P
- Status
B
Bradski
Guest
Such insight into the private lives of others. I’m impressed.
G
GEddie
Guest
You mean the movie Titanic?
Why people think that is an example of love worthy of sex is a mystery to me. They’d only known each other a few hours!
ICXC NIKA
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Because they’re taught to believe that it is! James Cameron is a more successful teacher than any classroom ever hosted!
Unfortunately. Of course, the cinema is a better indoctrinational tool than any educational theorist could dream of - shame its content is managed by cynical profit.:hypno:
And he should know about love! After all, he’s been married 5 times
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Titanic and Romeo and Juliet are always used as romantic examples. They are not. What they are is actually a cautionary tale, not a romance. The moral is that love, based on fleeting emotion, ends in tradgedy.Because they’re taught to believe that it is! James Cameron is a more successful teacher than any classroom ever hosted!
Unfortunately. Of course, the cinema is a better indoctrinational tool than any educational theorist could dream of - shame its content is managed by cynical profit.:hypno:
And he should know about love! After all, he’s been married 5 times
Romantic love is willing heaven for your married partner. In both of the classic romantic examples regaurd for the others soul is not the primary motivation. Selfish wants and whims are the motivators.
The job of a spouse is to help the other attain heaven. That is true love and love worthy of becoming one, of unifying and joining bodies and souls.
That is when sex is holy. The idea that having holy sex out of wedlock is frankly indefensible.
M
Mystic_Banana
Guest
Actually, I watched a version of Romeo & Juliet recently that seemed fairly Catholic (almost pro-Catholic?) in flavour.:ehh:
Of course, I may have been suckered in by the quality acting, mood, and my earnest desire to see something resembling positivity regarding religiosity to surface in popular media.
R
Rau
Guest
What does the following suggest?
*Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” *
Does this sound like sex is intended as an activity independent of the commitment of marriage?
S
SusanneT
Guest
It is worth noting that although sex was part of the story in the Titanic movie, no doubt to spice things up for a secular audience it is in fact completely unrealistic. No half respectable girl in those circumstances (remember they didn’t know they were going to die soon after) would have had sex before marriage and no man, so in love with that girl would have expected her to or even wanted her to.
Of course sex has happened outside of marriage for millennia but it has always been a sin and always will be. Society as a whole used to recognise that, to very strongly discourage it, to value chastity and to expect every bride to be pure. Sadly virtues which are now outside religious circles widely ridiculed.
Of course sex has happened outside of marriage for millennia but it has always been a sin and always will be. Society as a whole used to recognise that, to very strongly discourage it, to value chastity and to expect every bride to be pure. Sadly virtues which are now outside religious circles widely ridiculed.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Whether in marriage or otherwise, there are far greater things than the cheap, short-lived primitive pleasures of sex! Better to abstain from sex, except to bear children, and pray for the Seven Gifts of the Holy Spirit.
P
PRmerger
Guest
I can say, with absolute certainty, that not a single person in the world has ever died from not having sex.
Ever.
P
PRmerger
Guest
And society should also have expected every groom to be pure as well.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Reasons not to have sex before marriage – besides "God said so."
orthodoxwriter.com/2012/0…sides-god.html
The ultimate “expert” on any subject is, of course, God—but here are ten expert recommendations from the secular world against sleeping/living together before marriage. In one way or another, they all echo the Lord’s commandment.
1. It leads to an increased rate of infidelity.
Both partners need to learn how to control their urges and impulses before marriage. If one or both of you can’t keep your hands off of the other now, a wedding isn’t magically going to teach you how to keep them off of other people in the future. Research on thousands of men across multiple countries confirms this: More sex during dating means more infidelity during marriage.
2. It leads to an increased rate of divorce.
If you sleep with someone you don’t end up marrying, your risk of divorce will be significantly higher once you do get married. In a study of 6,500 married women, the divorce rate was three times higher for those who’d had multiple sexual partners than for those who were never intimate with anyone other than their husbands.
3. It leads to decreased sexual satisfaction in marriage.
People tend to think you have to “practice” physical intimacy before marriage in order to get the most out of it during marriage. One of the most liberal studies ever conducted, however, revealed the opposite: People who were completely abstinent prior to marriage are more satisfied during marriage, particularly those who abstained for religious reasons.
4. It leads to decreased feelings of romance.
Sexual experience with a partner you don’t end up staying with leads to a lessened experience of romance with whomever you do end up with. There’s a direct relationship between the number of your past partners and your feelings of romance with your current partner: The higher the number of partners, the lower the feelings of romance.
5. It leads to less love and overall satisfaction in marriage.
Decreases in romance and sexual satisfaction aren’t the only consequences of out-of-wedlock sexual experiences. Research confirms that the highest levels of love and overall satisfaction belong to people who (1) are married, (2) had the fewest number of sexual partners, and (3) did not live together with their current or any previous partners.
