<p>I’m sorry if you can’t understand what I am sharing. He did NOT share any details with me. We were, I believe discussing a girl he knew who got pregnant and had a baby at 16. In passing, he mentioned what his standards were for sexual behavior. He did not come right out and give any details of his relationship. He simply indicated that he had been true to his beliefs in not having sex before marriage. If that is too intimate of a thing to share, then I’m sorry. I just don’t see anything wrong with it. We have a lot of wonderful discussions on many subjects, and this son happens to be very open with his feelings and ideas.</p>
<p>How you described it before is not how you are descibing it now</p>
<p>Well, in all fairness CGM, these things come up in various ways. For example, my son asked my advice at age 20 when he was considering moving in with a girl. (I advised against sharing an apartment; he moved in with her anyway – sometimes young adults ask for their parents advice but choose not to take it – such is life).</p>
<p>cgm, I did not describe anything differently before. I may have put it in slightly different words to try to make it more exact, since my meaning seems to have not gotten across before. I said he discussed what he felt was appropriate before marriage. This was not done in a lot of detail. He said he had not violated those beliefs. He did not say anything that would embarrass his former girlfriend.</p>
<p>Anyway, can we drop this now and move on? I’m sure there are more interesting aspects to the discussion than what my son told me. :)</p>
<p>In general, I’m not in favor of waiting until marriage to have sex. If the young person is getting married right out of high school - bad idea on other grounds - or if the young adult is in college, has only one BF/GF, and marries right out of college (what used to be the classic pattern) - then maybe. </p>
<p>Relationships begun at college age, though they may have moderate to strong emotional involvement, do not often lead to marriage, as both parties are changing rapidly in those years and establishing careers. If both college-age partners care for each other as individuals and feel that their relationship is mutually meaningful, I believe they should feel free to have sex. (I am not making moral judgements about casual relationships, but as many have said on this thread, there can be risks associated with it for an individual’s development).</p>
<p>Going a step beyond having sex in college, I also feel that it is preferable for couples to live together before they marry. Marriage is a big deal, as a legal contract (just ask me about my attorney bills) and I believe couples should have a track record of coping with daily life and various challenges as a team to verify trust in each other and the solidity of the relationship before they marry and think about having a child.</p>
<p>well, I think that all this bed hopping and hook ups are going to lead to problems…</p>
<p>My D also believes in staying “pure” until marriage. By “pure”, she means not only staying a virgin (unbroken hymen!), but refraining from “sexual acts” other than intercourse. I think her decision is to be respected and is not at all unrealistic. I believe that if a boy truly loved a girl and wanted to spend the rest of his life with her, he will respect her decision and wait. My husband did!</p>
<p>
I disagree. Many people I know met their future spouse in college, as did I. There was a previous thread on CC about the number of very long term marriages among the parents posting – anywhere from 20 to 30+ years. If most parents are in their 40’s and 50’s, then it’s quite likely that they met in their early 20’s. </p>
<p>Secondly, I do not think that there is any data to support the notion that living together prior to marriage ensures that marriages last – in fact, I think I’ve seen the contrary. If one is unable (at an appropriate age – that is, not HS) to commit to a person for marriage without living together, what makes anyone think that they will commit to marriage later? Marriage takes commitment and determiniation sometimes. Going into a serious relationship with the idea that it can be easily terminated if things don’t work out is not helpful in making a marriage work.</p>
<p>As far as this thread goes, I define promiscuity as having a sexual relationship without any emotional commitment. I’m not so naive as to think that my sons will marry without any experience, but I’d be disappointed if they had a series of meaningless flings.</p>
<p>On not living together before marriage - perhaps, but why up the ante on the determination and commitment until you have to? (never trouble trouble till trouble troubles you,etc.).</p>
