R
Rau
Guest
Seriously? I need religion to observe my body? Come on man.
What are some good secular arguments to refrain from pre-marital sex and/or condom use?
- Status
So is it a religious belief that one doesn’t think it is right to murder another human being?
I think that it is a basic natural law that all men know that it’s wrong to go around murdering other people.
So what category would you place this example under would you place it is a natural law a philosophical belief or a religious belief?
Is it simply a religious belief because we have ”Thou shall not murder” in the 10 Commandments?
S
StudentMI
Guest
No there’s a long line of thought showing natural law to be a subset of religious belief. Goes back to Max Stirner, Nietzsche, etc.
K
Kei
Guest
As a poster has pointed out, secularists may not accept any sort of teleology. I think that sort of purpose is so natural most would agree with it, but those secularists who are against such basic principles probably have their own subjective thought system. If they think the most important thing in morals is social cohesion, say, then they’d want an argument about morality to be about that. If they’re a utilitarian, etc, then it’d be about that. With this type of person, if you cannot address the problem at base, then practical arguments are probably best. Regardless of theory, what’s real is what’s real. So a sociological argument concerning the happiness of relationships, say, or success or whatever would probably be more persuasive in these circumstances, if we cannot adress and argue about their basic assumptions which have led them to such a point in the first place.
Last edited:
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
I think the secular arguments come down to risk tolerance. Yes, there are diseases out there and some are incurable. Not to mention a number of diseases can be encountered without intercourse. So how willing are you to take the risk? How does it differ from what you can catch while dating without sex?
The emotional connection issue depends on the person. A few studies suggest it is more impactful on women than men. So depends on the audience.
Really the only good reason would be because the people involved choose to wait. All other arguments boil down to fear of consequences or because some authority says so.
As for condoms, there’s a few things they are nearly ineffective against plus there’s a good chance you’ll use it wrong. There’s specifics about storage, application, and such. They are 98% effective, but real usage with human error averages to 86%. But a look at parts of or family tree suggest that the lack of abc certainly did not curtail promiscuity back in the early to mid 20th century. Nor did it automatically result in abortion or shotgun marriages.
The emotional connection issue depends on the person. A few studies suggest it is more impactful on women than men. So depends on the audience.
Really the only good reason would be because the people involved choose to wait. All other arguments boil down to fear of consequences or because some authority says so.
As for condoms, there’s a few things they are nearly ineffective against plus there’s a good chance you’ll use it wrong. There’s specifics about storage, application, and such. They are 98% effective, but real usage with human error averages to 86%. But a look at parts of or family tree suggest that the lack of abc certainly did not curtail promiscuity back in the early to mid 20th century. Nor did it automatically result in abortion or shotgun marriages.
Last edited:
Strange argument!
You are by far, much more willing to catch disease by having sex than just having a relationship without it! The majority of diseases you can have with your girlfriend/boyfriend that are non sexual are often frequent and curable. They often can be transmit by another person than just other your special person.
I know that the current pandemic can make us afraid but…
The sexual disease may be very contagious, difficult to find, ignored or hidden, difficult to treat, if treatable, shameful, and may have long lasting consequences such as on ability to procreate
If we are on a selfish, or self centered perspective, maybe.
I will add also, one of the two can feel he would have prefered otherwise, but it was excepted.
We can also add, that the health consequences, such as disease, contraception, abortion, mental health problems (depressions after break up for eg) are also in part supported by the society.
So our choices have a greater influence than ourselves.
i don’t agree.
In some social classes, urban areas or part of the society, there was certainely a big rate of out of wedlock marriage. But just have a look in the western society the evolving rate of outside of wedlock births. You will see a very clear evolution in the XXth century.
There was also much more illegitimate children who were abandonned (and a lot of more) than now. Abandon of children are now extremely rare.
Waiting for marriage was definitely something that was not farfetched, but cultural, and even excepted in some part of society such as for religious faithfull (there were much more faithfull christians than now), and for women of upper classes.
For the other, even if some have had sex outside of marriage, it was often followed by a marriage. If not, women had by far, many less sexual partners in their life than now, couples and people of both genders have very few opportunities to have premarital sex, if they can. Prostitution was tolerated in some places and not now, but it’s not as if all men will go there as frequent as they may be intimate with a partner (or I think so).
Last edited:
That may be, however it can be (convincingly) argued that atheism or a belief in science only is in itself a religion.
