Atheists have better sex lives | Daily Mail

[_Hoops]

2) If you gave in to your impulse to have premarital sex, you'd feel religious guilt over breaking an arbitrary rule.

Yes.

3) Feeling guilt is not good if it's over something arbitrary, therefore, we must assume that it's not an arbitrary rule.

Agreed. So the problem here is whether or not the prohibition is arbitrary.

I'm not saying you're lying. I have no doubt you really tell yourself it's not arbitrary and that it's a good practical rule. It's just that, well, you couldn't prove it was (like you could with, say, "no killing people").

I certainly have evidence that says it's a good practical rule. For one: marriage is good for society. Pre-marital sex can delay one's desire to marry, or even discard it permanently. For two: Christians believe that marriage is a sacred committment. And that anything that could potentially harm that union is harmful. Competing with your spouse's other lovers could certainly do that. Third: I don't recall if you have a LDS or Christian background or not. Nonetheless, Biblical language is replete with sexual references. There is a reason why we are called "the bride of Christ". The sex act is holy, wonderful, and a gift. to regard this gift as a mere plaything is to be condescending to God. There's more, but you get the drift.

Nothing quite screams "arbitrary rule" like the supernaturally loaded word "sin."

Fair point. Let's just call it not measuring up to this standard.

Yes, I feel guilt over making real mistakes (I don't call them "sins"; that a BS word) which is to say, if I actually harm someone else, I feel guilt about it. Rules concerned with the prevention of harm to others are not, in any way, arbitrary. Rules concerning consenting adults's non-harmful sex habits certainly are.

Then you do have a standard. YOu just don't think that pre-marital sex ever harms anyone.

[_Some Schmo]

I know what "standards" means. I choose, however, not to load the word with BS religious overtones.

Nor do I. Here's how I am using it (paraphrasing). A standard is a fixed unit by which something else is measured. In this case, most religious people recognize that the Christian faith discourages pre-marital sex.

Yes, but you aren't saying the real-world, practical reasons they discourage it, and I believe it's because we both know, at least on some level, that the rule is arbitrary.

We're talking about standards, right? When you asked if humankind had changed, was it wrong to assume we were still talking about standards?

Yes, it was wrong. I thought you were trying to imply that with our 21st century enlightenment we somehow have a better grasp of human frailties.

No, actually, it's wrong to assume we were talking about something different than what we were actually talking about.

Regardless, it is safe to assume we are more enlightened (on average) than we were when the Bible was written. We don't forbid people from sitting where a menstruating woman has sat, require that people wear all of one fabric type, stone people for working on Sunday, and a mass of other nonsensical rules written in that time.

My contention is simple: be it the 21st century or the 8th, humankind has the same urges as always. And we indulge those urges in the same way. Specifically, sex. pre-marital sex has been around for ever and people have been engaging in it all that time. I read somewhere (I don't have the reference so take it for what it's worth) that the Puritans engaged in as much pre-marital sex as we do today. Pregnancy was the leading cause of marriage (one might argue that this is the same today wink)

Of course we have urges. The question is whether or not there should be rules to repress certain urges if they don't cause anyone harm. Those would be arbitrary rules.

Just so we're on the same page, I consider a rule arbitrary if it doesn't have any practical (and non-supernatural) reason to obey it.

[_Some Schmo]

I'll get to your other posts in a bit, Hoops. Have to do something atm.

I will say that I've seen where you're trying to make a practical case for no premarital sex (good on ya), so I want to address that one for sure.

[_Some Schmo]

It's a logical inference, not an opinion. Let me take you through it:

1) No sex before marriage is an arbitrary rule. The harm of adhering to it outweighs the benefits of ignoring it.

So you agree that there is harm?

The only harm I can think of is STD's, but that's any sex, not just premarital, so I'm not sure it counts.

A Christian recognizes that we have a spirit and that some behaviors can injure our spirit more than others. Engaging in random sexual acts might do exactly that. And that "standard" is different for everyone. And, I think, can be more damaging to women then men - such is the nature of our creation.

