Premarital Sex

[LaRêveuse]

I have to write a pursuasive essay arguing either for or against premarital sex. I've been searching on the internet and all I can really find are some good "against" arguments. Anyone have a good argument "for" premarital sex? I haven't decided which side I'll argue for yet, although I am not against it in any way.

[Spatula]

I think premarital sex is important because sexual intimacy is a big part of a relationship. Before you make a huge committment like marriage, you should know that you and your partner are compatible in all aspects, including sexuality. (I hope I explained that well...)

That's how I've always looked at it, at least. Feel free to take that argument and elaborate in your essay.

[Bravehearter]

I agree with Spatula.

I think that if a couple cant be intimate in bed with one another then that might cause problems down the road. Sure sex isnt everything but to most people yes it is very important.

[Deidre]

Pro-premarital sex? Well, here are a few, counting "sex" as oral, manual, anal and vaginal sex.

Develpment of a healthy sexuality
In the Victorian era there was a great number of cases of hysterical women. Sure, it was a bit fashionable, as was the depressed, suicidal look for men, but Dr. Sigmund Freud traced this back to their surpressed sexuality. These women were often married to partners, not chosen by love, with whom they'd had no sexual encounter prior to marriage. Then, they get married, and all trust, all sexual boding is dependent on the wedding night. From no sexuality to full sexuality. In one night. Can we say traumatic experience? Sexuality can then easily become something negative, and soon enough it is a duty, or simply a reproductive way. Whether sex becomes something negative or not, the physical intimicy of the couple becomes forced up to a rapid speed and the gradual trust of slow exploration is lost, unless the couple decides to skip the wedding night and take it slowly, within the borders of the marriage. I've never heard of that being the case, though.
By having pre-marital sex, you can slowly (keyword being can) develop a slower, more positive sexuality and it wont be awkward or taboo. Your sexuality is a big part of your person, and a positive sexuality (non-taboo, optimistic, healthy, non-forced) will influence other parts of yourself, in particular your marriage, since we're putting it against marital sex. If you have a healthy and strong sexuality, you are more likely to be able to talk to your partner about sexual issues, which opens a great passage to non-sexual communication.

Sexually compatible marriageWe've heard the stories a million times. People get married, and as they get older, one part wants to develop sexually; use toys, try role playing, sometimes dabble around with bdsm, water sports or switching partners... or "simpler" things, like oral sex, anal sex, "doggy style" etc. What if your partner isn't willing to develop with you? You might try it once and your partner doesn't like it, but you love it. It'll strain the marriage. Even worse... one partner might leave the other for someone their own sex. :P (or opposite, but let's add colour to the phrase 'sexual awakening').
A pre-marital sexual awakening makes this less likely to happen (it may still happen, though, as we develop as people).

[kewlgal99]

i agree, and i think you need to know a person pretty well to get married...how would you like to find out on your wedding night that he's absolutely awful in bed and causes you pain instead of pleasure, but refuses to change his ways? or what if he barks like a dog and runs in circles after orgasms? having sex is a sign of trust, and so is marriage. i don't think it really should matter if you have sex first, as long as you're in a good relationship.

[Lone Wolf]

I think sex has to do with love and there can be love without marriage.
I can see no sin in physical love like some people like to.


It's not that wonderful argument, but, hey, I'm a virgin. :mrgreen:






Lone Wolf

[reflection]

i'm on the fence about the whole thing.

on the one hand, my friend's mom married this one guy and she was a virgin, and the guy was so selfish in bed that she cried herself to sleep on her wedding night. so how a partner is in bed is an insight into their character. she has told her daughter NOT to wait till her wedding nite.

on the other hand, she prolly could of seen it coming. she's divorced from him now and he's been a total asshole to her.

and i've heard a lot of people comment on the fact that they wished that their wedding partner had been their one and only, so i really don't know. it seems like a good idea to wait, but i don't think i'm that strong, which upsets me...

