Lord have mercy on us. It’s articles like these that make me want to loose hope in humanity.

If that’s true, it’s cultural. Society tells people that the first person you have sex with is more specialer than anyone else, so naturally the’re going to feel a connection.

I don’t feel any more connected to my first girlfriend than to my current girlfriend; I don’t think the end of the first relationship would have been any more pleasant if it had been chaste.

Garnet:
Especially since, if you believe that sex is such an all-important aspect, you’d think that being with someone who’s as ignorant as you are, who knows no more moves or techniques or fetishes or roleplaying games than you do,

In fairness, he didn’t say anything about not reading about sex or planning the wedding night in advance. He’s shown no evidence of being so wingnutty that he doesn’t think anyone should even be aware sex exists before they get married.

That stated, to suggest that ‘religious law was actually based on some wisdom of human relations’, is simply unsupportable by the evidence. The idea of statements needing evidence is both the basis of philosophy and science and represents a break with simply accepting what has been handed down to us from older generations. (Please note that we no longer jail scientists who have theories that differ with the religious authorities, although, granted, recently there has been a movement towards this notion.)

So if one accepts science, logic and emperical evidence as at least being the foundation for belief, one can state that he or she accepts the principles that began taking shape in our civilization with the Classical Greeks and went on to such intellectual high points and, I will say. spiritual breakthroughs such as what occured in the Renaissance that gave birth to true science and in the Enlightenment of the 18th century that gave birth to, for example, the American Constitution. If one denies all that and retreats into blind faith (perhaps in what might happenstantially be the religion of one’s heritage) then one is really is turning away from the precepts of the modern age and now post-modernism. That way leads to ethnocentric tribalism, ignorance, superstition, cruelty, war, and perhaps now, being that the planet has ’shrunk’, the end of all human civilization as we have known it. That way leads to fundamentalist nut-cases.

What I am arguing for here applies to human sexuality and sexual conduct as much as it applies to issues like the idiocy of the supremacy of one race over another. When I suggest that biologically we seem to be predisposed to certain sexual behaviors, I am also suggesting that finding out what really goes on within our brains and bodies would be a necessary component of any true wisdom about what is advisible for human sexual relations. What we are now finding out about the male and female human brain and its relationship to evolutionary strategy for our species is certainly interesting, often startling, sometimes perhaps off-putting, but always pertinent to discussions such as should someone engage in sexual relations before marriage. What the science indicates is that the debate in this context might be moot because on average boys and girls will have sex before marriage unless they are married at a very early age after puberty, say, thirteen as often was the case in biblical times. Does anyone still suggest that thirteen year olds should get married?

What forensic anthropologists have discovered is that always there was a great deal of hanky-panky going on outside of marriage both for men and women. From investigating genetic evidence in cemeteries it has been discovered that as many as one person out of ten people did not have the biological father the records state he or she had. This variance from the ‘religious rules’ seems to be true for all cultures, although the official rules governing what is allowed and what is not allowed varies tremendously from one culture to another as do the punishments. In some cultures the religious elders have sentenced the sister of someone who has been found guilty of a crime to be gang-raped. That too is their ‘way’.

So what way to the glorious sexual future? I’d say a way that promotes plentiful, wholesome, healthy sexual relations for all people. I’ll err on the side of freedom both politically and sexually. I’ll restate the science and state that, on average, orgasms are good for people. I’d say that the golden rule is the best rule and that is to ‘do unto others as you would wish them to do unto you’. I’ll suggest that if we apply that rule to our sexual conduct for the most part good results can be expected.

And here, I’ll add just one more claim. Many older people don’t want young people and especially young teenaged girls to have sex because they are jealous of their sexual power. They themselves may have had sexually repressive and barren earlier years and they can’t stand the idea of gorgeous young people opening themselves up to Eros.

The basic foundation of marriage is sexual commitment; which means not only monogamy but having saved yourself for marriage.

Two people who have saved themselves entirely for each other are connected in a special way that others are not. Divorcees and those who had premartial sex can be sexually committed out of loyalty to the other person or desire to stay in the marriage.

No, it’s not. It’s love. Sex doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with love nor does love necessarily have anything to do with sex. You can have good sex with someone you don’t love and love someone whom you don’t have sex with. That’s not to say that sex with someone you love isn’t better.

I could care less whom my g/f had sex with before we met. I’ve never asked her and she’s never asked me. We have a 20+ year relationship because we have love and it is love that leads to a commitment not commitment to love.