What are some good secular arguments to refrain from pre-marital sex and/or condom use?

[HomeschoolDad]

Ever since he has been old enough to understand such things (and he is not sheltered, he knows a lot, as a result of his sheer curiosity, which I have always addressed age-appropriately), I have explained to my son, now 13, that you do not “do that” with a woman unless you want a baby to result from it. Quite aside from the moral arguments, condoms fail in any number of ways — we’re pretty much all adults here, I don’t think a further description is necessary. Once that baby “happens”, your lady can do one of two things — she can either keep it, and look to you (with the court’s help) for child support for 18 years (have you got that kind of money?), or she can kill it. I don’t think you want either one of those things. So stay chaste until marriage. It’s not rocket science. Unless one is untroubled by abortion, that is an argument that requires no religious faith whatsoever — an atheist would get it. I had cousins who never had this talk with their son — I am honestly surprised, they were wealthy, Episcopalian, trustafarian, well-educated, liberal-libertarian sorts, traveled to the islands for pastime, I would have taken them to be more “enlightened” than that, but no, they never had that talk, and when he was 17, lo and behold, he got his girlfriend pregnant (so the story went, she was quite the sport) and had to marry her. I don’t know how the paternity was ever resolved, if it even was.

One thing upthread though, and I’ve heard this before — if someone (either gender) is horribly promiscuous, a “player”, “sworn to fun, loyal to none”, and lives a life of seeking out as many satisfying sexual exploits as possible, how does this oxytocin-bonding thing happen? I really don’t think men “get a soft spot in their heart” for a random woman they meet in a bar and with whom they have a furtive “one-night stand”. Ditto for men who visit brothels. (Though I did know of a case where a man fell in love with a prostitute he met in a brothel, married her, and they had a very happy life together — they bought a house from us! Kind of like a hillbilly version of Pretty Woman. You can’t make this stuff up!) Does it work differently for women, even under those random circumstances? Aren’t there women who are simply out for pleasure, possibly some ego-stroking, and nothing more? I don’t know. I have no life experience in such things.

 

[Rau]

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.

Consider the human male sexual response. Do you need religion to understand what that’s about? Or is our power of observation sufficient?

 

[JMMJ]

Does it work differently for women, even under those random circumstances? Aren’t there women who are simply out for pleasure, possibly some ego-stroking, and nothing more? I don’t know. I have no life experience in such things.

No two women are exactly the same. I have known plenty who don’t get emotionally involved with the men they sleep with. I notice a lot of religious claim this isn’t possible. They are mistaken.

 

[CathBoy1]

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.

However I am not talking about the Catholic view of murder, I’m asking you do you agree that in general it is wrong to go around murdering people, not just particularly bad people, just people?

If you do agree it is wrong, I would suggest that is because it is natural law.
Most people would agree that it is wrong to go around murdering people because it is natural to believe that it is wrong to go around murdering people and that is a perfect example of natural law IMHO.

 

[Freddy]

TheMike0012:

I often find it difficult on what exactly I should say when these things come up. Any ideas? Even if you just answer one of the two, it’s greatly appreciated

To both questions: The woman will end up feeling used. Who needs that?

Isn’t that somewhat sexist? What if my wife insists on sex and I’m not in the mood. Aren’t I being ‘used’?

 

[FiveLinden]

However I am not talking about the Catholic view of murder, I’m asking you do you agree that in general it is wrong to go around murdering people, not just particularly bad people, just people?

If you do agree it is wrong, I would suggest that is because it is natural law.
Most people would agree that it is wrong to go around murdering people because it is natural to believe that it is wrong to go around murdering people and that is a perfect example of natural law IMHO.

If by ‘murder’ you mean ‘killing that is not approved of by society’ then by definition people will oppose it.

But different societies have different rules around who can be killed and when. In most of the world it is ‘murder’ to kill someone just because they are unlawfully in your house. In parts of the US, I understand, such killing is not a crime. Some societies execute people. Some people consider this murder. Some societies practice euthanasia. Some people consider this murder. Some societies sanction infanticide. Others consider this murder.