[PepsiWonder]

Premarital sex is a good thing because of the reasons stated above (you know if he sucks or not) but it's also part of a healthy relationship. It also helps you figure out what you like to do in bed, and what you don't like. It's important to grow in all ways, and if you marry the guy you have sex with, then it's just one more way you're growing together, not apart.

[Crash Override]

"Marriage" is simply a state of mind, made tangible by a slip of paper signed by a justice of the peace, and allowing you certain tax benefits.

If two people are in love, and believe they will be together forever, what's wrong with having sex? Even if they DON'T stay together forever, statistically, 51% of marriages end in divorce, so it won't really change anything.

[reflection]

"Marriage" is simply a state of mind, made tangible by a slip of paper signed by a justice of the peace, and allowing you certain tax benefits.

If two people are in love, and believe they will be together forever, what's wrong with having sex? Even if they DON'T stay together forever, statistically, 51% of marriages end in divorce, so it won't really change anything.

marriage is not just a piece of paper. it is a binding commitment, with great repercussions, especially if you have children. it's people who don't understand that that make the divorce rate so high.

[Shocka]

marriage is not just a piece of paper. it is a binding commitment, with great repercussions, especially if you have children. it's people who don't understand that that make the divorce rate so high.

I'd just say you were blinded by innocence, but that last comment just annoys me. That's both unfair and vicious, but at the same time weak and amusing. Marriage is nothing. Tell me reflection, who has the better commitment; the couple who has loved each other for 40 years and who can still look into each other's eyes and feel only happiness - or the bitter couple who have been married with kids for 40 years and can't stand the thought of each other?

S h oc ka

[KevinStrickland]

"Marriage" is simply a state of mind, made tangible by a slip of paper signed by a justice of the peace, and allowing you certain tax benefits.

If two people are in love, and believe they will be together forever, what's wrong with having sex? Even if they DON'T stay together forever, statistically, 51% of marriages end in divorce, so it won't really change anything.

marriage is not just a piece of paper. it is a binding commitment, with great repercussions, especially if you have children. it's people who don't understand that that make the divorce rate so high.

THANK YOU, Reflection!

Sorry, but i've been installed with the thought that premarital sex is not honerable. I have been taught that sex is one of the greatest things about marriage, and having sex before marriage tants the image of marriage, and doesn't make the experience as wonderful. That is one of the reasons, to me at least, that divorce is on the dramatic uprise. With the free-love age of the 60's and 70's, sex has been looked upon as some sort of "end of date" thing, and with that out of the way, why should marriage be important?

Personally, i would like to thank everyone who posted on this thread, and at this board, are still virgins-by-choice, cause it seems like we are in the minority now. Sex isn't the most important thing of dating, it's just there. Sex shuoldn't be the most important thing of relationships.. it's just there. I, like Reflection, hope to, and am pretty sure i will, stay strong until marriage, and hope that the girl i meet feels the same way i do.

[Palmer of the Turks]

"Marriage" is simply a state of mind, made tangible by a slip of paper signed by a justice of the peace, and allowing you certain tax benefits.

If two people are in love, and believe they will be together forever, what's wrong with having sex? Even if they DON'T stay together forever, statistically, 51% of marriages end in divorce, so it won't really change anything.

marriage is not just a piece of paper. it is a binding commitment, with great repercussions, especially if you have children. it's people who don't understand that that make the divorce rate so high.

No... marriage is just a piece of paper.

Think about it... are you saying that the commitment only exists after the ceremony?
Personally, I wouldn't marry anyone I didn't have a marriage level commitment to already.

Marriage is a public display of a private commitment.

Honestly... if marriage WASN'T just a piece of paper, there wouldn't be a divorce rate now would there?

I've seen unmarried couples outlast married ones a LOT.

Anyone who automatically dismisses the love in an unmarried relationship as automatically inferior to married love is a fool and dreamer and, quite frankly, an ignorant asshole.

[BigJim]

No... marriage is just a piece of paper.