<p>I have observed many successful (so far, at least) young marriages that began with living together. It is very effective for alleviating ‘pig in a poke’ (ahem) issues. Couples are able to verify that (enough of) their interests are in common, that they can face and resolve money issues (frequently a huge factor in marriage stability), that their living habits are complementary, and that they truly enjoy having the other person around all the time. This path is not a guarantee of a lifelong marriage, but it does allow one to learn more about the partner before binding the legal tie. </p>
<p>I don’t recognize any religious strictures about this issue, and I just consider it to be a sensible, practical approach. Or as Neil Young would say “Try to be sure right from the start” (or at least close to the start).)</p>
<p>
Agreed … any woman or man’s desire to wait should be respected. That said I do not think that respecting that desire necessarily means the other person needs to stay in the relationship and “wait”. </p>
<p>Personally, I found someone wanting to “wait” until after marriage to be a troubling sign for our relationship … not because I was in a hurry to make love … but because <em>to me</em> it seemed to me my potential partner was letting outside conventions determine the evolution of our relationship; a warning sign to the future for me (just as I view living together as the natural evolution of relationships). I hoped my beliefs were also respected … not by someone caving to my beliefs … but by accepting my beliefs and not trying to change them (as I would not try to change theirs) … and typically we both moved on.</p>
<p>The above is all in context of a committed (at least semi-) adult relationship … I have a hard time imagine serially casual relationships as a good long-term approach to eventually having a great serious long-term relationship.</p>
<p>Here is some information about cohabitation and marriage.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/cohabitation/a0025248.cfm[/url]”>http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/marriage/cohabitation/a0025248.cfm</a></p>
<p>I don’t understand all of the issues that make this so, but maybe it has to do with the idea that marriage is a leap of faith. I think it takes optimism, hope and maybe a little ignorance to make it work.</p>
<p>
I’ve never read the base studies for these … but the first reaction I have to them is there could be a tremendous self-selection process. If you told me people had differing views of divorce before a marriage … I’d guess there is an incredible correlation to their beliefs on premarital sex and cohabitation also … this finding is what I would expect (those who believe it is OK to cohabitate probably are less restrictive of when a marraige is bad enough to warrant a divorce).</p>
<p>So… what is your definition of PROMISCUITY?
Being intimate (in any way) with someone who is not special to you - such that the acts are not special.</p>
<p>Is your definition different for boys than it is for girls?
No. I’ve certainly dated men who were more promiscuous (by my definition and pretty much anyone’s definition) than I am, and it made it difficult. I couldn’t help but think that they could kiss me and touch me and have it not be special - that it wasn’t because they cared for me, but rather that they cared for the sexual acts. I’m a complete romantic (very cynical, but that’s a different story), so it really took the best part out of all of it to wonder if he was with me for myself or for the action.</p>
<p>Could you quantify your definition with a number of sexual partners that would label someone as being promiscuous?
Only on the extremes… if you’ve had a dozen partners, that’s pretty bad. Once it gets to the point where sex (or anything else - kissing, cuddling, touching) isn’t an expression of caring but is done to fulfill “needs,” it’s promiscuous. There’s also a point at which it cannot be special to someone, after they’ve had too many partners. </p>
<p>No minimum number of sexual partners for being “promiscuous;” I’ve known too many people who do “everything but” and then claim to be pure. So… I guess when sex isn’t making love, it’s promiscuous. </p>
<p>How about number of partners within one year?
Not sure how you can have it be special and have multiple partners within one year. If you’re talking about other forms of sexual expression, more than a handful. Again, tough to quantify, because emotions are tough to quantify.</p>
<p>number of partners in a lifetime?
Hard to give an exact number - but, as per above, it can’t be special after too many people. You get hard and unresponsive.</p>
<p>And, how do you feel about promiscuity and casual “hook ups”?
Hate it. Hate the idea that it’s acceptable. Hate how the sexual outpaces the emotional. Men think that their sexual needs should be satisfied in a relationship but don’t seem to realize that the emotional part of the relationship isn’t there.</p>
<p>Do you think a casual attitude about sex will interfere with future marriages?