Humans evolved as a social creature depending on other humans for survival. This happened long before we were human. Our ancestors in non-human societies also tended to limit killing. There is no ‘natural law’ at work here in my view. Some other creatures have no such restriction on killing.

 

[Jen7]

Isn’t that somewhat sexist? What if my wife insists on sex and I’m not in the mood. Aren’t I being ‘used’?

I don’t mean that type of “used.” I mean “used” in the sense that the woman can become pregnant yet the man hasn’t made any sort of prior commitment to help her during pregnancy or in the raising of the child. Sex, for a man, ends when it’s over. If a woman gets pregnant the repercussions of that sex act go on and on and on. She is mother to a child forever. She needs a committed man on board for the long haul.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

TheMike0012:

I often find it difficult on what exactly I should say when these things come up. Any ideas? Even if you just answer one of the two, it’s greatly appreciated

To both questions: The woman will end up feeling used. Who needs that?

Isn’t that somewhat sexist? What if my wife insists on sex and I’m not in the mood. Aren’t I being ‘used’?

Not according to the Catholic conception of marriage. We have a phrase that sounds absolutely atrocious in English, “the marriage debt”. Based upon the Biblical teaching that our bodies, once we marry, no longer belong to us, but to our partner, we have rights over each other, among those being the right to marital relations when reasonably desired by one of the spouses. Ideally a spouse will never insist upon these rights when the other spouse doesn’t want them, but even if that is the case, the desirous spouse is still entitled. This is not absolute — there can be any number of perfectly legitimate reasons for refusing the marriage debt (oh, how I despise that phrase!), serious illness being among these. But as a general rule, the obligation does exist.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Isn’t that somewhat sexist? What if my wife insists on sex and I’m not in the mood. Aren’t I being ‘used’?

I don’t mean that type of “used.” I mean “used” in the sense that the woman can become pregnant yet the man hasn’t made any sort of prior commitment to help her during pregnancy or in the raising of the child. Sex, for a man, ends when it’s over. If a woman gets pregnant the repercussions of that sex act go on and on and on. She is mother to a child forever. She needs a committed man on board for the long haul.

OK, I understand. But my point has been at times that if the couple are committed to each other then some legal ceremony isn’t going to validate that any further. Well, it shouldn’t. It wouldn’t be much of a commitment if the woman effectively says ‘I won’t trust you until you sign this legal document’.

 

[Freddy]

Jen7:

TheMike0012:

I often find it difficult on what exactly I should say when these things come up. Any ideas? Even if you just answer one of the two, it’s greatly appreciated

To both questions: The woman will end up feeling used. Who needs that?

Isn’t that somewhat sexist? What if my wife insists on sex and I’m not in the mood. Aren’t I being ‘used’?

Not according to the Catholic conception of marriage. We have a phrase that sounds absolutely atrocious in English, “the marriage debt”. Based upon the Biblical teaching that our bodies, once we marry, no longer belong to us, but to our partner, we have rights over each other, among those being the right to marital relations when reasonably desired by one of the spouses. Ideally a spouse will never insist upon these rights when the other spouse doesn’t want them, but even if that is the case, the desirous spouse is still entitled. This is not absolute — there can be any number of perfectly legitimate reasons for refusing the marriage debt (oh, how I despise that phrase!), serious illness being among these. But as a general rule, the obligation does exist.

‘Sorry dear. I know you’ve had a tough day and all. But you are obliged…’

Seriously? I’d be sleeping on the couch for a while.
[/QUOTE]

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Not according to the Catholic conception of marriage. We have a phrase that sounds absolutely atrocious in English, “the marriage debt”. Based upon the Biblical teaching that our bodies, once we marry, no longer belong to us, but to our partner, we have rights over each other, among those being the right to marital relations when reasonably desired by one of the spouses. Ideally a spouse will never insist upon these rights when the other spouse doesn’t want them, but even if that is the case, the desirous spouse is still entitled. This is not absolute — there can be any number of perfectly legitimate reasons for refusing the marriage debt (oh, how I despise that phrase!), serious illness being among these. But as a general rule, the obligation does exist.