Marriage is a public display of a private commitment.

i sort of agree there.

marriage is great in the sense of security it brings from having that legally binding committment. you have agreed and shown in public that you will love, honor and respect the other person forever.

personal private committments aren't secure like that. in theory (and as intended by god) marriage was a LASTING bond that wasn't to be broken simply by walking away as is prevelent today.

marriage IS a big deal to me. much MUCH more than just a piece of paper.

[Lone Wolf]

[quote="reflection
marriage is not just a piece of paper. it is a binding commitment, with great repercussions, especially if you have children. it's people who don't understand that that make the divorce rate so high.[/quote]

ok to the children part, but for the rest reality has to make me agree with crash override...

I don't deny that some people take marriage seriously, but some are not everyone...

my law teacher in high school used to say that people just marry because they can get divorced... hihihi


I'd add that before divorce was an option there were plenty of others...

...of which telling she was a witch ain't the last one...



Lone Wolf :mrgreen:

[jkings]

I'll have to agree with Lone Wolf's teacher. Some people do get married because they can divorce. They don't have to stick with it and work it out.

I've heard couples say that they don't want to get married because they "Don't want to ruin it" If you can't stay together because of a promise you made to eachother and monogomy is so awful, what are you doing in a relationship anyway?

But, on the subject of pre-marital sex, I think it is up to the couple. Some people hold their intimacy very private therefore sharing it with only their spouse. But some people want that familiarity (sp) with their partner first.

[reflection]

"Marriage" is simply a state of mind, made tangible by a slip of paper signed by a justice of the peace, and allowing you certain tax benefits.

If two people are in love, and believe they will be together forever, what's wrong with having sex? Even if they DON'T stay together forever, statistically, 51% of marriages end in divorce, so it won't really change anything.

marriage is not just a piece of paper. it is a binding commitment, with great repercussions, especially if you have children. it's people who don't understand that that make the divorce rate so high.

No... marriage is just a piece of paper.

Think about it... are you saying that the commitment only exists after the ceremony?
Personally, I wouldn't marry anyone I didn't have a marriage level commitment to already.

Marriage is a public display of a private commitment.

Honestly... if marriage WASN'T just a piece of paper, there wouldn't be a divorce rate now would there?

I've seen unmarried couples outlast married ones a LOT.

Anyone who automatically dismisses the love in an unmarried relationship as automatically inferior to married love is a fool and dreamer and, quite frankly, an ignorant asshole.

ok, first off, i never said anything like what you stated in that last paragraph. and you really don't have to call anyone an "ignorant asshole," i never passed judgement on anyone here...but as far as everything else goes...

i have to hold to my previous statement. i have a family friend who had a long relationship, fourteen years, where he was with the love of his life. they never got married. she was diagnosed with cancer and died, and he has said that he regrets not marrying her. he hasn't had a real lasting relationship since.

marriage is a way to solidify the relationship, and make it known to the world. you could say why bother, as long as you two are happy with what you have? and i would say, because, if you truly love the person, why wouldn't you want to officially bind yourself to them forever?

i know that marriage doesn't make the commitment, that much is painfully obvious. there has to be a basis for the relationship before marriage, you say. well, duh, that's WHY people get married. i'm just saying that marriage is a step up from dating -- the stakes are higher if you decide to get out of it and the rewards can be greater if you stick with it.

[BigJim]

marriage is a way to solidify the relationship, and make it known to the world. you could say why bother, as long as you two are happy with what you have? and i would say, because, if you truly love the person, why wouldn't you want to officially bind yourself to them forever?

amen

[*after8*]

woah, we've really moved from the topick heaps here ay?
i'm just gonna add one thing quickly here about marriage..

the importance of marriage doesnt depend on YOUR views of it, it depends on the people INVOLVED. how many people have you seen gettin married early into their relationships because they're "in love" and then end up breaking up/cheating/etc?

the reason the divorce rate is so high is prolly cose people jump into marriage too soon, when they're still infatuated with the person etc.


now... onto the topick.

