the only way. But a viable way.

People tend to be equally shamed, and depending on the region moreso, for being fuckboys and sluts too.

Some regions might shame virgins. It all is a matter of where you grew up. I've personally heard all kinds of shaming in equal magnitudes. At some point we have to realize that teenagers are just ignorant haters.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Solvaij]

3 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Okay, so what part are you disagreeing with? I don't actually understand.The issue is that abstinence based education is actively harmful because teenagers don't participate in abstinence. If you want to read the statistics, a whopping 41% of high school students have had sex. The rate of teen pregnancy and sex has gone down 13% partially due to increased usage of contraceptives.

It's extremely common. The issue is not how to curb it, the issue is how to prevent it from ruining lives through pregnancy. Abstinence won't fix it; even though the rate has gone down, it's clearly happening very often and teaching kids how to safely do it as opposed to never do it is far more productive. Especially because sex is a very natural part of life.

In summary, I don't know what point you're making. Teenagers have pretty poor impulse control and addiction issues. They're notorious for poor judgment. Saying "don't have sex" won't fix that, but at least teaching safe sex on all phases will help significantly.

Furthermore, abstinence only education has been shown to poorly curb sexual interactions between teenagers. Contraceptive use has significantly decreased teen pregnancy.

Look, I'm not trying to start anything. I'm not sitting here promoting abstinence-only sex-ed. I just threw out an opinion on this topic.

What I disagree with is the pervasive attitude that people can't be expected to control their impulses. That promotes poor behavior and excuse-making (not with sex, just in general). You act because you want to act, not because you're forced to by some animalistic drive.

Sex is a natural part of life for most people, and when you choose to become sexually active is no one's business but your own. But it's still a choice. It's still something you can control.

[Lord Raven]

16 minutes ago, Solvaij said:

Look, I'm not trying to start anything. I'm not sitting here promoting abstinence-only sex-ed. I just threw out an opinion on this topic.

What I disagree with is the pervasive attitude that people can't be expected to control their impulses. That promotes poor behavior and excuse-making (not with sex, just in general). You act because you want to act, not because you're forced to by some animalistic drive.

Sex is a natural part of life for most people, and when you choose to become sexually active is no one's business but your own. But it's still a choice. It's still something you can control.

If you're not trying to start anything you should probably read some of the stickies on this forum. You probably shouldn't post a viewpoint if you're not expecting scrutiny. That's how this subforum works.

Regardless, it's not so much that people can't control impulses, so much as people will act impulsively no matter what. I've brought forth a lot of the statistics to show that people (teenagers) often act on impulses, and it's strictly due to human nature they do so. Just because you and I can control our impulses doesn't mean every other human being can be trusted to do so.

I think you and your immediate friends might be trusted to not act on impulses, but I can tell you that my high school friends were very 50/50 on it (and my other high school had my immediate friends rarely acting on impulses, it's quite variable!). High school kids are generally pretty exploratory and impulsive, for reasons that are not necessarily out of their control. The statistics to represent a whole population definitely back this up, the science backs this up, what more is there? People can control their impulses, but teenagers are really bad at it, and it's partially because of an animalistic drive. Sex is pretty much the most animalistic thing we do aside from slaughter others over territory and caring more about our next of kin than ourselves.

It is absolutely not excuse-making or promotion of poor behavior, at any rate. It's a legitimate issue that we can't curb, only work around. That's how most real-life things are. There are deficiencies that result from the fact that the human mind is overall not completely rational and the population at large has an issue that maybe individuals won't. Rather than trying to eliminate it, you have to make sure people are safe when they are participating, because eliminating an issue is a very lofty and often impractical task when you're dealing with millions or billions of humans.

Edited March 18, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Solvaij]

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

If you're not trying to start anything you should probably read some of the stickies on this forum.

???

2 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Regardless, it's not so much that people can't control impulses, so much as people will act impulsively no matter what. I've brought forth a lot of the statistics to show that people often act on impulses, and it's strictly due to human nature they do so. Just because you and I can control our impulses doesn't mean every other human being can be trusted to do so.

I think you and your immediate friends might be trusted to not act on impulses, but I can tell you that my high school friends were very 50/50 on it. High school kids are generally pretty exploratory and impulsive, for reasons that are not necessarily out of their control. The statistics back this up, the science backs this up, what more is there? People can control their impulses, but teenagers are really bad at it, and it's partially because of an animalistic drive. Sex is pretty much the most animalistic thing we do aside from slaughter others over territory and caring more about our next of kin than ourselves.

It is absolutely not excuse-making or promotion of poor behavior, at any rate. It's a legitimate issue that we can't curb, only work around. That's how most real-life things are. There are deficiencies that result from the fact that the human mind is overall not completely rational and the population at large has an issue that maybe individuals won't. Rather than trying to eliminate it, you have to make sure people are safe when they are participating, because eliminating an issue is a very lofty and often impractical task when you're dealing with millions or billions of humans.

