Sex before marriage is it OK?

No.
I’ll tell you why.
If you aren’t able to find a mate when you’re having a really really strong urge to have sex, what will you do?
Escorts? You’re getting spoiled.
Uncontrollable urges and a crooked person make rapists.

So it’s better you don’t. That’s why in ancient India, students would be sent to ‘Gurukuls’, staying away from sexual desires.

Remember how when you didn’t know what MO was, you didn’t wish doing it?
It’s the same with sex. If you have it once, done. You’re addicted.

Anyone here who misses not knowing what MO was?

 

Marriage is just a made up thing anyway. It's like saying are natural instincts ok before I have went through this made up process.

I guess many religions don't think sex before marriage is ok. But like I said I see marriage as a made up thing created by man, and I see sex as a natural instinct in nature.

I guess it comes down to what you more believe in. Religion or biology.

 

I totally agree with you @thinking_differently

 

I believe marriage stems from a primitive biology function of pair bonding, not to say that all humans do so but for a large majority this is the case. A lot of the consensus, from what I read, believes from a biological standpoint that you want to ensure that your mate is invested in you and your offspring to promote a higher chance of your lineage surviving in the future. Marriage at least in theory should help to promote this, but of course it's more nuanced and there are a lot of other factors to take into consideration such as cultural, environment, genetics, past experiences, etc. Humans are incredibly multi-faceted and we as a species don't exactly to cater one specific mating system, like a lot of other animals do such as Gorillas, chimps, rabbits etc.

If you're not religious, I don't necessarily think that sex before marriage is bad, just be careful and do what is best for you.

 

Marriage was historically a product of several factors:

1. Being cucked in the literal, not pornographic sense would have been a massive waste of resources. There has to be absolute assurance that your offspring were actually yours.

2. Childbirth was extremely painful and dangerous, and that would have been a huge risk to take without absolute assurance that the offspring were actually yours.

3. No birth control. Sex = Babies

4. Most STDs weren't curable until recently, people died from what are now easily curable diseases.

5. Women had no rights, so marriage was a round about way of legally looking after their welfare.

6. Marriage and a structured family life provided a sense of duty so people would basically work themselves to death in a shitty, non air conditioned, dangerous, non entertaining world.

7. (Redacted due to subject matter.)

 

I don't think so, I'm not conservative at all, Jordan Peterson, which is a psychologist I greatly respect is against it, he thinks that sex is the most intimate act you can have with someone and it should be, in a way sacred and meaningful. As mentioned, I'm not of a similar opinion, but he does speak from a broader point of view and what it does in a societal level, I dont. I do what I think in that regard is good for me.

So basically you must decide by your own inner moral compass, sorry if I don't give you a straight answer, but the fact is, there are so many credible evidences pointing to BOTH approaches as valid, that you might as well decide for yourself what is better for you.

 

In history people usually didn´t have their prime like we have nowadays. In theory this meant that you were mostly bounded to your tribe and the chances within. Meaning their life was less independent and had to fit into the daily life, which meant usually to have a family with offspring, who are there for you if you will be old. However, people married rarely out of love,but rather for survival reasons. Today the game has changed, we look for a significant other to fall in love with. Marriage is a constraint for yourself as well as security to fall back on. I can´t tell how much I´ve seen my parents fight with each other over pity stuff that I thought they would be better off on their own. Probably that is just life.

 

Thank you very much @StarRider for the clarification.

 

Rome was very promiscuous, from the beginning to end, it lasted quite long while if you ask me.

 

I have to call you out here. These arguments do not make any sense at all.

Firstly, I don't think rape happens just because people are horny. And I don't see how rape has anything to do with marriage. People rape their spouses - and married people rape women who aren't their partners.

Secondly, there are other sexual options for single people besides escorts and rape. You can just have consensual sex with a boyfriend/girlfriend.

Also, I don't see the point of mentioning India. There are lots of cultures which try to limit sexual desires, mostly for religious reasons. Also arranged marriage is a part of Indian culture, and it does not always end well. We need to get rid of the idea that marriage just fixes everything and makes everyone happier.

Before we didn't know what MO was, most of us were children. And no, children aren't usually sexually inclined. But it is inevitable that humans will discover their sexuality - masturbation and orgasm were not invented by anyone, rather they are completely natural. Sometimes it is taught to us before we naturally discover it, but we will always have a desire to be sexual at some point in our lives. We can't just be kids forever, as idyllic as it seems.