in one way sex before marriage is a great thing, cose everyone says sex is the 'most intimate bond' you can share with your partner, right? well wouldnt you want to feel as close as you can to your soon-to-be-husband/wife BEFORE you marry them? a persons sexual likes/dislikes/etc IS a large part of a relationship, and most people will find that once t hey sleep with someone their relationship changes heaps.

also, girls losing their virginity hurt, and the whole pain + guy goin off in like 30 seconds (hehe) iusnt TOO romantic, i'd say...

i'd write more but im SO SICK and im tired and sorry if this doesnt make sence.. i'll b back later

[Cutie]

well, first of all, if you are abstaining from sex until you're married, that's a whole chunk of your relationship that remains idle, not developing or expanding or deepening. Intimacy takes a relationship down an entirely different path and ultimately broadens it...if you're missing the physical part of a relationship, you're missing out on some awesome experiences that could make a relationship or marriage even better...why not experience pre-marital sex and help your relationship grow more?! That way it's a entirely healthy relationship :mrgreen:

[zoe]

also, girls losing their virginity hurt, and the whole pain + guy goin off in like 30 seconds (hehe) iusnt TOO romantic, i'd say...


So you're saying that you'd rather have that pain and unromantic stuff on your wedding night? That doesn't seem too enjoyable. I think it's perfectly fine for a couple to have sex before they get married if they want to make that commitment. To me, sex is more of a commitment than marriage is. Or, at least it should be. Marriage is a piece of paper, sex is a piece of yourself. I'd much rather have a perfect wedding night where no pain is involved and the sex is great, but I'd also want the person I just got married to, to have been my one and only. I guess that's a lot to expect, but if I loved the person, had sex with them outside of marriage, and we didn't stay together, I wouldn't regret it. Premarital sex is fine by me as long as it's not some irresponsible disgusting 15 year-olds.

[Wolf]

You're all going to hell.
Sinners.

ha
Enough picking on my own religion...

I've had sex myself, and I'm NOT married.. I think.. but there was that night in vegas.. and.. uh-oh

[reflection]

also, girls losing their virginity hurt, and the whole pain + guy goin off in like 30 seconds (hehe) iusnt TOO romantic, i'd say...


So you're saying that you'd rather have that pain and unromantic stuff on your wedding night? That doesn't seem too enjoyable. I think it's perfectly fine for a couple to have sex before they get married if they want to make that commitment. To me, sex is more of a commitment than marriage is. Or, at least it should be. Marriage is a piece of paper, sex is a piece of yourself. I'd much rather have a perfect wedding night where no pain is involved and the sex is great, but I'd also want the person I just got married to, to have been my one and only. I guess that's a lot to expect, but if I loved the person, had sex with them outside of marriage, and we didn't stay together, I wouldn't regret it. Premarital sex is fine by me as long as it's not some irresponsible disgusting 15 year-olds.

you were preaching to the choir there, *after8* agrees with you.

however, i'm not sure i do. sex is a piece of yourself, it wouldn't be easy to deny that. so why are you giving yourself away to someone before you know they will stay with you forever? also, most women aren't fully able to enjoy sex until they are older. most of my friends who have had sex haven't orgasmed from it, they are just desparately trying to connect with someone, and it seems so sad. i'm really not trying to be condescending about that at all, i love my friends so much and it hurts me to see them so unhappy. there are plenty of girls who do that, i know it. i just don't think sex should be taken so lightly and performed so liberally. i know i'm taking a conservative standpoint, please don't flame me for it.... i'm coming off as uppitty, i just don't know anyway else to put this...

[chiukit]

<span style='color:darkblue'>There was a point, but I forgot who first brought it up. Was it Kuky? Kuky gave really well-stated arguments in these premarital sex debates. But anyway, if you abstain from sex until your wedding night... you don't have anything to compare your partner with. What if you thought he/she was great in bed... but then years later you realized he/she wasn't? Wouldn't you feel so... cheated out of something? And I agree with *after8*, I don't want my wedding night to be composed of "oww that hurts", "no I don't like it this way", and other shit like that. I'm for premarital sex (maybe that's a biased answer because I'm not a virgin). Marriage does not make the love that exists within a relationship. Like Crash said, marriage is just a piece of paper. But also like Kuky has said time and again before, marriage is a symbol of love. You marry a person because you're in love. You marry a person because you believe that person you will stand next to is the one.