Alright, we're not going to agree on this, but it's fine. Here's a lame meme in good faith:

See ya around

[eclipse]

1 hour ago, Solvaij said:

???

This is Serious Discussion, not "dump your opinion".  Yes, read that sticky, it's there for a reason.

[Jotari]

3 hours ago, Solvaij said:

???

Alright, we're not going to agree on this, but it's fine. Here's a lame meme in good faith:

See ya around

If you're not actively promoting Abistinence Only Education,  then I'm not sure what you're actively in disagreement about.

[Lord Raven]

I think they're disagreeing on human nature, and how part of humanity is holding back your impulses rather than acting on them.

I think what we disagree on is that I view these impulses due to human nature as an inevitably that must be worked around when it comes to implementation of policy, whereas they view it as something that we should all make an effort to control. I can agree with the latter, but saying that we should be doing something is irrelevant to evidence-based policy.

It's a pretty minor point, to be honest. But it's a matter of separating the individual from the population.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Lord Raven

[Shoblongoo]

Question for the posters who have indicated they feel abstinence until marriage is important to them for their own moral/spiritual/personal reasons, but that they get why it wouldn't be important to everyone and wouldn't necessarily think less of someone who didn't live that way.

...Suppose that you met a person. You dated for a while. Your personalities matched and there was romantic chemistry. You were seriously thinking about marrying them. And with you this person is willing to wait until marriage because they really like you and they respect how you feel about it, and they want to try and make it work--they'll wait until your ready.  

But you find out that before meeting you, this person had a rather active sex life. With multiple partners.

Everything else about the relationship is great and feels right--is the sole fact that they were not abstinent before they met you a dealbreaker???

Could you marry that person?
How much would it bother you that they had other sexual partners before you?
Would you feel insecure about having sex for the time with a partner who you knew was substantially more experienced then you?

...or would it not really  matter at all, so long as they respected you and didn't try to make you do anything you were uncomfortable with and committed to waiting for you to be ready?
 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[SullyMcGully]

OK, just got back and don't know what I'm getting into but:

I'm a Christian. My reason for abstinence is because I have a moral standard about regrets, specifically, that I don't want anybody to have them because of me. A sexual relationship doesn't have to produce a child to end in regret, people regret sexual relationships of all kinds all of the time. In my opinion, even if there's just a 30%-20% chance that a relationship will end in regret, it's not worth it. Not worth the risk of me making somebody else's life feel terrible forever. 

Granted, I seem to be less concerned with the physical aspect of romantic relationships than most men. So I can't really speak for too many other people.

As for my feelings on marriage, I think marriage is not about a legally binding contract or having some pastor say "man and wife". It's a commitment between two people to love each other exclusively for the rest of their lives. I don't have personal experience with this (duh) but from what I hear from people I trust, the best relationships are those that have an element of exclusivity. So really, in my opinion marriage isn't about making sex official, it's about commitment. And you can be just as committed without a fancy ring as you are with one. 

So basically: IMO, save sex and children for when you find someone to spend the rest of your life with. Read some statistics and they'll scare the heck out of you if you think raising a boy without a father figure will probably turn out better in the end.

Oh, and in response to Shoblongoo's post: I think I fit into that category you're talking about. I really wouldn't mind if my future spouse had had previous sexual partners. I don't like beating people up over past mistakes they've come to regret. If they didn't seem to think that sexual relationships are a big deal emotionally and that exclusivity has a real value in a relationship, then we probably wouldn't "click" in the first place as those things are important to me.

[eclipse]

2 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Question for the posters who have indicated they feel abstinence until marriage is important to them for their own moral/spiritual/personal reasons, but that they get why it wouldn't be important to everyone and wouldn't necessarily think less of someone who didn't live that way.

...Suppose that you met a person. You dated for a while. Your personalities matched and there was romantic chemistry. You were seriously thinking about marrying them. And with you this person is willing to wait until marriage because they really like you and they respect how you feel about it, and they want to try and make it work--they'll wait until your ready.  

But you find out that before meeting you, this person had a rather active sex life. With multiple partners.

Everything else about the relationship is great and feels right--is the sole fact that they were not abstinent before they met you a dealbreaker???

Could you marry that person?
How much would it bother you that they had other sexual partners before you?
Would you feel insecure about having sex for the time with a partner who you knew was substantially more experienced then you?

...or would it not really  matter at all, so long as they respected you and didn't try to make you do anything you were uncomfortable with and committed to waiting for you to be ready?
 

I'd make them do a blood test first, for safety reasons.  Love's great and all, but I don't think my system could handle a STD.

But if they came back clean, then I'd definitely go for it.  Hell, they could give me pointers!

[JimmyBeans]

12 hours ago, SoulWeaver said:

I am LDS, so Christianity.

Thank you for that, I am LDS as well. So then you know what I mean when I want to learn the reason behind the rules right? I don't want to sound like I lack faith or anything. but I totally think it helps to understand the "why" of what we standards we live so we can explain it better to others, and to help our own testimony as well, and like others said before it helps to understand the other side. I have had a problem with judging others in the past for things like this so this thread is one of the things im doing to open my eyes a bit.

