Yes, yes, we might as well start right off with a dash of condescension. After all, it's important that the "bread on the waters of discourse" is given enough spice! (And note, please, that my use of the word "condescension" here is not an ad hominem; it is an evaluation. If saying things like "maybe you are just having a bad day" doesn't qualify, I don't know what does.)

Knight50, we do not care about her opinion of you. We care about her.

No such assumption. In fact, it's clear that you do not seek affirmation here. But if you didn't hope that you would get a hearing, then you wouldn't be here. And it is the manner in which you "cast your bread on the waters" which hinders your getting the kind of hearing your ideas may deserve. It also causes unnecessary and unhelpful emotional reactions, and for someone who is so stringent about morality, your inability to perceive that as undesirable compromises your message. You may argue that it is a mark of maturity to refuse responsibility for others' feelings, and to an extent that's true. However, that does not imply that we can absolve ourselves of the responsibility to do what is in our power to maintain harmony. In fact, Paul suggested as much in Romans 12:18: "If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men."

Believe it or not, knight50, I'm not trying to attack you; I'm trying to help you. Of course, unsolicited help is often unappreciated, especially when the person one is trying to help is in denial about needing help.

I'm not at all sure that that's true. On the one hand, a wise person learns wherever he or she can. On the other, a person with self-respect doesn't stay in a poisonously degrading environment. (Note that this is a situation I present for argument's sake only; it is not intended to be any kind of innuendo relating to the present context.)

If you have "zero impact" on the lives of everyone here, then why on earth - pardon me, why in cyberspace - are you here at all? In effect, what I suspect you really mean by "completely irrelevant" is that because you can get away with behaving badly you aren't going to bother behaving well. That is the epitome of self-centeredness. (And note again, please, that this is not an ad hominem; it is an evaluation.)

In fact, I do not subscribe to situation ethics. Indeed, I happen to believe that, everything else being equal, sexual intercourse outside of marriage is always a worse idea than keeping it within marriage. But the fact that I agree with your overall thesis doesn't mean that I think your arguments in favor of it hold up.

On the false dichotomy, there are obviously other options besides "pre-marital sex is a healthy behavior" and "pre-marital sex is not a healthy behavior." For example, one could proffer "pre-marital sex is sometimes a healthy behavior, and sometimes not." The fact that you do not agree with that third option does not in any way negate its logical validity or self-consistency.

On the matter of situation ethics, I do not understand why you persist in redefining terms for your own use; all that accomplishes is to confuse and obscure your point. (I'm not interested in arguing with you on the meaning of terms like "promiscuity" and "situation ethics." Anyone who wants to know what they really mean can look them up.)

As for the greatest asset of the human species, I am not prepared to advance an argument. However, being made in the image of God - and being loved by God - have got to get nominations. In fact, love itself might qualify. Those are just ideas I'm throwing out; don't expect me to discuss the matter further.

I wish you growth in whatever outlet you find for yourself.

Yep GDP, I agree being made in God's image is our greatest asset, thought about that when I contemplated the issue after I reposted...guess I was focused on our capacities for successful ordering our lives...however, being made in God's image does = being cognitive...so maybe is saying the same thing in a way.

As for the other, appreciate your candor, you missed the mark on almost all counts, but not surprising you have little to go on.

gdp...On the false dichotomy, there are obviously other options besides "pre-marital sex is a healthy behavior" and "pre-marital sex is not a healthy behavior." For example, one could proffer "pre-marital sex is sometimes a healthy behavior, and sometimes not." The fact that you do not agree with that third option does not in any way negate its logical validity or self-consistency.

k....once again, I am saying there are only two conditions of sexual behavior....married, not married...there can be an infinite number (I suppose) of interpretations of those conditions, so what? People can and do advocate all sorts of rationales to justify various sexual choices....I don't care about that, my point is there is a principle independent of these various rationales....you either believe it, or not (make choices based on your belief) and experience the consequences accordingly. If you believe sexual intercourse while unmarried is ok under some conditions, than any rationale will do, in fact why even bother with a reason? What you have "proffered" is situational ethics....I am saying there are no situations, ever, it is an inviolable principle. You are mixing up principles with rationalizations, the argument is whether a black and white principle exists in this matter....I think there is, you seem to lean that way as well, not sure though.

