 |
National Issues Forums Online Discussions
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Folorunsho Moshood |
|
|
Reply with quote | #151 |
Good analysis. But pre-marital sex alone cannot cause diseases such as AIDS - not even HIV. Unprotected, careless and illicit sexual activities will cause these diseases. Even a husband can infect his wife with HIV and any other sexually transmitted diseases, if sex is not properly handled. AIDS is far from it. It is unmanaged HIV that can lead to AIDS. Now let us examine the QQR theory of HIV. Q= Quantity of HIV otherwise known as Viral Load Q=Quality of HIV R=Route
The reason a pregnant woman with a positive status can be prevented from infecting her unborn baby is because of the reduced viral load (reduced quantity). The Quantity also has something to do with the Quality. If the Quantity is reduced then the Quality will also be reduced. The most critical aspect is the Route. Whether the Quality or the Quantity is reduced, if there is a Route/Laceration/Opening/Wound (internal or external), the baby will be infected.
Sex with mutual understanding (fore-play/romance etc) of a boy-friend and his girl-friend will remove friction at coitus stage. When there is no friction, there will be no Route for the virus to enter the blood stream. You can have sex with anybody (positive or negative) but there must be serious fore-play to allow the two bodies to be ready for coitus stage. There was a case of a couple in Osun State, Nigeria. The husband is negative but the wife and their daughter are positive. It is discovered that there is no Route for the virus to enter the husband's blood stream. The man, unknowingly to him, has perfected the art of love making. To him, 'there will be no sex without fore-play'. On HIV: Pre-marital or marital sex, no sex is safe except protected sex and sex that is preceded with serious fore-play.
Thanks for the analysis once again, though you left out some good advantages of pre-marital sex. |
| | | Angie |
|
|
Reply with quote | #152 |
To the person saying that there were no condoms "back when they got pregnant every time" let me just bring you up to speed. To begin with this generation did not invent condoms. They were used even back with the Egyptians. Types of condoms included animal skin, thin leather, and leaves. Types of birth control was endless. The people would use all types of herbs just to avoid getting pregnant, some were fatal( just like today's birth control), others used the 'pull-out' method. Your research must have been just from what you picked out of your nose so I understand why it is just so closed-minded, for lack of a better term. Other cultures who say that a woman is just a 'sex-kitten' are also wrong and if you see who their gods are they are nothing compared to our loving and caring God.  |
| | | Lauren |
|
|
Reply with quote | #153 |
Seriously guys, sex is sex i agree that you should be both physically and emotionally ready before having sex. It's true as a teeneger you have too much to deal with, without worrying about raising a kid. You should also wait for the one you feel your ready to "give yourself to" but waiting until after marriage, some people could be waiting a rather long time (if you get what i mean) If you're with someone who you truly love and they love you, sex is fine. I don't believe all this rubish about how it's a sin in god's eyes. Men and women are chemically made up to want sex, we woudn't be here if they didn't!! The Lord's a fool if he thinks that sharing something so intimate with your partner regardless of how long you've been together is a sin. . Love is Love. You can't stop people from doing what they want. You can't say someone is right or wrong for having sex before marriage. It's their bodies, their relationship, it's their perogative. |
| | | Zeal |
|
|
Reply with quote | #154 |
"What's wrong with sex ... before marriage?" This question can be divided into two portions: 1) what's wrong with sex and 2) [what's wrong with the act] before marriage?
Response:
1) Essentially, there is nothing "wrong" with "sex" or "human sexuality." Before one puts forth such a statement, they need to define what is meant by "wrong" and clarify the standard upon which this is based. Sexuality is entirely natural, it is hard coded into human nature, and is supposed to be a healthy mode of expression and intimacy.
2) What about before marriage?
What's the problem then? Conflicts arise when we consider that various "natural" aspects of humanity CAN and ARE manipulated and corrupted. One can argue that "violence" is also entirely natural, however it is often manipulated and becomes far more harmful than beneficiary to society.
The Pre-Islamic Arabian tribes (ex. the Quiraysh) considered female infanticide natural, along with "marrying" an unlimited number of wives (who were treated inhumanely). Isn't this all natural? Perhaps aspects of each have some place in our fundamental humanity, however the realm of that which is "natural" can be manipulated and corrupted. We have reached a state in the evolutionary chain where we are capable of influencing our environments to significant extents.
We can leave out debates pertaining to the "Existence of God," (for another time) but this is all very much connected to this idea of an "Ultimate Reality" and "Truth." I.e. Humans have received ways of living that are "better" and more "logical" (as they have more benefits than negativities, of course in reference to certain goals).
Now what is marriage? In the west, the idea of "marriage" is continuing to become corrupted and manipulated. Concepts such as 'responsibility,' 'love,' and 'commitment,' are constantly shifting, and empirical evidence suggests these changes are negative. Divorce rates are ever increasing, single mother's - a phenomena becoming ever more prevalent (practically all studies demonstrate that have both parent figures is necessary), broken families etc. all seem to have some common roots. However, each problem is looked at individually, instead of attempting to identify this root. Is marriage simply a contract on paper? This is what it is becoming.
