is premarital sex bad? why?

[jane_doe]

Lets say a couple has been together in a comitted relationship for decades. Is the sex they have somehow wrong? Does the fact that they are not married make it bad in some way?

And they haven’t bothered to put a ring on it? If so, then they haven’t really given their entire selves to each other.
And yes, it is wrong for a couple that is unwilling to give their ENTIRE selves to each other to have sex.

 

[pcrtx]

Sex is the re-affirmation of the covenant made between two people… If you are not married then there is no covenant to seal. Sex in pre-marriage is enjoyment only.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

It makes it bad that they have chosen to consummate their relationship but refuse to ratify it. They are normalizing extramarital sex and pretending that the formal exchange of consent between a man and a woman prior to entering into a sexual relationship is an unnecessary exercise.

I am not saying that informal exchange of consent has no reality to it, but that this world we live in where consent is becoming more and more something that a person in a “committed” relationship is not being given the social standing to refuse. If there is an expectation, it is that sexual intimacy is expected *prior to *the exchange of formal binding consent. The right to refuse to have sex is being undermined and questioned. People who refuse to have sex before marriage are becoming the social pariahs–what does that say? It says that the right to refuse to have sex prior to marriage is being eroded by the expectation that formal consent isn’t necessary. That means that people are increasingly being subjected to the expectation that they are expected by society to extend the benefits of marriage to a prospective spouse before that person has made a commitment.

That is a bad sociological trend, but it is very real. The feminists are going so far as to call the prevailing expectation that has resulted a “rape culture.” They mean that the absolute right to refuse to have sex without any need for excuse has been denied to unmarried persons, and they are quite correct about that.

You’re grasping at straws here. You know full well that social expectations and rights have nothing to do with each other. Your freedom over your body does not obligate other couples to make the same choices you do out of solidarity.

That’s also not what’s meant by rape culture. The idea behind that term is victim blaming - that a woman drinking, walking alone, flirting, or dressed provocatively is somehow asking for it. This attitude was actually much more common in previous (more restrictive) decades than it is now.

 

[EasterJoy]

You’re grasping at straws here. You know full well that social expectations and rights have nothing to do with each other. Your freedom over your body does not obligate other couples to make the same choices you do out of solidarity.

That’s also not what’s meant by rape culture. The idea behind that term is victim blaming - that a woman drinking, walking alone, flirting, or dressed provocatively is somehow asking for it. This attitude was actually much more common in previous (more restrictive) decades than it is now.

That is not what I’m reading about rape culture among the philosophers writing about it. The description of the “rape culture” is described as the denial of the truth that no one needs an excuse to refuse to have sex. People who say there is a “rape culture” are saying that there is an increasing sense that it is “unfair” or “hurtful” to deny sex to someone who is “committed” to you or even to someone who got their hopes up over the course of a social encounter because the encounter had been progressing in physical intimacy. This is not just about people forcing themselves on a sexual partner who refused them and rationalizing it afterwards. This is also about people giving themselves room to feel they’ve suffered an offense when they expected to engage in sex and were denied. It is about the effects of disparaging those who exercise their right to refuse without offering an excuse.

I’m sticking by my thesis: that is, that in my lifetime and because of the prevalence of sexual consort prior to marriage, those who do not give consent to have sex with their romantic partners prior to marriage are subject to ridicule, contempt, and very uncharitable presumptions about their psycho-sexual maturity. They are being expected to comply with the duties of the married with someone with whom they have never exchanged formal consent. It is they, rather than the promiscuous, who are being treated as if they are “damaged goods.” That is how far the pressure to have sex prior to marriage has gone. I don’t see how anyone can deny this, frankly. (If you don’t believe me, ask an unmarried person who is still a virgin.)

 

[goout]

That is not what I’m reading about rape culture among the philosophers writing about it. The description of the “rape culture” is described as the denial of the truth that no one needs an excuse to refuse to have sex. People who say there is a “rape culture” are saying that there is an increasing sense that it is “unfair” or “hurtful” to deny sex to someone who is “committed” to you or even to someone who got their hopes up over the course of a social encounter because the encounter had been progressing in physical intimacy. This is not just about people forcing themselves on a sexual partner who refused them and rationalizing it afterwards. This is also about people giving themselves room to feel they’ve suffered an offense when they expected to engage in sex and were denied. It is about the effects of disparaging those who exercise their right to refuse.