6. It leads to poor decision-making and partner-selection.
Sex outside of marriage is directly related to poor relationship choices. Physical intimacy clouds good judgment. Several studies have shown that if you’re abstinent while dating, you’re likely to use better discretion in selecting a prospective partner. If you’re sexually active, however, you’re likely to overlook important aspects of a potential mate’s character, fidelity, and sexual history as long as you think that person is “sexy.”
7. Just because it’s great now doesn’t mean it will be great later.
Physical intimacy during dating isn’t representative of what it will be like during marriage, even if you marry the same person with whom you’ve been intimate. One researcher explains that this is because “the dating relationship has an agenda that marriage does not. … There is a lot of pressure to win over a partner, which causes a person to consciously or unconsciously please that partner in ways that may be very temporary.” He adds that the very reason a new relationship is so exciting is because of the tension of not having explored sexual intimacy with that person.
8. It creates unnecessary complications in the marriage bed.
There’s a learning curve with everything in life, including the physical aspects of a relationship. When both spouses enter into a marriage inexperienced in that respect, they learn together, and a very special bond is created as a result. But when both spouses have learned things from being with other people—or worse, when one has and the other hasn’t—it gives rise to memories of past experiences, regrets about the ways in which one’s spouse might not measure up, and feelings of jealousy from the spouse.
9. It hides existing relationship problems and creates additional ones.
In marriage, sex can’t be separated from the other aspects of the relationship—the good and the bad. In dating, however, sex very often precedes the development of a solid relationship. Because of this, it can mask problems that exist but haven’t yet been identified by one or both partners. It can create temporary feelings of euphoria that will ultimately shatter, once those problems begin to surface. And if physical attraction happened to be the primary basis of the relationship, then there won’t be much left to salvage when that falls apart.
10. It can make a relationship very unstable.
According to one psychological model, there are five dimensions to any relationship: Knowledge, trust, reliance, commitment, and touch. If the level of touch exceeds the level of anything else—if you don’t know everything you need to know about your partner; if you haven’t been together long enough to prove that this is someone you can trust; if you can’t or don’t know how to rely on him or her; and if there isn’t sufficient commitment (i.e., a marriage)—then the relationship becomes very unstable. It will leave you desiring all of the other aspects, but with no guarantee of ever receiving them.
B
Bradski
Guest
If you had said that people who are more likely to divorce have had more than one sexual partner, then all you can determine from that is that people who are more likely to divorce are likely to have had more than one sexual partner. Period. The one does not necessarily cause the other. It’s classic post hoc ergo propter hoc.
The title of the thread is a leading question in any case.
‘Objection m’lud’
‘Sustained.’
It should be worded ‘Could premarital sex be bad’. And the answer to that would be a definite ‘yes’ and we could all move on. Nothing more to see.
The way it is worded would mean that if the answer was ‘yes’, then it would be ‘yes’ in all cases, which is patently absurd.
R
Rau
Guest
True, correlation is not causation. There could be a third factor which tends to drive both “premarital sex” and an increased likelihood of divorce.
Of course, some clarification should be provided about what is meant by “bad” - the OP seems to be leaning to an ethical (moral) assessment, rather than one about observable negative consequences. The responses cover both dimensions however. And the answer to the question - at least with a view to consequences - might not need to be a black or white “yes” or “no”.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
But repressing sexual urges is not a good thing. Repression is often used by psychologists as a big criticism of Catholicism. The* Imitation of Christ* also makes it clear that merely avoiding sin is a bad thing unless we uproot it from within us. It’s only with God’s help that we can successfully deal with a strong sexual drive that is present in our society today. I think it is better to give into this type of sin than repressing it. Being contrite by condemning the strong sex drive within us is key.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Uh, no.
It is never better to “give in to this type of sin.”
So pedophiles? It’s better for them?
Sheesh.
O
o_mlly
Guest
Love, in the romantic sense, is not an act of will but rather a bodily appetite – a passion. In the presence of its proper object, this passion wells up within us and moves us to act.
We share this movement in our being with all other sensory sexual animals. But unlike the irrational fish that reflexively lurches at the shiny thing, this movement in rational man moves first to his reason and free will for deliberation. The virtuous man is the custodian of his appetites; the vicious man is controlled by his appetites.
The questions in the OP illustrate the passion for sex arguing with reason in order to convince the will to choose the apparent rather than real good. May one have premarital sex? Is premarital sex a rational act for the responsible human being? May one give a loaded, semi-automatic weapon to a hormonal adolescent?
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
A person will never grow spiritually by repressing their sexual desires. I should also have emphasized that giving into uncontrollable sexual urges need not be a sin depending on if a person is able to abstain from sex without repressing these urges.
P
PRmerger
Guest
You are correct.
And the CC does not teach that one should repress sexual desire.
What we must do is order our sexual desire correctly.
So, pedophiles,yes? They should give in to their uncontrollable sexual urges without it being considered sinful?
I
inocente
Guest
A child cannot give consent. The OP isn’t about rape or other abusive acts, but only where there is mutual consent between adults.
- Status