As for my defining of terms, so what? I define em as best I can, and if there is conflict, then clarify the terms, once what I mean is understood, where is the problem? That is why we have discourse to eventually understand all viewpoints and choose one. I don't expect to always be understood, and have no objection to explaining myself, and I do...so what is the problem?

As for LL, your comment made no sense. Any healthy human being cares about others as people. You have no ability to do more than offer her your thoughts in this annonymous venue, as do anyone else, you have no right, or standing to patronize her anymore than RB be choosing to "protect" her, I am sure any adults here who feel a need for protection will ask you for it... otherwise you presume too much gdp...any healthy adult will be very annoyed by such action. It implies they are unable to take care of themself, and you are somehow better able to do so then they...true? Should someone jump into gdp life and attempt to control information you recieve, cause they think you can't handle it? Why do you and rb think LL is unable to handle her own feelings anyways?

Guilty of showing off. But I don't keep the dictionary at hand.

BuhBye!

T

Honestly, knight50, would you let anyone else get away with this kind of reasoning? It's not even a slippery slope, it's a sheer drop-off.

No, the argument is whether the only alternative to a codified rule is a complete lack of moral sensibility.

False.

In a fight, soldiers watch each other's backs. If they see one of their own in danger, they try to come to the rescue or at least give warning. They don't wait to be asked.

In a sport, teammates cover for each other.

In a marriage, a wife often appreciates unasked-for help from her husband or kids, voluntarily offered, more than she appreciates help she has specifically requested.

When someone is being bullied, they almost always appreciate someone standing up for them.

When someone is lying by the side of the road bleeding, they don't sue the person who comes unasked to their aid. Well, OK, sometimes they do, but that's a different subject.

In fact, it is only the unhealthy adult who doesn't appreciate assistance and support, whether needed or not, unless the "assistance" is in name only, or unless one is developing/demonstrating a skill.

Who's talking about controlling information? The only things you said which RebornMan tried to "protect" lordslady from were things she had already said herself, and the reason was simply because it is not constructive to beat up somebody who is already doing an adequate job herself. Most of his beef with you had to do with your perceived attitude and your arguments, not with whether lordslady should be permitted to hear your "information." In fact, in his own way he was harder on her than you were, because he didn't want to let her slough off responsibility on the guy who was just being true to his own moral code.

The issue isn't whether lordslady is unable to handle her own feelings - although she certainly expressed enough difficulty with that to suggest she could indeed use some help - but whether she should have to put up with your insensitivity in the process without anyone at least calling you on it.

Incidentally, I can't tell whether your attitude is really as bad as it seems. With my natural tendency to favor rationality over emotion, there have been plenty of times in my own history when I was mistaken for a cold-hearted cad just because I was oblivious to how my locutions were coming across. I didn't mean to be insensitive; I was just applying the Golden Rule. It seems very possible to me that you are to at least some extent in a similar position. What bothers me, though, is that you don't seem to care. When I found out someone had gotten hurt because of something I said, I tried hard to understand why, so I could try to prevent such occurrences in the future. You, on the other hand...

My laundry is done. I am going to bed.

well geez gdp, didn't know this was a war zone (or a soccer match, and even if someone tried to bully, is not possible here, clearly no has any "power", so bullying is kinda silly, and anyways LL seems pretty capable to me, you think not?). I thought it was just people talking, so rules of engagement are pretty clear, speak your mind and don't trash anyone...in any event I didn't bring LL into this...you and rb did, I simply called you on it..and the weak argument I am insensitive is really not for you to say, unless is about you If (any) of us alter our conveyance of information something is lost, I don't think anyone should alter anything, or be called on anything but the facts, guess we differ on our assessment of peoples ability to handle "insensitivity"....in fact I cannot see any possible way to invoke any of the scenarios you mentioned, don't blame you for trying to justify the position though, only human.