Hell yeah. It’s a values thing. If you don’t value intimacy enough to reserve it for someone special, how are you going to treat that person? Our society does not value marriage. The traditional indicia of placing a high value on marriage (low divorce rate, low rate of cohabitation, low rates of babies out of wedlock, and waiting for marriage) are all but gone. (On a side note, I think the only people in our society who do value marriage are the unlikelist of friends: the religious conservatives and the gays. The former hold marriage in high esteem as a traditional value; the latter see the importance of it and desperately want it for themselves.) </p>
<p>A casual attitude about sex interferes with the ability to form a stable marriage, to bring something unique about yourself to the marriage, and to be faithful during the marriage. Marriage seems to be more about fulfilliment of one’s own desires than about forming a stable partnership. (One of the many reasons that I have no desire to marry - just cannot fathom spending the rest of my life with someone who thinks, “For better or for worse,” has a footnote in it that lets you ignore it when the marriage no longer satisfies him.)</p>
<p>Do you think that it might interfere with the ability to remain faithful in marriage from lack of development of “self control” (for males, females, either, both)?
See previous - hell yes. How could it not? If it’s okay to have sex with two dozen people before marriage, why isn’t it okay to have “just a fling” with someone while you’re married? We see sex as a means of self-fulfillment, much in the way that you would get a pedicure. It’s not about intimacy and caring; it’s not used to form a unique bond between two people. If you don’t value chastity enough to not be promiscuous before marriage and if sex is not special, then sex outside of marriage isn’t a big deal - because sex isn’t sacred to you and your spouse and it really isn’t a big deal. Having spent too much of 2006 fighting off engaged men, married men, or men with long-term girlfriends, I can attest to the lack of self-control of modern men. Have horror stories. </p>
<p>Then again, everything I say should be taken with a Morton’s container of salt, as all my relationships are horrible. My friends recently explained a lot of my problem - I’m so prudish that it’s an ego/challenge thing - the men know that I resist pressure and don’t put out, so they want to be the one(s) to get me. Eeewww. Male egos are far too entwined with sex.</p>
<p>aries: Thanks for answering the questions</p>
<p>I think some think that this thread somehow suggests that everyone should be virgins on their wedding day. I don’t think any/many are even are thinking that. As far as this thread being a “value judgment” – yes it is – if it weren’t a value judgment than it could have one black & white answer. </p>
<p>As much as some seem to “shy away” from thinking that having several or more “casual sex” partners is promiscuous sex because they think that they are “judging” someone… I would say that probably the same people have a number in mind that they think it is excessive to be divorced. Most people understand when a person has been divorced once or maybe even twice… but when we meet someone who is on their 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc divorce (not marriage), don’t most/many of us raise an eyebrow? Don’t we “judge” that a bit? Why is it okay to privately “judge” that and not promiscuous behavior?</p>
<p>Do you think that it might interfere with the ability to remain faithful in marriage from lack of development of “self control” (for males, females, either, both)?</p>
<p>See previous - hell yes. How could it not? If it’s okay to have sex with two dozen people before marriage, why isn’t it okay to have “just a fling” with someone while you’re married?</p>
<hr>
<p>Exactly… the more we minimize the “specialness” of sex and the idea that it needs to be reserved for special committed relationships, the more we will have some “back lashes”</p>
<p>If it becomes “no big deal” to have sex with strangers, than why get upset over infidelity in marriage. </p>
<p>If we put condoms in pockets of sons and daughters “just in case” a casual encounter leads to sex, why not put them in husbands’ pockets when they have to work late with females “just in case”?</p>
<p>Lastly, if we get to the point when we think having sex with strangers is the same as virtually a peck on the cheek, than the seriousness of stranger rape and date rape (without threats of bodily harm) will become diminished.</p>
<p>I don’t consider people who have select sexual encounters, with partners whom they love at the time, to be promiscuous. Therefore, I don’t consider all non-virgins at marriage to be promiscuous. </p>
<p>Rampant sex with multiple partners, with no committed feelings…that’s promiscuous.</p>