A Christian imagines (there's nothing to recognize) that we have a spirit and that some behaviors can injure our spirit more than others. And given that it's a product of imagination, anything could injure it... anything you can imagine, that is. As I said, supernatural harm doesn't count. You're tlking about an imagined harm, hence, its arbitrary nature.

and makes little practical sense.

Practicality pertaining to what? If the objective here is to become more sexually adept, then I suppose so. But there is great advantage to becoming sexually adept with one's married (marital?) partner. So I don't think your point here is as strong as you might think. Wouldn't you agree that there could be profound joy in exploring sexual expression with one's spouse? And this is exactly what my pastors have preached.

Practicality pertaining to making an informed decision about with whom you want to enter into a lifelong commitment and spend your life.

That does not in any way preclude further sexual exploration with your eventual partner.

Sorry, but it's always better to make decisions with more information than less. Denying premarital sex is just bad decision making.

Countless individuals over generations have engaged in premarital sex without consequence.

And countless others have experienced considerable consequence. What does this prove?

It proves that it's not a rule that always, or even generally, makes sense. The "considerable consequence" hasn't been demonstrated except in supernatural terms, which in the real world are meaningless.

For it to not be an arbitrary rule, it would have to cause harm to every single person who engages in it (aside from the guilt associated with simply breaking a "rule").

I see nothing in the definition of arbitrary that addresses the potential harm.

All I mean by arbitrary is that it's a made up rule that doesn't have a real basis in practicality. Again, imagined offenses to supernatural beings don't count, because you have no idea whether said supernatural being exists or what it cares about.

[_Hoops]

The only harm I can think of is STD's, but that's any sex, not just premarital, so I'm not sure it counts.

Certainly that counts. I'm sure you will agree that the chances of acquiring an STD are significantly reduced within a marriage relationship.

But, would you consider that one can do harm to one's sexual relationship with one's marriage partner from all this "experience"?

Secondly, the fact that we believe (I won't use the word recognize) that we have a spirit and that it is a fully functioning part of our being does not make the prohibition of pre-marital sex arbitrary.

A Christian imagines (there's nothing to recognize) that we have a spirit and that some behaviors can injure our spirit more than others. And given that it's a product of imagination, anything could injure it

That's not a given, that's your contention, upon which you have nothing to base it. And, no, we don't say that anything can injure it - that's LDS thought.

That does not in any way preclude further sexual exploration with your eventual partner.

There's no such thing as an "eventual partner."

Sorry, but it's always better to make decisions with more information than less. Denying premarital sex is just bad decision making.

I suppose this highlights the difference between regarding sex as just another physical act and regarding it for what we think it is - a sacred expression of a committment to one another and to God. It seems you regard sex as a gathering of information to determine one's suitability to the other. Yet, the alternative is equally, if not more so, appealing. That is, exploring sexual expression through a marriage commitment can be - and should be - a wonderful journey whereby partners seek to give each other pleasure in new and exciting ways. That seems terribly more interesting to me than sexual expression that has been tried, tested, and given some kind of stamp of approval.

[_Some Schmo]

The only harm I can think of is STD's, but that's any sex, not just premarital, so I'm not sure it counts.

Certainly that counts. I'm sure you will agree that the chances of acquiring an STD are significantly reduced within a marriage relationship.

Yeah, granted.

But, would you consider that one can do harm to one's sexual relationship with one's marriage partner from all this "experience"?

No more than experienced carpenters can harm a new employer (as opposed to someone with no experience at all).

What harm? How is less experience better?

Incidentally, I've have long wondered about this idea that it's best to have a virgin. WTF? My experiences have always been better with ladies who knew what they were doing.

Secondly, the fact that we believe (I won't use the word recognize) that we have a spirit and that it is a fully functioning part of our being does not make the prohibition of pre-marital sex arbitrary.

Well, then you're just moving the arbitrary-ness back one. The spirit belief is arbitrary, which generates arbitrary rules.