Frankly, I am somewhat surprised by these attempts to justify taking someone to task for their delivery, why would you do that? Challenge me on my logic, fine, fair game...but my delivery? That's silly, and counter-productive. I get that you "think" you are percieve some glaring shortcoming in my communication skills...ok, appreciate the feedback, but really, just for the sake of argument, what do I do...take a vote on how knight should convey info? What do I do about those who like this kind of frankness? So I become more pc, and I get letters bemoaning my lack of such...who do I please...you, them...or me? The only argument you have of any merit, is that if you seek to persuade someone to something, you should take the audience into account, and manipulate accordingly. I agree, that just simply isn't the case here...it is a diverse group of people responding to all sorts of approaches...me, I prefer people who convey info the way I do....completely, forthrightly, and with absolutely no conern for my feelings coloring their radical honesty...just want them to be civil. How about you?

Judgeing by your comments at beginning of your last reply, I see no point in responding, you clearly have no idea what I am talking about, I have clarified 3 times, and must conclude you either very well know what I am saying and are just messing with me, or we view the world so differently you are unable to discern my position. In any event, I need to finish my commentary on the original question RB and GG asked for, and move on.

Knight50 doesn't really debate, he simply resorts to calling others' positions untenable, silly or irrational. He complains that he is just trying to maintain an intellectual discourse, as quoted below:


Yet can't avoid the personal attacks that add nothing to the subject matter:


and then claims others are unfairly doing this to him when they call him on it. I type slow and don't have much time to respond more fully, bu twith him it is futile. A blog is his foremat - no need to address dissenting views. I don't think in real life he gets much of an audience for his method, either.

Gdp, you are eloquent and well reasoned. I like your style.

weis, you are right, I don't debate with people who have nothing to say but personal comments, such as yourself, and this kind of post. I am curious though why people do this, what purpose was served by this post other than to diss me? I get that you dislike me, got it the first post you made, why do you keep repeating yourself? btw, apparently you don't know much about blogs either, they are quite interactive if people want them to be.

What is it about people who simply won't stay away from people they dislike, instead following them about and snipping away at them...what kind of person does that anyways.....musing look.... Has always baffled me.

Don't you have something better to do weis? But I will say one thing is clear, seeking out people to vent your personal animus on says far more about someone, then the object of their vitriol. Why do you do that wies? Would you answer that about you, and your motivations, without making it about me (to justify yourself).

As for claims unfairly, do you read closely weis, you have essentially misrepresented (in all your replies) what I have said....even now you quote a statement, and turn it into something else...I assigned no motives to GDP, I simply said he missed the mark (refering to his guesses about what motivates me), I said nothing about him, or anyone ever, being unfair. In fact, I supplied the most logical rationale, he doesn't know me well enuf to figure me out.

Ok, now that's an ad hominem.

really? How so, people have bad days, it is part of our lexicon, we use it self-descriptively, as well as inquire of others. I was puzzled by gdp behavior, he was more aggressive and made less sense than his usual standards, thought maybe he was in a frustrated or irritable mood, so I asked if was due to a bad day.

Perhaps I misunderstand ad hominen. My take is it is something like you are a moralistic, holier than thou sort of thing. Your basic character asassination, or implying someone is internally deficient so therefore there reasoning is wrong (regardless of whether it is logically true or not)...dissing the speaker to win the argument, rather than refute the argument. Since Gdp was making personal comments (an has done so repeatedly I might add) about my motivations and so forth, seemed fair to ask a question about his motivations...you disagree MOS?

Ok, gg here is my thoughts, I wrote it more as a "position", I am trying to collect (and save) my arguments about various matters, instead of off the cuff....the reason for a blog is to clean up this stuff, so it is more complete and structurally sound, and post it one time (instead of repeatedly as in this kind of enviroment), and let people comment on my ideas....then respond...and so forth, maturing the process, and then (life permitting) write a book for those who seek information about such matters. If you (or anyone) are interested, I will provide info (may be months though before I actually get a relationship blog up, or whatever) at this address matingblog@yahoo.com

Ok, here is my off the cuff reply, which may have a few holes and whatnot in it...I really need to organize my thoughts rather than just respond extemporaneously.

all right Rb, fair enuf... and remember we are talking about committment here, not about people who view sex as just something to "do", or a part of dating.

I agree relationships are complex, and success depends on many things...I am not discussing many things, I am discussing one thing, pre-marital physical boundaries. Should we have them or not, I think we should....that does not mean one is gauranteed success, it is just one (very important) piece of the puzzle...so we cannot discuss whether pre-marital sex gaurantees (or not) successful relationships we can only discuss whether it makes successful outcomes more, or less, likely...it is my position, less likely, soooo if your goal is a healthy successful permanent relationship, the physical consummation comes after the committment, it celebrates and seals the committment.