I’m sticking by my thesis: that is, that in my lifetime and because of the prevalence of cohabitation prior to marriage, those who do not give consent to have sex with their romantic partners prior to marriage are subject to ridicule, contempt, and very uncharitable presumptions about their psycho-sexual maturity. It is they, rather than the promiscuous, who are being treated as if they are “damaged goods.” That is how far the pressure to have sex prior to marriage has gone. I don’t see how anyone can deny this, frankly.

This is spot on.
I have never heard the other characterization of “rape culture”.

Rape culture is about the objectification of women, subjecting them to the gratification of sexual pleasure, willing or not. Since the gratification of sexual pleasure is seen by many people as the highest good, or one of the highest goods, this abuse of women is tolerated.
This is rampant in our culture. The removal of sexuality from it’s full marital context is wholly responsible for this, as was predicted by P Paul in the 60’s.

It was said that sexualism would free women from the shackles of slavery. It has done just the opposite. Women are more dependent, more abused, more raped, more murdered, more abducted and sold in to slavery, and more murdered in the womb, than ever before.

Unrestricted sexual license has led to barbarism on an unheard of scale.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

That is not what I’m reading about rape culture among the philosophers writing about it. The description of the “rape culture” is described as the denial of the truth that no one needs an excuse to refuse to have sex. People who say there is a “rape culture” are saying that there is an increasing sense that it is “unfair” or “hurtful” to deny sex to someone who is “committed” to you or even to someone who got their hopes up over the course of a social encounter because the encounter had been progressing in physical intimacy. This is not just about people forcing themselves on a sexual partner who refused them and rationalizing it afterwards. This is also about people giving themselves room to feel they’ve suffered an offense when they expected to engage in sex and were denied. It is about the effects of disparaging those who exercise their right to refuse without offering an excuse.

I’m sticking by my thesis: that is, that in my lifetime and because of the prevalence of sexual consort prior to marriage, those who do not give consent to have sex with their romantic partners prior to marriage are subject to ridicule, contempt, and very uncharitable presumptions about their psycho-sexual maturity. They are being expected to comply with the duties of the married with someone with whom they have never exchanged formal consent. It is they, rather than the promiscuous, who are being treated as if they are “damaged goods.” That is how far the pressure to have sex prior to marriage has gone. I don’t see how anyone can deny this, frankly. (If you don’t believe me, ask an unmarried person who is still a virgin.)

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

Oh for Pete’s sake. It has a defined meaning. Whether or not you agree with it or it’s existence, it has nothing to do with feeling pressure to have sex. In fact, its really tied to the anti slut shaming thing. You may be speaking about a real phenomena, but it isn’t what’s commonly called rape culture.

I would never ridicule someone for their choices, but kind of like the alcoholic who has to realize he can’t change the world, someone who doesn’t want to have sex has to accept that’s on them and how they will be viewed. Lack of public celebration is not an infringement on personal rights.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

This is spot on.
I have never heard the other characterization of “rape culture”.

Rape culture is about the objectification of women, subjecting them to the gratification of sexual pleasure, willing or not. Since the gratification of sexual pleasure is seen by many people as the highest good, or one of the highest goods, this abuse of women is tolerated.
This is rampant in our culture. The removal of sexuality from it’s full marital context is wholly responsible for this, as was predicted by P Paul in the 60’s.

It was said that sexualism would free women from the shackles of slavery. It has done just the opposite. Women are more dependent, more abused, more raped, more murdered, more abducted and sold in to slavery, and more murdered in the womb, than ever before.

Unrestricted sexual license has led to barbarism on an unheard of scale.

Then read about it. It was coined in the 70’s and not as a plea to not be pressured into sex.

 

[EasterJoy]

Then read about it. It was coined in the 70’s and not as a plea to not be pressured into sex.

Women’s studies have progressed since 1970.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Women’s studies have progressed since 1970.

And yet, that’s STILL not how it’s used.

You may think that’s a real rape culture, but at least be honest about that being your own perception. Its just not how sociologists, political scientists, or gender theorists use it in social science literature.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Women’s studies have progressed since 1970.