I always enjoyed a story told to me about science “catching up” to God:
A priest reads a study saying that science has proven that cold showers/baths are better for people than hot showers/baths, according to the findings cold water is better for sore muscles, cold water wakes you better in the morning, cold water helps you get a better night’s sleep, etc.
The priest processes this for a moment and thinks to himself Well of course cold water is all the way around better for you, that’s why Our Lord in his wisdom made (most) bodies of water cold to the touch.
S
StudentMI
Guest
I find it more an absence of religion but to each their own.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
Risk tolerance and risk management. We are not talking about blindly going out there.
Herpes, syphilis, and HPV can spread via kissing. The latter of which case cause various cancers.
How is that selfish? Either person can wait for any reason. In fact this would be a key point in the relationship centered around values and if both can respect each others’ values and beliefs. I’d suggest that if one is continually pressured over their choice then that it’s not the cutie suppose for them.
The ongoing debate of our time will be the individual vs society. How much should consenting adults yield to what’s “better” for society?
That’s hard to say. I think it just wasn’t talked about much. Plus I’m not convinced that marriage is the answer to an unexpected baby. But marriage today, especially in community property states might mean something less risky than In the times you speak of.
Also studies suggest that the younger generations are having fewer partners and less sex than older generations at the same age.
very simple statistics. marriage were at a younger age, cohabitation non existant or confine to some margins of society.
A person who may have a few intercourse with one person is a different situation than someone who have 10 or 15 years of activity with different people.
Marriage is certainely benefical for children and the family stability.
What is better?
The mother who is struggling to raise him alone? And it was even harder before. Often these children will suffer a lot from their father’s absence, and it may let scars even as adults.
Abortion?
Abandonment with an adoption?
A child in the limbo of social services for all his childhood? Often it does not makes any good on the child.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
The idea that things have an ‘inherent nature and/or purpose’ is a conclusion drawn from observations, not an observation. Someone else, seeing the same thing, might conclude that the things you observe do not reveal an ‘inherent purpose’. I am one of those someone elses. Or possibly one of those someones else.FiveLinden:
Seriously? I need religion to observe my body? Come on man.
Last edited:
F
FiveLinden
Guest
So I am having another attempt at posting some hopefully helpful comments because my earlier comments are no longer available but comments and quotes from them are.
‘Secularist’ covers a number of points of view but I am assuming the OP would include me in the definition. The OP wants to know some good arguments that someone like me would make about what he calls ‘pre-marital sex’.
Many secularists, including me, don’t see sex as being inherently related to marriage. Our ancestors were doing the former long before the latter and many people still do the one without the other.
So in making an argument to someone like me you need to accept that ‘pre-marital’, to me, is of no more relevance than ‘pre-home ownership’ or ‘pre international travel’ or pre-university qualification’. These are common stages of life but it begs the question about the purpose of sex to classify it in some circumstances as ‘pre-marital’. There might never be a marriage.
You have to accept that the secularist (me) is not going to accept that there is a thing called ‘natural law’. Arguments from that perspective won’t help.
The best arguments would be above observable harm that you could demonstrate results from sex outside marriage. Let’s look at those.
The risks of disease transmission should be taken seriously. But this applies to all sex whether in marriage or not. The incidence of extra-marital sex is very high. Some conditions such as HPV can be symptomless in the person who passes it on (often a man) but cause serious illness and death in a partner. Certainly if two people who have not had sex previously being a relationship and do not have sex with anyone else it is highly unlikely an STV will be passed on (unless you include things that can be caught both sexually and non-sexually such as Hepatitis, HIV and herpes.
Condoms and other barriers greatly reduce but do not entirely eliminate the risk of disease transfer. Used always and used properly they are extremely effective.
So to mount this argument effectively you really have to argue that the risk of disease transmission, with proper and consistent use of barriers is high enough for people to not have sex outside marriage. I am not sure this can be demonstrated. Against this needs to be put the possibility that people planning to not have sex, and who do none-the-less are less likely to employ barriers.
You can probably find some studies that show relationships entered into in the absence of any previous relationships have some different characteristics than other relationships. I have not come across anything compelling but if you find some it might convince a secularist.
You also need to define what you mean by marriage. Any sort of marriage? A sacramental marriage?
So I’ll keep watching but I’m not sure you will succeed in finding good secular arguments in the sense of arguments that might convince a secularist.