If you do so prematurely, you create a major problem, you have sealed a committment which you are not committed too, this has a whole host of very bad consequences. I am not saying practicing abstinence before marriage gaurantees success, it just increases the odds of success.....so why wouldn't one want that? If one disagrees, and thinks otherwise, they must demonstrate how pre-marital sex increases the likelihood of success, and they cannot do that, not logically or statistically. Statisitics make it clear, those who practice abstinence pre-maritally have greater marital success. One of those key statistics is about "living together" a euphemism for regular free pre-marital sexual access. It is common knowledge in the relationship community that living together is an accurate predictor of reduced marital success.

I also have yet to find a published author of any note (meaning professional standing in the relationship community) that recommends pre-marital sex as contributing to successul marriage. In fact, they (pretty much) universally recommend abstinence until permanent committment (aka marriage or equivalent). One can haggle over whether that committment includes the legal document, cause it isn't about paperwork, it is about the psychology of the two partners, and whether the committment is truly made. Having a marriage license does not gaurantee emotional/spiritual committment one way or the other...it is a legal contract...however, IMO because this "status" is such an integral part of our social community, and because marital committment in part is a social committment too, see no reason to hedge on this, and I think there is risk in not actually being married...part of that risk is being played by someone who is skillful enough to mask their character deficiencies and really will not marry when the time comes...by refusing sexual intercourse until marriage, we protect ourselves from a large group of players (some will still marry you though, cannot depend on this alone to unmask a player... player = anyone unwilling to marry, but wants sex from someone, and will do whatever it takes to get it).

Medical science has also revealed sexual intercourse is much more than just an "act", it changes people, it creates biochemical bonds between the individuals. So why would we want to do that if we weren't gonna marry them? This bonding interferes with the pre-marital dating/courting process of healthy mate selection. In fact, as we all know, people are far more likely to lower their standards, overlook serious deficiencies and marry (or stay long term) with unworthy partners...if, sex is involved...why is that? Not to mention that the powerful hormonal responses of sex become addictive, so reduce the likelihood we will dump someone.

Psychological science has also revealed much about relationships, and sex clearly seriously complicates matters, in very bad ways. It creates dependencies, connections, expectations that are marital in nature, but yet we aren't married...we are playing married. Or people must depersonalize sex to recreational status (a difficult, if not impossible denial), so it does not change our single behavior. You are much more likely to be stalked or obsessed over if you have had sex with someone, only to break up with them later, as just one example of consequences...not to mention std's, pregnancies. The problem is, sexual reltionships are more likely to lead to marriages with unworthy people, and the reason is the bonding power of sex...that is not a good outcome, and sufficient reason all inself, to practice pre-marital abstinence. Someone will no doubt anecodtally suggest some wonderful marriage where there was pre-marital sex... That is a silly argument because it means nothing....some people are alive cause they did not wear their seatbelt, and were exjected from a burning car...that is not a sufficient reason to ever forgo fastening up your seatbelt. We are talking about behavioral choices here, not trying to second guess every situation...it is unlikely you will lose a worthy prospect cause of an abstinence belief....but it is very very likely you will have reduced marital success (as well as a succession of sex partners) if you make a "new" decision in each case because of how you feel.

Those who seek relationships do have different agendas, some only seek fairly shallow relationships, friends with benefits, (seems everyone wants sex) and they may marry you, they may not....or both might be users (users = those who want sex without permanent committment) which is there choice then. But for those who seek deep intimate relationships with someone, they must be built, one day at a time, the final surrender being yourself, your physical being. If you build the roof before you build the foundation, you have structural problems. Deep intimacy requires total vulnerability, you cannot be vulnerable while protecting yourself (ie no marital committment), and why would you choose to be completely vulnerable to someone you are not married too....and when you marry what do you have left to make that condition different than pre-maritally....nothing.