I never really understood the concept of not having sex until you're married, and I was brought up a Roman Catholic. Most of the romance, most of the intimacy in a relationship should occur before marriage. This is so that you're already comfortable, you feel you know each other so well there's this sort of psychic rapport between the two of you. And I think, you can't have a deep enough closeness to your partner without this intimacy... without sex. I haven't had sex with my girlfriend, and we're really close - there's no doubt about that. But I feel that we will be even closer if we did, though of course, I'm not rushing anything. I wouldn't marry her until I achieve that level of closeness and comfort...</span>

[reflection]

the other danger with having sex before marriage is that it can become totally central to the relationship. sex is important in a marriage, no doubt about it, but it isn't the whole relationship.

[Palmer of the Turks]

marriage is a way to solidify the relationship, and make it known to the world. you could say why bother, as long as you two are happy with what you have? and i would say, because, if you truly love the person, why wouldn't you want to officially bind yourself to them forever?
Personally... in my view... marriage should not change ANYTHING AT ALL in the relationship. It shouold not strengthen the bond or solidify it or deepen your connection or whatever other malarkey people toss out.

If you don't have that level of commitment beforehand... you shouldn't be getting married.

As I said before... public display of a private commitment.

If marriage is improving anything, then that's a warning sign in my mind.
If you feel more secure in marriage... that's a big one. Why is there insecurity to begin with?
How is marriage improving ANYTHING, honestly?

Someone... anyone... tell me what's better about being married (from a strictly non-religious standpoint) than being unmarried but commited.

why wouldn't you want to officially bind yourself to them forever?
Why should I need to? Why would I want to? Honestly... not one of you has given a compelling reason for marriage over non-married commitment.

sex is a piece of yourself, it wouldn't be easy to deny that. so why are you giving yourself away to someone before you know they will stay with you forever?
I give a piece of myself away with every poem I write, every story I tell.
I give a piece of myself away with every hug I give, every smile to a stranger walking down the street.
I give a piece of myself away, along with the fiver to the homeless man downtown.
I give a piece of myself away with every piece of advice I give (and that's a lot)

The piece of yourself is LOVE... and love is infinite. You can't run out... there;s no limit to it.
And that love is MINE. No matter who I give it to, it still belongs to ME.
I am not lessened by giving my love.

I am not "giving myself away" to someone when I make love with them. I am sharing my love, which is infinite.
Having sex with someone, even for my first time, does not permanently give them something I cannot keep.
It doesn't matter if they are in my life for 6 hours or 6 lifetimes... if the love is there, I see no wrong.

And anyways... by your own reasoning... the human race should die off soon.

You CANNOT know someone will stay with you forever. Period.

End of discussion.

It's rather proven that even marriage means little... with the divorce rate over 50%.

Honestly, that one little fact shoots your whole argument right down the tubes.

You save yourself. You get married. You have sex. Yay you.
Then he divorces you. You're now single and alone and not a virgin.

Tell me... how is this different from the woman who had sex with her boyfriend, but never got married, and they subsequently broke up.
I don't see any "forever" going on. Do you?

Find me a real, true difference and it just *might* give your "not before marriage" arguments some sembalance of real validity.

In all honesty, every pro-marriage argument is based on one of two things.

Religion (and my religion says pre-marital sex is PERFECTLY ACCPETABLE... hell, even the Lutherans acknowledge that pre-marital sex isn't inherently wrong or sinful anymore, so that argument doesn't hold much water anyways)

And sentimental emotion.

No hard facts. No real reasons. No substantial arguments.

Nothing.

Can you counter this? C'mon... I dare you.

Come up with a good, solid, reasoned argument for waiting till marriage that isn't based on emotion or religion.
I don't think you can.