‘Sorry dear. I know you’ve had a tough day and all. But you are obliged …’

Seriously? I’d be sleeping on the couch for a while.

It’s my sincere hope that the concept of “the marriage debt” is more the province of dry moral theology manuals, than something a desirous spouse would force on the other spouse under pain of mortal sin. I like to think that marriage is much more a matter of mutual love, respect, and forbearance, than holding up a legal contract (figuratively speaking) and intoning “but you’re obliged…”.

It’s my understanding that some husbands, though, could be pretty brutal (I would hope not in the corporal abuse sense) about such things “back in the day”. I will admit that I tend to be a bit selective about what parts of “back in the day” I long for, and what parts are better left back there and not returned to. (And from anecdotal evidence, it was almost always the husband. I’ve never heard of a wife, unless it would be the likes of a Peg Bundy-type character, demanding that her unwilling husband “provide” for her in this fashion.)

 

[Jen7]

OK, I understand. But my point has been at times that if the couple are committed to each other then some legal ceremony isn’t going to validate that any further. Well, it shouldn’t . It wouldn’t be much of a commitment if the woman effectively says ‘I won’t trust you until you sign this legal document’.

Oooooh yes it would! Life is not a Hallmark movie. Humans sometimes need more than some romantic sentence whispered under a full moon to keep them together. I’m for every “assist” out there - the legality of marriage, the fact that the vows are public for everyone you know and love to hear (makes it harder to go back on your word), combined monies, shared last name… tangle these two people up! Make it HARD to separate. Because in every marriage there are days you really just feel like throwing in the towel. Why not make that harder for yourself and your spouse? It’s like, oh I don’t know, building your house on rock because you know one day storms will come.

 

[Jen7]

Remember this thread is about secular arguments. The idea that things have an inherent nature and/or purpose is a religious argument.

The ancient Greeks (think Aristotle) recognized man’s nature apart from anything religious. This is a massive problem in our day when we think what is NATURAL is spiritual/religious. It isn’t. Things exist for natural ends - a knife exists to cut, for example. It’s not religious of me to insist on that objective reality. Sex has a biological nature & it’s also not religious to recognize it.

 

[Jen7]

Sorry dear. I know you’ve had a tough day and all. But you are obliged …’

Seriously? I’d be sleeping on the couch for a while.

It’s not to be abused like that. It’s there to protect the spouse. Envision a spouse married to their job / video games every evening / alcohol / any other distraction that’s addictive or semi-addictive… and who has stopped making time for sex and is always too busy with other stuff. The other spouse has a right to demand he start making time for some sex. Obviously not being a bi*** about it, but being firm & insisting. I refer back to my previous comment about life not being a Hallmark movie. God really designed marriage to deal with the real realities of real life! Nice job, God!! :+1:t2::smiling_face_with_three_hearts:

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

It’s my sincere hope that the concept of “the marriage debt” is more the province of dry moral theology manuals, than something a desirous spouse would force on the other spouse under pain of mortal sin. I like to think that marriage is much more a matter of mutual love, respect, and forbearance, than holding up a legal contract (figuratively speaking) and intoning “but you’re obliged… ”.

The “marital debt” (again, what an awful phrase) is in my mind best thought of as a general obligation to care about your spouse’s sexual fulfillment, not some kind of sex voucher that can be redeemed at any time on demand or else.

 

[Jen7]

The “marital debt” (again, what an awful phrase) is in my mind best thought of as a general obligation to care about your spouse’s sexual fulfillment, not some kind of sex voucher that can be redeemed at any time on demand or else.