<p>I don’t expect my own children to be virgins at marriage, especially since I don’t want them marrying in their teens or very early 20’s. But, I don’t want them having sex in high school either, and I hope to have taught them to behave responsibly about sex once they are adults.</p>
<p>Incidentally, I break the assumption in the above two posts, as I was not a virgin at marriage, and did have several partners (in committed…or so I thought LOL…relationships) before marriage. But just celebrated my 20th anniversary, and hubby and I are 100% faithful.</p>
<p>There are plenty of us folks out there.</p>
<p>When a person is singal, and an adult, and hasn’t promised anyone anything, if she has sex, so what? Very different from a promise to someone, ie, marital fidelity</p>
<p>How long do you think a couple you be seeing each other before sex is okay, if ever, before they get married?</p>
<p>1 week, 2 months, a year, when a promise ring is given, when they are engaged, when they are married</p>
<p>When I was single, I didn’t pick up men in bars and go have sex out back, but there were a few times, when I was in a relationship, we weren’t married, but we had sex, and it was in a six month window of dating</p>
<p>Being single and being married ARE different…when you are single, you haven’t made a promise to be good</p>
<p>If I have a friend who “sleeps around”, if she is single, doesn’t have kids, takes care of herself, is safe, well, what do i care</p>
<p>I wonder what this question is for, and what one would do with the information if one found out an adult friend slept with 25 guys before she got married</p>
<p>What purpose is served by knowing another adults sexual practices? If they are single, no kids involvled and are safe? What do I really care?</p>
<p>CGM: I do care about what other people do and how they behave. While I would not regulate it through the laws, I see nothing wrong with social regulation. If someone drinks too much, it doesn’t harm me, but it’s not a good way to behave. You probably have not had many drug users in your life; the cocaine, heroin, and E don’t really affect your life, but it’s still wrong. Likewise, there’s something to be said for recognizing that we are emotional, moral creatures and that there is something inherently special about intimacy; allowing someone to cheapen that is an affront to humanity. It does not hurt me if someone flies a Confederate flag; if someone makes racist remarks; if someone is anti-Semitic; or if someone is homophobic. I’ll happily be judgmental about it, though, because I don’t want those attitudes being a part of the society in which I live. </p>
<p>As for not being hurt… I disagree, having been hurt many a time by the unfortunate laissez-faire attitude about sex. When I get dumped because I don’t put out, when engaged men take their pants off and say they want to f-- me, and when boyfriends sleep around and cheat because it’s not marriage, it makes my life harder. </p>
<p>When women sleep around, they let men think that all women do that, or that it’s normal for women to have sex with men indiscriminately. </p>
<p>As for the adult friend with 25 partners before marriage - simple, tell her that she’s probably going to be among the 50% of people who divorce. As the child of divorced parents, I can tell you that it is hard as hell when marriages don’t work out. A lot of societal ills, from the feminization of poverty to the high abortion rate, can be traced to the attitudes that you say don’t hurt anyone. My take: they hurt all of us and, most of all, they hurt the people (often children) who are the least able to do something about it. </p>
<p>Yeah, I’m a conservative. I believe in responsibility and stable marriage and strong families. I also don’t think those things can be legislated, which leaves it up to society as a whole to regulate them.</p>
<p>I favored promescuity as a college student but not so keen about it as a parent!</p>
<p>Regulate how, shunning? Bannishing? Firing? Taxing?</p>
<p>If you get dumped because you don’t put out,um,bad choice in guy</p>
<p>What does that say about YOUR choice in a man?</p>
<p>Its this blame women thing I am seeing more and more</p>
<p>There was this site I was reading yesterday- Do men lust after your daughter or wife?</p>
<p>It blamed women for men’s lusting after them, because men have no controlm no matter how hard they try…</p>
<p>It was the saddest thing I have read in a while, it was blaming little girls for showing some skin and saying it was the girls fault men lusted</p>
<p>I am also for strong families, etc, but if some single guy sleeps with some single women, that should not affect your family in the least, if you have raised good strong children</p>
<p>People will be faced with people who drink, do drugs, gamble, have sex, cheat, whatever all through life, always have, always will, there has been no point in the history of mankind where it has been an idealic civilization, and often in the repression created by trying to regulate other adults morals, other problems occur</p>
<p>How would you regulate others into your morales compass…</p>