Finally, sex is not an addiction for anyone who does it once. Not everyone is a sex addict. There are healthy amounts of sexual activity and there are unhealthy amounts. What is the purpose of limiting or forbidding someone's sexual activity until they get married? Marriage is a social institution after all - people can form healthy bonds without marriage, or have multiple partners or even no long-term partners and still have happy and productive lives.

 

I don't think you understand the first thing about statistics. If you care at all about science or stats, then you would do well to cite the numbers you are referencing, and where they were published. But let's put all that aside, and I'll assume you're right about everything you said.

If Joe Smith deems himself happier if he has sex without marriage, why should he care if his culture will "vanish" within 100 years - and is this a justification to reduce his individual happiness by having him marry before sex? And so what if the culture dies? Cultures come and go, some good and some bad. You're arguing traditionalism for the sake of traditionalism, with no apparent reasoning behind it.

Let's go to the second paragraph. First of all, medically approved contraception methods have something of a 99% success rate (any article or .gov website will agree), and this has nothing to do with abortion numbers. Throughout the rest of this paragraph you seem to imply a strong bias towards length of relationships as a determinant of value. Why is this the case? Then you suggest that people who have sex before marriage have shorter relationships on average. This is called dating, but you're obviously trying to imply that sex kills relationships and marriage preserves them. If person A has a relationship with 10 women and the first 9 relationships last for 1 year, while the 10th relationship lasts for 20 years, then his average relationship is 2.9 years. While if person B marries one person only, for 5.8 years, then his average relationship is doubled, even thought his longest relationship is much shorter than that of the more "promiscuous" person A. Furthermore, the alleged 80% 10-year retention rate of non-premarital sex marriages tells us nothing about why these marriages last longer.

As a reminder, the OP asked whether he should or shouldn't have sex before marriage. Nothing you have said gives an answer to this. None of your conclusions justify why people should get married, other than that their relationships will last longer on average. You have failed to consider many things, instead just saying that it "works," and it's hard to tell what you mean by this word. Have you considered unhappy marriages? What about forced marriages? What about cultures where young people are coerced into marrying before sex, and pressured into staying married despite their desires? Furthermore, I would even dispute that marriage does "work." There are countries where traditional marriage is highly supported, yet divorce rates are higher than more "promiscuous" countries.

You can make the "facts don't lie" argument, but just make sure you have the right facts. And what matters more than the facts themselves is the conclusions you draw from them - and your conclusions don't seem to hold much water.

 

Ah so you want to mimic the natural world around you? Better ditch the condoms and birth control.

 

No, he didn't SAY he wanted to mimic the natural World, pay attention to what others write. He said that sex is a natural instinct, which is true, we though, being rational beings can go against nature, for good or ill.

 

Okay this argument of mine is off. I agree.

No. It is bound to happen. All of those here who haven’t even had sex, crave strongly to have sex! Having sex is THE next level of stimulating the body, beyond MO. Most of us here are still MO addicts, and we don’t yet have this MO addiction in full control and we’re saying we can put a leash on sex addiction? That’s Hilarious!

This was system of delayed exposure to sex.They were exposed to sex once they had access to it(after marriage). Now all of us are exposed to sex through PMO, but do you really have access to it? If you decide, can you just go and have sex with someone easily? No!
This system worked well in those days.
And the concept of ‘Arranged Marriage’ is completely irrelevant here, that’s not my point, I haven’t even mentioned it.
I didn’t know any other specific culture that practises/ed this, would you name any?

Yes totally, they should. But at what age? And how intense of an exposure!
Today 9-10 year olds, whose Reproductive organs have just started developing are being exposed to Hard- Core Pornography! Would you call that normal and inevitable?

 

My understanding of sexual ethics is mostly based on the Bible (I'm a christian). In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says that the only valid outlet for sexual activity is that which is within marriage. Once you're married, you can have sex with your husband/wife as often as you want. For that reason, I say no to your question (that it is not OK to have sex before marriage).

 

So basically, I feel that sex before marriage is okay, if you’re have regular, easy access to it, i.e. with your girlfriend/boyfriend.
It shouldn’t happen like: you meet someone, have sex, and then you don’t find a mate, go into sexual frustration, and have to wait a loong time before finding a mate again.

 

I think what he's trying to say is that if you want to suppress a natural and harmless behavior through artificial means, then you should have a good justification for doing so. Not that it's good solely because it's natural.

 

Sex before marriage is wrong. All other sins we commit are against others but this one is a sin against your own body. For the sake of yourself don’t do it. I’ve learned from my own experience that sexual sin most definitely harms who we are as humans, it changes our biology. Only use it for it’s designed purpose inside a marriage relationship.