Lastly the only rationale remotely making any sense at all is the test drive therory...that wow I am in love, this person is the one, we will (probably) get married...but gee whiz, I kinda want to take them for a ride first, who knows I may not like how they steer. True, you will learn something, but the real question is, are you going to learn anything valuable, that can't be learned another way. The answer is no. There are two areas...one being "attitude" (the emotional, psychological side of sex), and "physical", someones actual preformance/skills etc. Attitude is something one should have ascertained allready, you should know the emotional/psychological profile of the person you are considering marrying, in addition pre-marital counselling requires a thorough and complete revealing of sexual attitudes to discuss and make decisions about. If someone is selfish, narcissitic, obsessive, controlling, etc, you will have seen this in their other behaviors, sex is no different....but, in order to "get" you, they may mask themself and show you what you want to see, so you learn nothing in a test drive. If they are a caring, considerate, tuned in partner...then you can conclude they will be similar sexually. If they actually have some hang-ups they will tell you these ahead of time, if they are open honest, if they are not honest, why are you marrying them anyways? Physical technique is not important, sex is very easy to learn, if you are enthusiastic and open you can learn to satisfy your partner in short order, and these days they have whole sections of bookstores devoted to demystifying sexual technique....you can explore and have great fun building your "married" sex life together. If instead, you require a particular prowess pre-maritally, and intend to test your prospects skills, and wait for improvement, what kind of person does that anyways? Not someone worth marrying, that's for sure. The point is, well matched, healthy people, have great marriages, and great marriages have great sex....lousy marriages have lousy sex. It isn't the sex, it is the marriage that makes the difference. Something else that most therapists teach, sexual marital problems are rarely about sex, they are about dysfunctional people. Personally interviewing someone sexually, to decide what kind of person they are, and whether I should marry them seems not only disgusting (why debase myself that way), but exceedingly dangerous, I prefer less um...invasive techniques for assessing a prospects character and fit.

I may write some more GG, but this covers the major points. The reason I interpret promiscuity as an attitude (as well as a behaviour) is as you can now see, it is about how you choose a marital partner, not just how many partners you have, or whether you have any partners at all...if you are willing to have pre-marital sex, for any reason, that is a promiscuous philosophy, and anyone who believes pre-marital sex is not a good idea won't date you, your value systems are too different for deepest connections...they may settle for you, if you respect their boundaries, but degree of intimacy is a function of your psychology, so why date someone who doesn't share (or is unable to conclude) such a basic concept....whether you sexually interview on the first date, or wait till the day before the marriage....is all the same, only the frequency varies. I would have to agree that someone who is sleeping with multiple partners, and always by the third date, is far far worse prospect than someone who maintains their boundaries longer, and only has one sexual relationship at a time, but is only a matter of degree. There is a lot more could write about the psychological dynamics and consequences of trying to mate with someone who does not share basic beliefs, but it all boils down to how deeply connected you need to be with someone, the deeper you seek, the more important it is to have similar boundaries.... and if you seek the deepest intimacy, you need two people who understand the reasons why pre-marital sex is not a good idea, and conduct their lives accordingly.

I am aware many people prefer more sexual access, and will do whatever they want, and I will not change their minds... there are lots of people who are uncomfortable with pre-marital sex (I reularly get grateful emails for articulateing their feelings, and providing support), but we live in a world of sexual pressure...my goal is simply to give those folks the rationale, and information they need to make a decision, or hold to a posiition (and why they should avoid dating those who don't believe in abstinence, and find that out early on...to avoid disasters like LL experienced).

In the end we all will experience the conseuquences of our choices.....people are free to do whatever they want, but they will pay the price, including me. Is so odd, I have no power to make anyone do anything, much less curb their access to sexual partners, but my simple opinions seem to incense those who hold the opposite view. I am sure they think I am foolish, and unreasonabley "moralistic", and doomed to only date frigid women...but that doesn't incense me, I can only surmise many who hold opposing views are fundamentally uncomfortable, but don't want to have to acknowledge their behavior may not be in there best interest. And it seems they resent I may encourage others to my view.

However, I am a truthseeker, and if someone can present a better logical argument in favor of promiscuity (or whatever we are going to call pre-marital sexual choices), leading to more successful marriage (than abstinence), rather than dissing the speaker, would be refreshing....but they can't, so they won't.

What's fair in an instance and what constitutes a fallacy ad hominem are two separate things. I'd certainly agree that if someone is using ad hominems in speaking to you, it's fair for you to do the same in return, but that doesn't change them being ad hominems.