Sexuality is something profound, it enhances intimacy which enhances a relationship, however, certain circumstances must be in place for specific effects to manifest. Since it's rooted in human nature, it can also be easily manipulated. Objections like "but we're in love" or the like fail to define something: what IS love? A logical definition of love (as it appears to me) would seem to compel two individuals to put their best interests, and the best interests of society at large before their mere primal urges (which is what it is - without a true sense of appreciation, commitment, and responsibility). Love would appear to be selfless and not selfish - so in fact, if you are in love, why not wait to express it in a more stable, and responsible way. Arguments pertaining to the failure of marriage are not necessarily valid here, as I can counter that other factors are at play ex. what the idea of marriage has become in the west. Other civilizations, ex. look to the Golden Age of Islam never suffered from such problems at large.
There are two extremes, and a balance in between. Marriage seeks to protect the family system, and the security of both parties in a legal manner. Of course, extreme Monasticism projects an idea of "worship" where Monks retreat the worldly affairs, and experience complete abstinence. And then, individuals who believe they are truly in "love" (a concept that is conditioned by so many factors, often an illusion is what's present), "we're going to get married anyways though." This is presumptuous, if you will get married anyway, then WHY NOT wait so as to ensure stability, commitment, and responsibility?
Lauren - you bring up some interesting points. In this society, people are made to wait longer due to pursuing education, this is connected to other matters. Men and women being chemically made up to want sex does not equate to every methodology of experiencing sex being logical or beneficiary. Refer to my previous points, natural aspects can be manipulated. Love is love? What is love? Is it the mere chemical reactions undergone by 12 year old girls who believe they are "in love" when they see that "perfect guy." And so, pop-culture compels them into dating, experiencing numerous partners, the lack of any stable form of commitment, the acceptance of surrendering to all of their urges - EVEN though there are more responsible ways of achieving satisfaction. Is any of this healthy? All of this IS connected and relevant to the idea of sex before marriage. We have been conditioned to think that "restrictions are stupid, we are free, we should surrender to our love and let it all go - to that special one." Mainstream Christianity also has it's faults, don't get me wrong.
I've deliberately left out the "health" more "biological" related consequences and how they are connected to the lack of responsibility and commitment (although not always - there are other factors). My points mainly surround a hypothesis, and i've provided my reasoning - society as a whole must be considered. Your choices affect yourself, your family, your partner, and a potential child.
To sum it up: it's not that sex is bad, not at all, rather, there are better ways to experience it, that's my proposition.
I apologize for the verbosity, take it easy people, peace.
|
| | | nita | | | Nita |
|
|
Reply with quote | #156 |
and for those of us who don't get married? what of us? if you live in sin by having sex before your married is it still a sin if you never get married? why is sex after marriage a big deal anyways when the divorce rate is so high? If you get a divorce after being married and having sex does that mean your doomed to hell because obviously if your getting divorced you haven't found your other half, your true love the one you can't live without and after divorce most look for another partner and guess what, chances are they'll have sex too. god have mercy on all of our souls because not all of us live by the bible and treat it as if its the very air we breath. whatever happened to a conscious, a right or wrong. i say do what you feel is right we all live differently and have other beliefs who are we to say whats definitely right or wrong when we all have different perceptions of what is right. lets think about this, not everything is made of fairytales and flowers. i bet half the population of people believe true love is a myth. I think sex after marriage is an excuse for the people who just dont want to do it and instead of just saying "hey i dont want to have sex because well, i just dont" they play it off as if it were a sin because they are afraid of what they dont know. This is just how I feel, sometimes people create their own problems, it just depends on the person. sex before marriage isn't a problem. only if you morally think its wrong for yourself, I wouldn't judge others for it if they did. and i'm not saying if you do believe in waiting til marriage to go out and have sex with the next woman you look at. all i'm saying is that people make it a problem by trying to influence everyone else with their own morals and beliefs because they think they know best. Thanks for reading. -Anita. |
| | | Folorunsho Moshood |
|
|
Reply with quote | #157 |
I have missed a lot in this discussion. I just read some hot stuff I have not read before on sexuality. I love the maturity exhibited by contributors. I must say that if something is wrong with pre-marital sex, then something must be equally wrong with pre-marital kiss or pre-marital hug or pre-marital cuddle or pre-marital things that lead to sex. We all know that rape in any form, either pre-marital or not, is wrong. How can we say that something of mutual understanding is wrong. Pre-marital sex has advantages and disadvantages. Let's explore further the advantages and disadvantages of pre-marital sex along side the advantages and disadvantages of marital sex. All the best. |
| |
|
| | | |
|
