I would suggest that sex and the expression of sexuality are important aspects of human experience that teach people a great deal about themselves and others. Intimacy and sex are not unhealthy in and of themselves, and if practiced by consenting, responsible adults, they are not harmful. It doesn’t follow that extramarital sex is any more or less healthy than marital sex. It very much depends on what works for people.
I suppose I made my point earlier, that sex outside of marriage is neither a mark of adulthood, or responsibility, when I described the not as healthy aspect of it.
Mostly, if adults commit to a serious, long-term relationship, they do it with the intention of “checking each other out” - if the relationship works, they may choose to cement it with marriage.
I think what you describe is called dating, not sex before marriage. Naturally, marriage preparation practicied by the Church, adds another layer of checking out; most responsible indeed. My guess is that what you referred to wasn’t dating, since that would be a approved practice, but rather living in sin before marriage.
I counter this with the alternative position - how healthy is it to suppose that a man’s commitment to his wife should be in any way subject to the children they have? Most women like to be valued for themselves, not just their baby-making ability. In fact, there is a lot of evidence to suggest that children are more likely to weaken a marital relationship than to strengthen it (short of the sense of obligation, which may or may not be present, to stick around for the sake of the children). However, I suspect this is because people go with the standard-issue life-script of getting married and having children, without ever really thinking whether they and their partner are suited for either. So I would suggest that healthy sex and healthy relationships are not necessarily dependent upon marriage and children.
There is no such thing as healthy sex outside of marriage, but call it that if you will. I think you will find that it’s healthy to honor your commitments. Last time I saw, part of the marital vows includes children in it as part of the vow. Even if it is not, only an idiot would expect that marriage wouldn’t likely result in a child at some point. Part of the vows I understand, mention things that pretty much put them together in any circumstances besides death (until death do you part"). So what part of honoring your vow is unhealthy? It is not honoring it which is unhealthy, but dishonoring it, such as leaving when there are children. If it is healthy to not stay around after children are born, then why vow at all other than to fool the woman that such a jerk would stay around? If it is healthy to abandon after children, then why not making the vows include leaving at any time, or at least after childbirth? No woman is so stupid as to agree to such a vow, that is why. So tell me, how does the woman feel that such male activity is healthy, if they took vows which didn’t include that?
Unless I’m mistaken, you seem to have made the twist that people are too dumb to check each other out in dating and that outer-marriage sex is good for that. I would say, for people that lame, and I don’t think there are that many ‘that’ dumb, despite how ineffective their checking out may had been, that stupidity follows stupidity. IOW, they were dumb enough not the check things out, and so they follow that stupidity by getting furtherly stupid and thinking sex will somehow give them all the checking out they need. Was that what you were saying (without the stupidity part of course)?
Of course, as I pointed out in an earlier post, this kind of thinking does not assume that there is a God who claims ownership of your body…
I see, but I think you haven’t given that position a very good chance. In a sense, you are correct I would say. Without God, we would not exist, so at it’s deepest levels, even what you said is mere fancy.
But let us entertain for a minute the fantasy that we came into existence without God. Do you know where that marital vows are based on existence of God? So without God in this fantasy, there would no marriage, or at least as we understand marriage. What it would be I cannot say.
If there was not God, again, in such a fantasy environment, I would assume there would be no morals, therefore no marriage either, because a proper marriage is an act of morality. So, yes, if there were no marriage, there would be nothing extra-marital and the standard, or lack thereof, would be nobody married and come and go as you please I suppose. Poor women, just mere playthings at men’s disposal, because clearly in this situation men would not have a God to answer to for their actions. Sheesh, at that rate, why would women ever bother to have children, for when there is no God, what’s the purpose of having them, as there’s nothing to answer to for our actions (well the State could be our god perhaps)? And in a society where there are no morals because there is no God to hand them down why would the race of man last very long? The man could have any woman he wanted practically and the woman could abort quickly “so as to not lose her figure”.
)
