@digitalimpression “It’s immoral to have one partner throughout life?”
No, that is not what I said. What I was objecting to is your view that people should remain virgins until they are married.
“I’m not sure what you’re on about with the ‘compatible’ thing so...”
Two things are logically compatible when they can both be true at the same time. You have assumed that having only one sexual partner and being virgins at the time of marriage are a package deal, but it is possible to have only one sexual partner and still not be virgins at the time of marriage. The process goes like this: have sex with someone for the first time, then marry that person, then never have another sexual partner. Monogamy does not require marriage.
“The reason it is special is because the vows actually mean something in such a relationship.”
But you’ve done nothing to explain why those vows must come before the first time the couple has sex in order for them to be meaningful.
“When you bring two people together who are willing to save themselves for marriage and commit themselves to marriage it is pretty awesome.”
But again, what is the value of saving oneself for marriage over and above the value of saving yourself for a single sexual partner? If the institution of marriage did not exist, but people could still stay together for their entire lives, would it be impossible for their commitment to one another to be “awesome”?
“The fact that you refer to marriage as a ‘social ritual’ is reason enough for me to stop conversing with you really... you don’t see the sanctity in much of anything it would seem.”
There can’t be any sanctity to a social ritual? Interesting. Please explain why. Because to me it seems like something being a social ritual doesn’t immediately make it worthless.
“My grandparents were together until death parted them. 76 years. Needless to say, they were in this kind of relationship.”
I don’t think it’s “needless to say” because I think people can have a great relationship even if they didn’t get married before having sex for the first time. (I also think that people can have a great relationship without monogamy, but that’s clearly something you can’t even consider discussing at this point.)
“I know that you cannot, but just for a second.. try to imagine what it would be like to be with someone who knows nothing but you.”
Odd that you think I cannot imagine what this would be like. I’ve dated virgins before, and the first person I had sex with was also a virgin at the time.
“There are no expectations, no skewed societal implications to a sexual relationship.. There’s no ‘she did it this way’ or ‘the other guy was bigger’ in the back of their minds.. There is only the bond shared in marriage and strengthened by everlasting monogamy.”
This seems to be more about your personal insecurities than anything else. Regardless, you still haven’t explained why marriage is necessary for this kind of connection. As far as I can tell, you are resting the whole thing on monogamy but cannot separate the concepts of monogamy, marriage, and waiting for marriage in your mind.
“This is immoral? I fail to see how.”
You fail to see how because you don’t actually understand what I’ve said. I don’t think monogamy is immoral. I think it is immoral to make a lifelong sexual commitment without knowing what it is to which you are actually committing yourself. Making a promise to someone from a place of ignorance is irresponsible, and demanding that someone make a promise to you from a place of ignorance is immoral.
“People seem to value sex more than the other facets of a relationship... the focus shifts to physical rather than emotional pleasure.”
Is this poorly worded, or are you suggesting that one cannot get emotional pleasure out of sex? Because if it’s the latter, then you are sadly mistaken (and would be casting serious doubt on your claims about the merits of waiting until marriage).
“Sex is a great thing, don’t get me wrong... but it’s something that a husband and wife can learn and explore together.”
It’s also something that an unmarried couple who plan to stay together and monogamous can explore together without the need for a social ritual to make it magical for them.
“Based on the statistics it’s not very likely that anyone else here can even empathize with the wonderful experiences I’ve had in my 12 wonderful years of marriage.”
I’ve been with my wife for ten years. So unless all of those experiences happened in the last two years, I have a feeling I could empathize with some of them.
“I suppose it means that ‘society’ has told you that its better to be a pro at sex before marriage because that’s better for your future partner. I suppose it means promiscuity is actually a tool that can strengthen marriage. Sheer and utter madness.”
Said the person who has admitted he has no idea what the thing he’s criticizing is like. Do you also judge photographs without looking at them?
“Have you ever wondered why divorce rates are climbing? Have you ever tried to figure out why that may be? Seems blatantly obvious to me.”
Divorce rates have been declining steadily since the early 80s even as rates of cohabitation and premarital sex have risen. So what seems “blatantly obvious” to you turns out to in fact be blatantly false.
@Keep_on_running “why is it irresponsible and disrespectful for couples to be virgins when they marry?”
Because making a promise that you cannot understand is irresponsible, and that’s what is happening when a virgin promises sexual fidelity in marriage (not that marriages have to be monogamous, but that’s clearly the presumption we’re working with here). And it is disrespectful to make a promise to someone that you don’t have any understanding of and therefore cannot know you can keep. When virgins marry, any vows they make regarding sexual fidelity are just words to them. They cannot have any idea what they really mean.
(This is all assuming mutual interest in a sexual relationship, of course, and leaving aside the complication of people being virgins because they aren’t interested in sex. If two people get married and never have sex because neither wants a sexual relationship, that’s something entirely different since they aren’t really making the relevant promises to one another. Also, I am deliberately arguing for something slightly more radical than what I actually believe in order to force people to reevaluate positions that they previously thought to be safe retreats. A lot of people take the moral positions they have not because they think what they advocate is strictly necessary, but rather that it is at least unassailably permissible. It is useful to occasionally disturb this kind of intellectual torpor.)
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