‘Secularist’ covers a number of points of view but I am assuming the OP would include me in the definition. The OP wants to know some good arguments that someone like me would make about what he calls ‘pre-marital sex’.
Many secularists, including me, don’t see sex as being inherently related to marriage. Our ancestors were doing the former long before the latter and many people still do the one without the other.
So in making an argument to someone like me you need to accept that ‘pre-marital’, to me, is of no more relevance than ‘pre-home ownership’ or ‘pre international travel’ or pre-university qualification’. These are common stages of life but it begs the question about the purpose of sex to classify it in some circumstances as ‘pre-marital’. There might never be a marriage.
You have to accept that the secularist (me) is not going to accept that there is a thing called ‘natural law’. Arguments from that perspective won’t help.
The best arguments would be above observable harm that you could demonstrate results from sex outside marriage. Let’s look at those.
The risks of disease transmission should be taken seriously. But this applies to all sex whether in marriage or not. The incidence of extra-marital sex is very high. Some conditions such as HPV can be symptomless in the person who passes it on (often a man) but cause serious illness and death in a partner. Certainly if two people who have not had sex previously being a relationship and do not have sex with anyone else it is highly unlikely an STV will be passed on (unless you include things that can be caught both sexually and non-sexually such as Hepatitis, HIV and herpes.
Condoms and other barriers greatly reduce but do not entirely eliminate the risk of disease transfer. Used always and used properly they are extremely effective.
So to mount this argument effectively you really have to argue that the risk of disease transmission, with proper and consistent use of barriers is high enough for people to not have sex outside marriage. I am not sure this can be demonstrated. Against this needs to be put the possibility that people planning to not have sex, and who do none-the-less are less likely to employ barriers.
You can probably find some studies that show relationships entered into in the absence of any previous relationships have some different characteristics than other relationships. I have not come across anything compelling but if you find some it might convince a secularist.
You also need to define what you mean by marriage. Any sort of marriage? A sacramental marriage?
So I’ll keep watching but I’m not sure you will succeed in finding good secular arguments in the sense of arguments that might convince a secularist.
F
Freddy
Guest
I think the secular arguments aren’t specifically for or against either. As has been said, from a secular point of view it’s more dependent on circumstances.
If you are getting married tomorrow and you don’t want to start a family for some years then there’s nothing wrong with having protected sex tonight (with your intended, obviously…). But I wouldn’t recommend hopping into bed with someone new every night of the week and twice on Sundays.
And relying just on condoms if you are having sex quite a lot will mean that your luck will run out eventually.
H
HerCrazierHalf
Guest
And clearly there are many shades of grey between these extremes. It’s not all or nothing
F
FiveLinden
Guest
The NHS in the UK advises that 2 of a hundred women relying on male condom use will become pregnant in any one year. It does not indicate the data on which this is based, especially the number of sexual intercourse events.
This would mean that a woman could have on average sex for 50 years using condoms before becoming pregnant. 50 years is rather longer than the average period of fertility or an individual woman. The chances of pregnancy are of course reduced further through effective condom use. The NHS lists a whole series of errors in condom use. If these were avoided I think the failure incidence would be less.
Likelihood of failure of barrier methods is therefore not a strong argument against condom use from a secular point of view. It is none-the-less a risk worthwhile considering carefully from the secular/athiest point of view. Some condom failure is observable. ‘Emergency contraception’ rejected by Catholics as a (probable) form of abortion is available in these cases in most countries. But a great many people ‘hope for the best’ in such circumstances meaning that abortion or birth become the only available options where abortion is legal/accessible. Not all secularists/atheists consider abortion acceptable. So this might provide one secular argument.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
The Catholic view of murder is certainly a religious belief. In addition to the 5th commandment it is based on the idea that ‘the end does not justify the means’. So in Catholic thought it is wrong to murder an abortion doctor, even if doing so will, in the Catholic view, save many lives. As a person without religious belief I would have happily ‘murdered’ Hitler in 1934 and would not see it as wrong for someone to murder a child abuser they knew would continue offending and who was protected by law enforcement. I understand that both these actions would be wrong in Catholic thought.
J
Jen7
Guest
To both questions: The woman will end up feeling used. Who needs that?
J
Jen7
Guest
Maybe that’s the math, but I know several women who got pregnant when their guy was using a condom. Some more than once.
- Status