Why is Sex sometimes wrong?

[Vapymid]

Sorry, you didn't miss my introduction - I haven't made any. I checked the forum rules and they did not seem to require new members to post in the introduction thread...

 

As for "regards" that's my habit - I sign most of my emails like that + name. But on the 'net I don't use my name. So it implies I'm writing "Regards, Vapymid".

 

Regards

[ProHypster]

Sorry, you didn't miss my introduction - I haven't made any. I checked the forum rules and they did not seem to require new members to post in the introduction thread...

 

As for "regards" that's my habit - I sign most of my emails like that + name. But on the 'net I don't use my name. So it implies I'm writing "Regards, Vapymid".

 

Regards

Nah you don't need to, my fault if I put pressure on you, you may introduce yourself there though if you want to or when you are ready.

[Michael Archer]

I cannot see in any way how sex would be wrong. (The consenting adult kind of sex, anyway)

 

It's only religious dogma that paints it as wrong.

[Blue]

The Bible celebrates sex as a wonderful and beautiful thing.

It condemns it outside the context of marriage.

Why? You'd have to ask a theologian- probably one who professes in the Letters of Paul, the Sermon on the Mount, or the Pentateuch.

There are probably a great many reasons why, that apply relationally, socially, emotionally, physically and/or spiritually. However I am not well read on the subject and thus would not be able to tell you what they are.

If you have questions about how sex is approached in regards to how it's conversed in the books of Genesis or Exodus, it would probably require some historical education in order to appreciate contexts, choices and reactions made by such figures as Abraham (or Abram), Israel (or Issac) and Jacob.

[The Giant Napkin]

I say Vapymid makes a pretty solid point. 'Unconstrained' sex, meaning everyone is free to have sex with anyone, would have led to a less than ideal civilisation. Therefore it was 'wrong'. This is changing, though; it's getting easier to have sex without negative consequences. As a result, sex before marriage, multiple sex partners and the like have become more common, and will probably continue to do so in the future.

Sex is still, for most people, an act of trust and love, so you can imagine that those people are still 'reluctant' (that's not exactly the right word... perhaps 'careful'?) to have sex with someone. I don't think there's anything wrong with either case, as long as both sex partners are willing and won't regret their decision later.

[ProHypster]

Yeah, I think you're right about sex getting to be more casual in our society and if two people agree it is morally acceptable, I wonder if sex has negative impact like a drug though due to STDs. :/. As soon as we do have the technology to stop STDS though I think having sex before marriage won't be an issue any more.

 

This reminds me of Pedobear by the way.

 

[The Giant Napkin]

Yeah, I think you're right about sex getting to be more casual in our society and if two people agree it is morally acceptable, I wonder if sex has negative impact like a drug though due to STDs. :/. As soon as we do have the technology to stop STDS though I think having sex before marriage won't be an issue any more.

(...)

But don't condoms prevent STDs over 99% of the time? And as long as safe sex is the rule, I don't think the danger lies in STDs... Also, most STDs are fairly standardly cured (aside from AIDS, of course).

[Michael Archer]

That 1% case of condoms not preventing STDs is due to people not using them correctly.

[Blue]

It's rather fascinating how "Why is sex wrong" has turned into "Why casual sex is the way of the future".

[The Giant Napkin]

It's rather fascinating how "Why is sex wrong" has turned into "Why casual sex is the way of the future".

 

Well, we went in the direction "sex =/= wrong", then "sex = good", then "more and easier = better", and now it's just MOAR SEX PLEASE. It's just a problem with internet discussions, they tend to go on long after they have been solved.

[ProHypster]

Giant Napkin Summarized it. Well if you have any other idea why it's wrong post here otherwise this topic will lie around in the forgotten world of the accursed farms.

[Blue]

I wish the same could be said for other serious topic threads, seeing as the tonality on some of them seem to very seldom waver from being serious, but subject matter which they discuss varies greatly between weightily serious and obtusely comic.

[BTGBullseye]

But don't condoms prevent STDs over 99% of the time? And as long as safe sex is the rule, I don't think the danger lies in STDs... Also, most STDs are fairly standardly cured (aside from AIDS, of course).

I just have to comment on this...

 

CONDOMS DO NOT PROTECT AGAINST STDS!!!

 

They have a 99% success rate of preventing a pregnancy ONLY. 99% of the time that they are used, a pregnancy does not occur. (this does not tell us anything about whether a pregnancy would have occurred had a condom not been used)

 

There is a 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% chance of getting an STD from your sex partner (if they have one) whether you use a condom or not.

[Axeldeath]

That's incorrect BTG, as a matter of fact condoms are very effective at protecting you from the AIDS virus. They may be relatively ineffective against other STD's but they are the best defense sexually active people can use.

[BTGBullseye]

That's incorrect BTG, as a matter of fact condoms are very effective at protecting you from the AIDS virus. They may be relatively ineffective against other STD's but they are the best defense sexually active people can use.

And where did you pick up any of that? I got my info from several doctors, and the Red Cross's Bloodborne Pathogens class.

[Blue]

KcjgzCw0zOE

And now we know.

[Doom Shepherd]

Dang thing just keeps buffering forever.

 

Anyway, if you read 1 Corinthians 7:25-40, it sure seems like Paul didn't believe human beings should marry at all, much less EVER have sex or procreate. He held forth marriage as a last resort but the IDEAL was to remain celibate forever.

 

Then again, I believe Paul is the worst betrayer Christianity ever had; he did more to wreck Christ's teachings than anyone, and deserves a place far worse than that of Judas (who was, let's be honest, just doing - at Jesus's behest - what had to be done so that Jesus could die as was INTENDED.)

 

But that's another thread entirely.

[Doom Shepherd]

That's incorrect BTG, as a matter of fact condoms are very effective at protecting you from the AIDS virus. They may be relatively ineffective against other STD's but they are the best defense sexually active people can use.

And where did you pick up any of that? I got my info from several doctors, and the Red Cross's Bloodborne Pathogens class.

 

How about the CDC?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/prevention.htm

 

The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

 

So, high. But not infallible.

[BTGBullseye]

That's incorrect BTG, as a matter of fact condoms are very effective at protecting you from the AIDS virus. They may be relatively ineffective against other STD's but they are the best defense sexually active people can use.

And where did you pick up any of that? I got my info from several doctors, and the Red Cross's Bloodborne Pathogens class.

 

How about the CDC?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/prevention.htm

 

The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

 

So, high. But not infallible.

Yeah, but the 'correct use' of the condom involves no other physical contact with your partners bodily fluids... Typically not something doable if you're having sex.

[Doom Shepherd]

How about the CDC?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/qa/prevention.htm

 

The most recent meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies of condom effectiveness was published by Weller and Davis in 2004. This analysis refines and updates their previous report published in 1999. The analysis demonstrates that the consistent use of latex condoms provides a high degree of protection against heterosexual transmission of HIV. It should be noted that condom use cannot provide absolute protection against HIV. The surest way to avoid transmission of HIV is to abstain from sexual intercourse or to be in a long-term mutually monogamous relationship with a partner who has been tested and you know is uninfected.

 

So, high. But not infallible.

Yeah, but the 'correct use' of the condom involves no other physical contact with your partners bodily fluids... Typically not something doable if you're having sex.

 

Except that if you read the conditions of the test... they actually conducted this study by observing people who were taking the highest risk possible... in sexual relationships with partners whom they knew to be HIV+.