Right. The spouse with less desire really ought to stretch themself in this area. He/she did, after all, choose to get married. Sex comes with the package. It’s supposed to be happening. The “marital debt” concept prevents sex-standoffs (or should) where each spouse expresses their feelings reference and then a stalemate results.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

Right. The spouse with less desire really ought to stretch themself in this area. He/she did, after all, choose to get married. Sex comes with the package.

True, but some people stretch this concept to mean that, essentially, a spouse is never allowed to decline sex. It’s one thing if the spouse is saying “I’m not in the mood” for an extended period of time without a good reason. Then I’d agree they really are failing in their obligation to care for their spouse’s sexual satisfaction.

It’s another thing entirely to say that it’s wrong if, on any given night, the spouse says “I’m not in the mood tonight.” In that situation, the spouse who was trying to initiate something should just accept it gracefully and not try to pressure the other with talk of obligations and debt.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

It’s my sincere hope that the concept of “the marriage debt” is more the province of dry moral theology manuals, than something a desirous spouse would force on the other spouse under pain of mortal sin. I like to think that marriage is much more a matter of mutual love, respect, and forbearance, than holding up a legal contract (figuratively speaking) and intoning “but you’re obliged… ”.

The “marital debt” (again, what an awful phrase) is in my mind best thought of as a general obligation to care about your spouse’s sexual fulfillment, not some kind of sex voucher that can be redeemed at any time on demand or else.

It is indeed awful. “Sunday obligation” is another such phrase. We have to have a certain amount of legality in our practice of the Faith, otherwise everything just boils down to a mush of nebulous principles, but some of those legalisms just don’t end up sounding quite right. Can’t be helped. You either have rules, or you do not have rules.

 

[Jen7]

True, but some people stretch this concept to mean that, essentially, a spouse is never allowed to decline sex. It’s one thing if the spouse is saying “I’m not in the mood” for an extended period of time without a good reason. Then I’d agree they really are failing in their obligation to care for their spouse’s sexual satisfaction.

It’s another thing entirely to say that it’s wrong if, on any given night, the spouse says “I’m not in the mood tonight.” In that situation, the spouse who was trying to initiate something should just accept it gracefully and not try to pressure the other with talk of obligations and debt.

I agree 100%. Hopefully both spouses are approaching the delicate topic from a place of Charity… or at least kindness… or at least The Golden Rule.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

OK, I understand. But my point has been at times that if the couple are committed to each other then some legal ceremony isn’t going to validate that any further. Well, it shouldn’t . It wouldn’t be much of a commitment if the woman effectively says ‘I won’t trust you until you sign this legal document’.

Oooooh yes it would! Life is not a Hallmark movie. Humans sometimes need more than some romantic sentence whispered under a full moon to keep them together. I’m for every “assist” out there - the legality of marriage, the fact that the vows are public for everyone you know and love to hear (makes it harder to go back on your word), combined monies, shared last name… tangle these two people up! Make it HARD to separate. Because in every marriage there are days you really just feel like throwing in the towel. Why not make that harder for yourself and your spouse? It’s like, oh I don’t know, building your house on rock because you know one day storms will come.

But Jen, we both know that doesn’t work. One only has to check the divorce rates to see that. Are you really suggesting that a couple who are having a rough patch decide to stick it out because they signed some legal papers and had a party with some friends and relatives? C’mon…

I can only speak from personal experience, but when my wife said ‘yes’ when I asked her if she wanted to spend the rest of her life with me, then that was it. Right at that very moment we had comitted to each other. If she had said ‘But first I need some legal paperwork signed and you have to make a public declaration in front of lots of people so that it’ll be harder for you to back out’, then I might have had some second thoughts myself.

As it turns out, we did sign some papers because she was concerned about the legal position of future children. But there was just the two of us and two random witnesses.

If a couple can’t trust each other to stick through the hard times after they have comitted for life just on that promise then…maybe they’re making a mistake in making that promise.

And this goes back to the argument about pre-marital sex. If you’re in a position where you have commited to each other for life, then it seems nonsensical to me to say that you can’t have sex until you’ve signed some paperwork.