 

On the other hand @Shoblongoo “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” -John 8:7 Im sure with your knowledge you know the context, but just let me know if you don't. Pretty much that is considered a sin, but in my church (along with many others) sins can be forgiven and we all are imperfect. If you saw my earlier posts I said some things regarding soulmates and finding to "perfect match" to which I argued that they don't exist, and that the perfect relationship is something that is built between to willing people. So if that person was willing to accept my morals and willing to make our eternal goals come true than of course I would marry her. 

So in short, God forgives everyone so we should too.

Edited March 19, 2018 by JimmyBeans

[Jotari]

7 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Question for the posters who have indicated they feel abstinence until marriage is important to them for their own moral/spiritual/personal reasons, but that they get why it wouldn't be important to everyone and wouldn't necessarily think less of someone who didn't live that way.

...Suppose that you met a person. You dated for a while. Your personalities matched and there was romantic chemistry. You were seriously thinking about marrying them. And with you this person is willing to wait until marriage because they really like you and they respect how you feel about it, and they want to try and make it work--they'll wait until your ready.  

But you find out that before meeting you, this person had a rather active sex life. With multiple partners.

Everything else about the relationship is great and feels right--is the sole fact that they were not abstinent before they met you a dealbreaker???

Could you marry that person?
How much would it bother you that they had other sexual partners before you?
Would you feel insecure about having sex for the time with a partner who you knew was substantially more experienced then you?

...or would it not really  matter at all, so long as they respected you and didn't try to make you do anything you were uncomfortable with and committed to waiting for you to be ready?
 

A possibly more difficult alternative to this, what if you met someone who completely suited your personality, was absolutely willing to be monogamous and start a family and all that jazz, but simply doesn't believe in marriage as an institution?  Because there very much are people out there that refuse to get married on principal, even though they’re in a committed relationship that is for all intents and purposes a marriage.

[Shoblongoo]

4 hours ago, Jotari said:

 what if you met someone who completely suited your personality, was absolutely willing to be monogamous and start a family and all that jazz, but simply doesn't believe in marriage as an institution? 

I'd have been fine with that, tbh, if circumstances allowed. The relationship and the compatibility and the long-term commitment to love each other + stay together is whats important. You can have that same relationship without officially making it a marriage; the "marriage" part of it is just government recognition that your relationship comes with certain legal rights and protections. (there's more to it I know for people of faith, who believe that marriage is the fulfillment of a divine commandment and that marrying their partner carries religious and spiritual significance. For me and my wife that wasn't important; we're both pretty irreverent towards organized religion)

With me and my wife--our circumstances were a bit out of the ordinary. For us, the secular "legal rights and protections" element of marriage was exceptionally important when we were deciding whether or not to get married. She was here on a student visa that was about to expire and we were up against a hard immigration deadline to keep the relationship going; either I married her and made her eligible for legal permanent resident status on the basis of marriage to an American citizen, or she was going to have to go home and I would never see her again.

So stay together and start a family without getting married was never really an option for us. The choice was out of our hands; marriage was something we had to do if were serious about staying together. (which we were, obviously)

9 hours ago, eclipse said:

I'd make them do a blood test first

...you're a cruel mistress...
 

9 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

Oh, and in response to Shoblongoo's post: I think I fit into that category you're talking about. I really wouldn't mind if my future spouse had had previous sexual partners. I don't like beating people up over past mistakes they've come to regret. If they didn't seem to think that sexual relationships are a big deal emotionally and that exclusivity has a real value in a relationship, then we probably wouldn't "click" in the first place as those things are important to me.

 

7 hours ago, JimmyBeans said:

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” -John 8:7 Im sure with your knowledge you know the context, but just let me know if you don't. Pretty much that is considered a sin, but in my church (along with many others) sins can be forgiven and we all are imperfect. If you saw my earlier posts I said some things regarding soulmates and finding to "perfect match" to which I argued that they don't exist, and that the perfect relationship is something that is built between to willing people. So if that person was willing to accept my morals and willing to make our eternal goals come true than of course I would marry her. 

 

...so in that hypothetical, to have any kind of working relationship, your partner would have to explicitly tell you they now view their active sexual history as a "mistake" they have come to regret, and for which they are seeking forgiveness? 

But if they had no regrets and just had a live-and-let-live attitude about it--i.e. if they aren't bothered that you want to wait until marriage, you shouldn't be bothered that they were sexually active with prior partners--there's no way that could work for you? You're too far apart spiritually and ethically to be romantically compatible?  

Even if your personalities and hobbies synced up perfectly and the physical attraction was there and everything else about the relationship was spot-on?  

Edited March 19, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

@Shoblongoo I would ask them to get tested for STDs, and probably would ask them not to wear a white dress on our wedding day, as much as that might not make sense to a lot of people. I need people to know that I married someone who made mistakes and is ready to move on from them.