Premarital sex-- immoral?

[trinacria]

Premarital sex-- immortal, inexcusable, sinful?
or
human nature.. ?

Also, what role does religion play in a person's attitude towards sex later on in life? This thread may also be able to be filed under psychology as well.

[Aeternitas]

Well, as you said religion plays a role here.

If marriage is considered as a sacred union before God and all the rest, then I suppose premarital sex is a sin and immoral.
However, if marriage is considered only a legalized situation on paper, then I suppose it is irrelevant.

[Agrippa]

Its not immoral, but the question should be, "should it be considered by the society immoral as a norm standard or not".

Because moral is part of our culture and should be useful in a certain sense like culture in general.
The human repertoire of behaviour was made for small group hunter-gatherers, it worked for that time and later cultural evolution worked partly quite good as well.
The human species is a species with an insecure instinct, thats why we developed culture, to bridge and finally outflank this weakness - so culture substituted our instinctive behaviour at least partially.

Culture has a goal, it has to bring in rules and norms to overcome the instinctive insecurity. Thats a creative process, but like the biological evolution, the cultural evolution can lead to a dead end.
The liberal society is a dead end and has to be reformed or if thats not possible destroyed.

If its about marriage, it makes sense from the group perspective, the question is how rigid should the rules be which decide about which sexual behaviour, especially of females, is acceptable for the moral of the group or not.

One thing we should clear up first if its about that is, should people live monogamous in all cases and should a marriage really last the whole life.

I think a compromise is the right decision, premarital sex especially of women shouldnt be accepted in the same way like its the case in our "modern" liberal-individualistic society of today, since we see to what this lead.
To an inflationary free sexual contact which corrupts both males and females and doesnt lead to stable partnerships or enough offspring.
Not to speak about the problems of stable social structures and the raising of children in a fatherless society.

Females dont believe in fix relationships in the same way they did anymore, at least if they made their various "experiences" and lost their belief in males or family, and most important, they dont have enough children. Males see sex just as fun and women as sexual objects in many cases, and no longer as their partner and future mother of their children.
But of course, thats a problem of our mobile, ephemeral, career-, job-oriented and hedomatic (hedonistic-materialistic) lifestyle in general and couldnt be stopped by living more virginal alone anyway...

Usually marriage should secure certain things. It produces partners for life, not just for sex, at least thats how it should be. It secures the woman if she's becoming pregnant and gives her help both from her husband and his family. The marriage should make sure that the woman will stay with the man and at least partially under the rule of the man and getting HIS children.
In most of the cases the spouse were not just a sexual partnership but a production unit (farmers, craftsmen etc.) in the past, which is much more stable than a partnership solely based on emotions and in the worst case of being enamoured, which is a feeling which usually doesnt last forever and is not the same as true love for a person.

That was lost during modernity and is of course a huge problem, especially in our times like explained above, because of all the factors involved.

[bocian]

Yes, immoral.

[Phlegethon]

About time mankind learns to go beyond the physical.

[Alkman]

Originally Posted by Phlegethon

About time mankind learns to go beyond the physical.

Physical means natural in greek

[Arjuna Durden]

normally, I never reply these kind questions but ...

umm, I don't think pre-marital sex is immoral per se.

Now modern society has become a liberal global meat market where brainless bodies tend to "drug and shag" everything they come across --not to mention some people putting drugs in other people's drinks and then rape them.

All this, like everything today, appears to be ten times worse in anglo-saxon countries, where most young women just dress up in "cheap bitchy" style that turns them into that, cheap sexual products --the episode of South Park mocking Paris Hilton and today's female teenage culture as "stupid spoiled whores" was really bright at critizing this matter.

So I think modern sexual culture is immoral and dehumanizing, not pre-marital sex because it's pre-marital.

Also, matrimony is just a contract nowadays, especially if it's a civil marriage. The sacramental institution is just half as serious as it was, for divorce it is allowed now in any circumstances.

So, if it is not sacred the immorality question loses a good deal of its significance.

[Phlegethon]

Originally Posted by Arjuna Durden

Also, matrimony is just a contract nowadays, especially if it's a civil marriage. The sacramental institution is just half as serious as it was, for divorce it is allowed now in any circumstances.

Not in my world. Marriage is the only sacrament between humans. Break it and you are excommunicated, no matter hwat the masonic New Age church thinks about it.

[Phlegethon]

Originally Posted by Alkman

Physical means natural in greek

Maybe. But didn't the Greek also invent unnatural sex?

[Alkman]

Originally Posted by Phlegethon

Maybe. But didn't the Greek also invent unnatural sex?

We may invent it but you perfected our invention.
We call it "German style" here

[Dr. Solar Wolff]

Here is one problem. We now live what would amount to two lifetimes 1000 years ago. Then, males would be married at 20, reproduce and die by 40. Grandparents, especially males, might have been rare. So, in that world it may be expected that sex could be confined to marriage.

Now, 40 is a half-way point. During a male lifetime he may marry at 20, have children, divorce at 40 and start all over again, and maybe again after that.

Of course men know this and are drawn by two opposite poles. 1. Wait and marry only one woman. 2. Marry young and often.

#1. May want to experiment before he decides.
#2. May be a better prospect to avoid premarital sex.

So which is better? #2 may leave a trail of ex-wives and fatherless children. Is that better than premarital sex?

[Gil]

Instead of calling it pre-marital sex I think multiple-partner sex is more appropriate since I see no immorality in having sex with an opposite sex adult if both are building a common future and they plan on staying together, regardless of being married of not. I think one might argue that to have many sexual partners and cheating on your mate is in fact immoral, not based on religious beliefs but in the simple moral structure which society and our family inducts into us.
IMO I think the choice is personnal but as a man I wouldn't choose as a wife a woman with a "diverse background"....even If I have a diverse background. Now, you might ask what right do I have to want a virgin-out-of-the-nunnery while being someone with a bohemian past? No right whatsoever but heck, I did find one!

[Aeternitas]

If people avoided pre-marital sex and stuck to one sexual partner - their husband/wife - abortion would also be, at least partly avoided, not to mention STDs. Perhaps that is another reason why it is considered morally right by some. Marriage itself is not viewed by too many as a sacred union before God which cannot be broken. Perhaps a lot of us are afraid or incapable of spending our lives with one person and that person only.

[Siegmund]

Here's a thought: how much of the argument in favor of premarital sex (or promiscuous sex, for that matter) is really only a rationalization for what people want to do anyway?

Rationalization - that seemingly limitless ability of the human mind to avoid looking truth in the eye - where would the world be without it?

[Gil]

ehehe, I almost feel patriotic....

[Milesian]

Originally Posted by Siegmund

Here's a thought: how much of the argument in favor of premarital sex (or promiscuous sex, for that matter) is really only a rationalization for what people want to do anyway?

Now that's cutting to the heart of the matter.
Seems modern "morality" is just a simple matter of changing everything to fit in with our weakness and lack of self-control in order to make it appear ok.

If it feels good or you want to do it, then it must be natural and thus ok.

[Awar]

Originally Posted by Milesian

Now that's cutting to the heart of the matter.
Seems modern "mor