"maybe you are just having a bad day" is definitely an ad hominem, just a little more subtly phrased than some others we've seen.

but why is it one MOS? That was my question. How does one inquire if someone is having a bad day? Have you ever asked that, or been asked (and objected to the question)?

[color:"blue"]I have heard before that the internet is a breeding ground of opportunity for the cerebral narcissist.

V. [/color]

yeah, and ankle biters too.... Be careful it is a jungle out there!!!!!

OK...with you so far..committed and real pre-marital realtionhips...gotcha, not casual dating


I do not agree with living together, did it once and quite frankly I found THAT alone to be more of a detriment to the relationship than the sex. Why you may ask? Because living with the SO made it easier to put off the ultimate committment...marriage. We were already living as a couple so what was putting it off another 6 months? A year? I believe that reason alone was the downfall and reason for failure, not the sex.

OTOH, the failure of my marriage had zero to do with the fact we engaged in pre-marital relations. ZERO, and that alone is enough for me to question whether or not it makes a difference at all. Once again, since we aren't discussing ONS's and casual sex here...we are talking about committed relationships.

Another thing though, I put little faith in statistics as a whole. I could go into a whole raft of reasons but simply put, at one time my job was to work with statistics and I could massage them to make anything possible. I could make a $20 stock drop look like a good thing if need be. I'm not doubting your source(what is it BTW?), but statistics, odds, and polls are of little interest to me. What I can see, feel and touch, what I have witnessed and lived are of far more value to me than say %68 of couples who did not engage in pre-marital sex are still married...too many variables.


The simple matter is I trust my own intuition but do I want my children engaging in PMS? Of course not, I know the pitfalls involved and I know it can cloud your thinking and thats why it should be postponed until true committment is reached. Which is what we are discussing. Adding the "player" in there is only muddying up the premise, there is no control over that anymore than there is over the serial cheater, drunkard or abuser. If a person can hide that behavior it is not the partners fault for taking them at face value and doesn't lesson that persons committment prior to finding out the truth. Let's toss that one off the table.


Since I brought my friend into this I will expound on it. I agree if you aren't interested in marrying someone and are looking for a lifetime commitment then you shouldn't be sleeping with them. The point I was trying to convey about my personal sitch (and do not confuse this with situational ethics) is that NEITHER one of us is looking for a committment, a marriage right now. We are 2 dear friends comforting each other, almost 13 years of friendship, we aren't a piece of meat to each other and certainly aren't being disrespectful to the other. I do not expect you to understand nor condone or even agree, OTOH, it is important that I convey that this isn't some floozy, and me some manwhore, that met in a bar last Saturday. Do I recommend this to everyone? No, and if you'd have asked me a year ago I would have probably said the same thing...nope, not a good idea. THe both of us are dating and while that may seem strange to you personally, we have an agreement and once it is done, it is done for good. Once we meet someone we are interested in knowing better, it is over.

{b]I have to get going....more later[/b]

So, Knight, where is the physical boundary for you? No intercourse, no penetration of orifaces, no petting, no frenching?

What have been the challenges when you stick to the ground rules you set for yourself?

I'm curious because when I read between the lines, your threshold on the physical contact seems low.

The principle is to not get ahead of a properly developing relationship...intercourse is the magilla gorilla. Applying the principle has 2 parts, one is the natural interactions of 2 people, there can be no "rules" about when to hold hands, kiss, sit close, touch, hug, play with hair...lots of things...in fact making rules about it is legalistic and counter-productive, it is part of the "feeling" development end of the relationship. The key here is honesty, openess, and not aggressing your partner, or making them feel uncomfortable...people will work these things out, and it will be different for each couple.

The other part is really about where to draw the intercourse boundary, is it simply not pentrating? What is the "reason" behind the physical boundary, when we understand that, we can pretty closely define a workable boundary (legalistically, which means we don't have to be situational about it). To do this, I have to digress a bit into what is actually happening between a male and female as they do the mating dance. That means we must consider the psychological nature of males and females...it is different, and therein lies the answer. But I have to go right now, will finish this later.

You didn't ask that. You commented that might be what was going on as a way of commenting on what he had to say. That's ad hominem.