Also, the idea that modern women wouldn’t have premarital sex unless they were pressured is a bit out of touch. Women drive and love the hookup culture as much as men.

 

[pensmama87]

Also, the idea that modern women wouldn’t have premarital sex unless they were pressured is a bit out of touch. Women drive and love the hookup culture as much as men.

You know, having been a feminist for many years and living a very secular life during that time, I really don’t think that’s true. Many women, even very liberal ones, did not like feeling they had to “put out” in order to date or keep a boyfriend, or become increasingly “inventive” in the bedroom to keep interest.

Obviously I got out of that game early, and didn’t play as hard as some, but the hookup culture really benefits men much more than women. There were a few who liked it, sure, but they were not typical. But it worked out swimmingly for the guys.

Then again, my college campus had more women than men, so that disparity may very well have played a role in that.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

You know, having been a feminist for many years and living a very secular life during that time, I really don’t think that’s true. Many women, even very liberal ones, did not like feeling they had to “put out” in order to date or keep a boyfriend, or become increasingly “inventive” in the bedroom to keep interest.

Obviously I got out of that game early, and didn’t play as hard as some, but the hookup culture really benefits men much more than women. There were a few who liked it, sure, but they were not typical. But it worked out swimmingly for the guys.

Then again, my college campus had more women than men, so that disparity may very well have played a role in that.

My experience doesn’t match yours, but that’s not really something to argue about.

I just wanted to point out that we get a lot of guys coming here complaining that the hooking up stuff only works for women and a few men. I guess its all perspective and what you’re getting vs what you want.

 

[Bradski]

Let’s try this again and see where it gets us. You specifically requested that you be asked any moral problem to which you will provide a specific moral evaluation:

You can ask me a number of moral questions to which I will provide specific moral evaluations.

So I asked you one:

So please point me to the standard of reference for determining the morality of factory farming…How do you determine what we ‘ought’ to do and how will it differ from how I approach the same problem?

So where is the problem here? Well I see the problem in that you cannot give a boiler plate answer to a moral problem that you can look up in the Catechism. Extra marital sex? Well, that one’s easy:

It’s expressed in the Catholic Catechism and in many other documents and teachings of the Catholic Church.

Just point to the text and say it must be wrong because it is written. Notwithstanding that ‘ordered to the good of human existence and flourishing’ is not relevant to most people’s idea of why they have sex. You might note that almost all Catholic women have, at some point, used contraception. Not that that in itself makes it the right thing to do. Just that it makes your comment irrelevant in almost all real life situations as they all had sex which was not ordered to the good of human flourishing etc… And I really would like to consider how these problems actually affect us in concrete ways.

If the answer to a simple question like: ‘Do you want to go to bed?’ was ‘No thanks. It wouldn’t be ordered to the good of human existence and flourishing’ then it probably wouldn’t be a good idea in the first place. Where are the practical answers that others have given? ‘No thanks, I don’t want to take the chance of getting pregnant/getting an STD/ hating myself in the morning’? Well, you can’t use those because they are not always applicable which means that ‘extra marital sex is always wrong’ does not stand up.

And in any case, you determine morality (at least when not cutting and pasting from the catechism) exactly as I do. Which we will discover as soon as you decide to answer the question above. Because you won’t find the answer in church teaching or the bible or the catechism. You might find some guidance , but how you interpret that guidance will be down to you. That is, it will be your personal interpretation of what will be morally correct.

If you don’t want to answer it, then please let me know so I won’t have to keep repeating it.

Sounds like marriage!

It is, according to the catechism.
1626 The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that "makes the marriage."127 If consent is lacking there is no marriage.
1627 The consent consists in a “human act by which the partners mutually give themselves to each other”: “I take you to be my wife” - "I take you to be my husband."128 This consent that binds the spouses to each other finds its fulfillment in the two “becoming one flesh.”

Sex is the re-affirmation of the covenant made between two people… If you are not married then there is no covenant to seal. Sex in pre-marriage is enjoyment only.

See above. The commitment made to each other is sufficient for the Catholic Church to consider it a marriage. Oh, as long as you ‘become one flesh’ to bind each other. So you need to have sex.