A Christian imagines (there's nothing to recognize) that we have a spirit and that some behaviors can injure our spirit more than others. And given that it's a product of imagination, anything could injure it

That's not a given, that's your contention, upon which you have nothing to base it. And, no, we don't say that anything can injure it - that's LDS thought.

I have nothing to base it on? What about a massive lack of evidence?

And when I said "anything can injure it" I didn't mean you believed anything could, just that because it's made up, we have the ability to make up anything that could injure it. That's the beauty of fiction and using your imagination. Any magic is possible. It's just not real.

That does not in any way preclude further sexual exploration with your eventual partner.

There's no such thing as an "eventual partner."

What are you talking about? Your eventual partner is the person you end up with. My wife turned out to be my eventual partner, so... yes, there's such a thing.

I suppose this highlights the difference between regarding sex as just another physical act and regarding it for what we think it is - a sacred expression of a committment to one another and to God. It seems you regard sex as a gathering of information to determine one's suitability to the other. Yet, the alternative is equally, if not more so, appealing. That is, exploring sexual expression through a marriage commitment can be - and should be - a wonderful journey whereby partners seek to give each other pleasure in new and exciting ways. That seems terribly more interesting to me than sexual expression that has been tried, tested, and given some kind of stamp of approval.

No, I don't just "regard sex as a gathering of information to determine one's suitability to the other" although that can be what happens. It is an expression of intimacy. I also regard it as "a wonderful journey whereby partners seek to give each other pleasure in new and exciting ways."

But you're right; for me, god has nothing to do with it, any more than Santa or the tooth fairy do. I'm not into that kind of sexual fantasy.

[_Ceeboo]

Atheists have sex?


Huh?

Pretty cool!


Peace,
Ceeboo

[_Some Schmo]

I meant to get back to this:

I certainly have evidence that says it's a good practical rule. For one: marriage is good for society. Pre-marital sex can delay one's desire to marry, or even discard it permanently.

I don't know that you can make the blanket statement "marriage is good for society" without some pretty major caveats. Some marriages are not good. Not everyone is suited for it. What about couples that pop out a bunch of kids and then can't stand each other? Is that good for society?

I don't think marrying just to be married is advisable.

For two: Christians believe that marriage is a sacred committment. And that anything that could potentially harm that union is harmful. Competing with your spouse's other lovers could certainly do that.

Secularists believe that marriage is an important commitment. However, it's a major stretch to think that former lovers could harm a current relationship any more than a former boyfriend/girlfriend with whom your weren't intimate could. If a person longs for an old flame, what difference does it make if they had sex? It's the emotional, not physical connection that counts, isn't it?

Are you saying people should marry the first person they connect with?

Third: I don't recall if you have a LDS or Christian background or not. Nonetheless, Biblical language is replete with sexual references. There is a reason why we are called "the bride of Christ". The sex act is holy, wonderful, and a gift. to regard this gift as a mere plaything is to be condescending to God. There's more, but you get the drift.

I was raised LDS, but I never bought in. From a pretty young age, I realized that with thousands of different religions in the world, they couldn't all be right, and most likely they were all wrong.

The Bible is fiction. I don't regard what it says with any more respect than, say, Star Wars. Star Wars contains certain truths, but it's fiction anyway, and it's not holy. And there is no way I'd alter my lifestyle based on the Star Wars saga. That would just be silly. Same thing with the Bible.

This idea that sex is a gift from god and it should be holy, etc etc is a harmful belief for the exact reason this thread was started in the first place. As soon as you load it with god smack, you introduce unnecessary guilt. It's not healthy. And this is why religious guilt over sex deserves derision.

[_Some Schmo]

Atheists have sex?

Oh yes... a ridiculous amount of wild guilt-free sex!

[_Ceeboo]

Hey SS,

Atheists have sex?

Oh yes... a ridiculous amount of wild guilt-free sex!

Got pictures/proof?

Peace,
Ceeboo