remember those teenage abstinence pledges?

[Whaleboy]

Yes, I agree, but now, you have denied your first premise. Clearly, not all sex is fun. Certain conditions need to exist in order for sex to be fun.

Then I should amend.

Consenting sex is fun
Fun is good
We should do good things (whatever that means to us as individuals as per emotivism and utilitarianism)

Ergo, consenting sex is good, and we should all have sex. NOW!!! personal circumstances permitting

[Ben Kenobi]

Consenting sex is fun

But what about the consequences of the act? In order to gage whether an act is good, one must also consider the consequences.

Your second premise is then not true. It is not true that everything that is fun, is good, because what is fun, may have consequences that are not fun.

[Ben Kenobi]

You should practice what you preach.

Ideally, abstinence is far superior to birth control.

Been my argument through the thread, Theban.

[Gibsie]

One thing I've not seen challenged here is the assertion that waiting until getting married prevents the proliferation of STD's... well, given that about half of marriages fail anyway, and pretty much all the people who divorce will go on to have sex with other people, why push a clearly failing institution which doesn't even result in life-long monogamy in many cases?

To act like if we just wait until marriage to have sex we'll all be safe from STD's and unwanted pregnancies is a gross oversimplification. But then oversimplying things to "pre-marital sex is bad, the end" is the entire basis of these abstinence programs anyway...

And why should married people not be made to feel bad for not abstaining anyway? :P

[Whaleboy]

But what about the consequences of the act? In order to gage whether an act is good, one must also consider the consequences.

Consequential. The act is fun and that is all you can know. The way to deal with those possible consequences though is to use protection or abortion. Though there are problems in terms of effect on the woman of abortion, those are environmental so we can ignore them in this scenario. By eliminating those consequences, you get the benefits of sex with no problems!

Your second premise is then not true. It is not true that everything that is fun, is good, because what is fun, may have consequences that are not fun.

Same goes for everything. Using that logic, I cannot publish a book because the methods of paper production. Nihilism seems to imply that balance in any case.

Furthermore in the absense of altruism (egoism shows it to be a fallacy), we only do what is felicific anyway, that is all of human action (which I can also link back to a motivation in sex but that would be going off at a tangent at this stage). So the "bad" consequences of fun are somwhat worthless in consideration of that act. There is also a contextual argument related to the "needs of the many" proposition. Assuming contraceptives and abortion eliminate personal consequences, the sociological consequences are not the concern of two individuals, both statistically speaking and in terms of their own lives, the benefits of sex outweigh the problems caused to society and thus back at them by their own actions.

Ideally, abstinence is far superior to birth control.

Been my argument through the thread, Theban.

Sex w/o birth control = beneficial but possible consequences outweigh to produce value of 0

Sex + Birth control = Beneficial, positive value

Abstinance = Sexual value of 0

Sex + birth control = Sexual value of >0.

Sex is part of the human condition (I would argue that it is the foundation for the human condition but again going off at a tangent), therefore sexual value of >0 is beneficial to human.

Whether or not that contradicts religious value is questionable, but I dare say sexual value is more important than religious value, or at least more fundamental. To me at least, I'm not going to start dictating how you should run your psyche, but I'm just describing how things work Whaleboy-wise.

Does this mean I'll go to hell? Be that as it may, I'm going to bed, so keep the thread warm for me!!

[Ben Kenobi]

One thing I've not seen challenged here is the assertion that waiting until getting married prevents the proliferation of STD's... well, given that about half of marriages fail anyway,

First of all, although half of all marriages fail, fewer than half of all people who get married, have failed marriages.

Secondly, can you show that those who wait until marriage, that their marriages are more or less likely to fail than those who do not wait?

I would argue the latter. If the latter is true, then by your own argument, I have proved my own claim. Those who have intercourse, before marriage, would be much more likely to get divorced, and have a greater exposure to stds.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Ideally, abstinence is far superior to birth control.

Been my argument through the thread, Theban.

Ideal abstinence is better than ideal birth control, for prevention of unwanted pregnancies and STD transmission.

Real world birth control is better than real world abstinence for the same.

From PlannedParenthood:

HOW WELL FAMs WORKS
Of 100 women using FAMs about 25 will become pregnant during the first year of typical use. Perfect use can give better results. Nine women will become pregnant with perfect use of the calendar method. Perfect use of the post-ovulation method, the basal body temperature method, the cervical mucus (ovulation) method, or the symptothermal method results in only one to three pregnancies. Pregnancy rates generally are higher for single women who use these methods.

FAMs do not provide protection against sexually transmitted infections.

ADVANTAGES OF FAMs


There are no medical or hormonal side effects.
Calendars, thermometers, and charts are easy to get.
WHO CAN USE FAMs


women in good health who have had careful instruction
women whose sex partner is equally committed to the method
Women should not rely on this method if they have


irregular periods
irregular body temperature patterns
uncooperative partners
HOW FAMs IS USED
Expert and professional guidance are essential for women to learn how to use these methods successfully.

POSSIBLE DISADVANTAGES OF FAMs


These methods require months of training.
Care is needed in keeping records and interpreting signs.
Illness or even lack of sleep can cause “false” temperature signals.
Vaginal infections or use of vaginal products — like douches — or medication may alter cervical mucus.
You and your partner may be tempted to take risks during your fertile period, or “unsafe days.”

[Ben Kenobi]

However co-habiting couples are 50% more likely to divorce after five years, 60% more likely to be divorced after ten years, compared to those who wait until marriage

http://www.globalchange.com/books/rpl2a.htm

For the UK.

Looking for American numbers.

[Gibsie]

That first line makes zero sense to me, it's probably down to all the epidemiology studying I've done today...

Even if the latter is true, I would sincerely doubt the difference is statistically significant*. People have made just as persuasive arguments in this thread that people who don't engage in pre-marital sex are more inclined get married when they aren't ready for it, leading to more divorces on their part.

Although your stats seem apt, what is the source?

[Ben Kenobi]

First of all, although half of all marriages fail, fewer than half of all people who get married, have failed marriages.

Poorly worded.

Some people get married twice. That's why there is not a 1:1 correlation.

According to the US 2002 Divorce stats, the percentage of FIRST marriages that end in divorce, are 43%.

So 43% of the people who marry, also get divorced.

http://www.divorcemag.com/statistics/statsUS.shtml

7% is statistically significant.

[MRT144]

ben, maybe because people who live together before marriage are also more likely to see divorce as an option. I know you religious wacko types dont take too kindly to divorce.

[Ben Kenobi]

will become pregnant with perfect use of the calendar method. Perfect use of the post-ovulation method, the basal body temperature method, the cervical mucus (ovulation) method, or the symptothermal method results in only one to three pregnancies. Pregnancy rates generally are higher for single women who use these methods.

Where's the Billings method in all of this?

[Ben Kenobi]

ben, maybe because people who live together before marriage are also more likely to see divorce as an option. I know you religious wacko types dont take too kindly to divorce.

And religious folks are more likely to take a pledge.

Irrelevant to the issue at hand.

[Ben Kenobi]

the cervical mucus (ovulation) method,

Let's assume that Planned Parenthood means the Billings method.

It is not clear that by grouping all these methods together, which problems apply to which methods.

This is a very careless form of analysis.

[MRT144]

im simply stating an alternate cause as to why people who dont cohabitate might not get divorced as much.

SEE A ****ING ALTERNATE POINT OF VIEW FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE SELF RIGHTEOUS ZEALOT!