They are normalizing extramarital sex and pretending that the formal exchange of consent between a man and a woman prior to entering into a sexual relationship is an unnecessary exercise.

See above. A formal exchange is not required.

And they haven’t bothered to put a ring on it? If so, then they haven’t really given their entire selves to each other.

See above. A ring isn’t required. A formal marriage is simply a celebration and sanctification of the consent. Which would be difficult if you had no belief in God. So are you saying that no atheists are married? Are you saying that a couple who have spent a lifetime in a loving and fruitful relationship are not committed because they didn’t feel the need to formalise it? Please, give me a break…

 

[PRmerger]

Women drive and love the hookup culture as much as men.

I think that the women who “love the hookup culture” are masking their deep despondency over their choices with anti-depressants.

 

[PRmerger]

I think that the women who “love the hookup culture” are masking their deep despondency over their choices with anti-depressants.

Also, with other self-medication.

 

[PRmerger]

but the hookup culture really benefits men much more than women. There were a few who liked it, sure, but they were not typical. But it worked out swimmingly for the guys.

Oh, how trenchant this is.

And what a great irony, no? In an effort for women to declare their rights, they ended up, in a Machiavellian twist, playing right into the men’s (literal) hands.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I think that the women who “love the hookup culture” are masking their deep despondency over their choices with anti-depressants.

Well, Dr. PRmerger, I think you’re back to the old “Because I can’t possibly think or experience________, it’s impossible for anyone else to do so”. That’s a small-minded way of considering the world, but its sadly a common one.

Regardless, I think you’ll find a lot of happily settled adults of both genders who sowed their wild oats and ended up just fine. Like, the Boomers for instance. Everyone has the wild college days. Its the people who let the party bleed over into the rest of their lives that end up with problems.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Oh, how trenchant this is.

And what a great irony, no? In an effort for women to declare their rights, they ended up, in a Machiavellian twist, playing right into the men’s (literal) hands.

I can’t think of a more offensive or sad way to view men, male sexuality, and the connection between men and women.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, Dr. PRmerger, I think you’re back to the old “Because I can’t possibly think or experience________, it’s impossible for anyone else to do so”. That’s a small-minded way of considering the world, but its sadly a common one.

You do see the irony in this statement, I hope, BEL?

Incidentally, I’ve always found it curious that folks think that a particular degree is required to make a particular conclusion.

Imagine if you said: Donald Trump has a fake tan!
and I responded: Well, BEL, since you’ve been evaluating melanin in individuals since, what, 2003, you’re an expert or something?

I think we would all be justified in rolling our eyes, no?

Regardless, I think you’ll find a lot of happily settled adults of both genders who sowed their wild oats and ended up just fine.

This, I think, is very, very bad science.

Kind of like: I think you’ll find a lot of folks who smoked a pack of cigarettes a day and never got cancer, so, you know, Dr. PR, your assertion that smoking is really unhealthy is clearly false!

 

[EasterJoy]

See above. A formal exchange is not required… A formal marriage is simply a celebration and sanctification of the consent. Which would be difficult if you had no belief in God. So are you saying that no atheists are married? Are you saying that a couple who have spent a lifetime in a loving and fruitful relationship are not committed because they didn’t feel the need to formalise it? Please, give me a break…

I don’t think anyone said they weren’t committed. The charge is that they aren’t married and do not consider themselves *legally *bound in any way.

The Catholic Church does not recognize a common law marriage as a valid natural marriage–that is the category of marriage that is not between two baptized persons–even if a state might recognize the relationship as worthy of the benefits of civil marriage, because such a relationship suffers from a defect in the form necessary for a valid marriage.

***Can. 1057 §1. *The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.

So yes, the Church would consider that while such a couple had consummated their marriage, they had never ratified it.

I think, however, that you are splitting hairs. You are talking about couples who DO consider themselves married in spite of the defect in form stemming from not having formally exchanged consent. In good faith, they do not believe they are engaging in extramarital relations.

This thread is talking about sexual relations between persons who do not consider themselves married to each other by their own definition as well as by the definition of the secular jurisdiction in which they live. When talking about horses, it does not do to drag in zebra examples to make a point.