[Wolf]

I would get married not to make myself or my spouse feel comfortable, it would be to let everyone know how much we love eachother..

[reflection]

why dare me to answer? you're not going to shatter my little world with your arguments. you make some good points, and while i will take them under advisement, i'm still going to believe what i want to.

first off, i believe that a person can marry any number of people and be happy with them for the rest of their lives. there isn't necessarily that one true love in the universe. so by that reasoning, if someone is careful who they marry, it should last till the end. granted, people make mistakes, and that is what divorce is for. but the modern mentality is usually to realize you're not happy and just bail out.

i haven't mentioned religion yet, and i'm not going to, so don't you worry your pretty little head about it. i'm quite aware that i can't quote the bible or something and be making an argument that everyone will believe.

I give a piece of myself away with every poem I write, every story I tell.
I give a piece of myself away with every hug I give, every smile to a stranger walking down the street.
I give a piece of myself away, along with the fiver to the homeless man downtown.
I give a piece of myself away with every piece of advice I give (and that's a lot)

The piece of yourself is LOVE... and love is infinite. You can't run out... there;s no limit to it.
And that love is MINE. No matter who I give it to, it still belongs to ME.
I am not lessened by giving my love.

sex is very different from writing a poem. and sex in itself is not love. in having sex, people are craving intimacy, and intimacy is so much more than sex.

And anyways... by your own reasoning... the human race should die off soon.

wha? please explain this one to me.

let me say one thing, and i want everyone to stop using it as an argument against marriage. i know that there is a very strong relationship before marriage. that is, quite obviously, why people get married, as i have stated before.

i'm not quite sure how effective arguing about this is going to be. if you feel i have ignored one your significant points, number them next time and i will do my best to answer them.

[Barefoot Matt]

In the Victorian era there was a great number of cases of hysterical women. Sure, it was a bit fashionable, as was the depressed, suicidal look for men, but Dr. Sigmund Freud traced this back to their surpressed sexuality.
Although I do agree with your arguments, I feel I should point out that Dr. Sigmund Freud traced almost every known psychological problem back to an issue of childhood sexuality. He proposed ideas that even now are still being debated, even going so far as to suggest that every child's development is affected by a strong sexual desire for the parent of the opposite sex. The psychological community today is undecided as to the truth of Freud's many theories due mostly to the fact that they do centre around, or even obsess over sexuality, possibly due to Freud's own abnormal childhood development. So, while it is possible that female hysteria in Austria during the Victorian era may have been the result of repressed sexuality, it is a good idea to take it with a grain of salt, as they say.

Another thing to consider is that even if it were true back then, Freud's theory may not apply today. If you think about it, females growing up in today's society who are not having sex before marriage are still on average much more expressive of their sexuality than they were in the Victorian era. Girls are allowed to have boyfriends, kissing in public is no longer taboo, people actually flirt, and those saving sex for marriage will often still explore other sexual activities. I think it would be very hard to make the case that women today who choose not to have sex before marriage are sexually repressed (and the large majority of those who don't have sex are choosing rather than being forced into celibacy as they once were... chastity belts from the middle ages come to mind ;-))

[Am I tight or not?]

You save yourself. You get married. You have sex. Yay you.
Then he divorces you. You're now single and alone and not a virgin.

Tell me... how is this different from the woman who had sex with her boyfriend, but never got married, and they subsequently broke up.

she got less money out of it? marriage is great for women casue when they divorce their husbands get raped in court...

(nothing against women, just against the laws)

[Deidre]

Another thing to consider is that even if it were true back then, Freud's theory may not apply today. If you think about it, females growing up in today's society who are not having sex before marriage are still on average much more expressive of their sexuality than they were in the Victorian era. Girls are allowed to have boyfriends, kissing in public is no longer taboo, people actually flirt, and those saving sex for marriage will often still explore other sexual activities. I think it would be very hard to make the case that women today who choose not to have sex before marriage are sexually repressed
Hence it does say "in the victorian era", but, I think you are wrong on one account here. Far from all girls are allowed to have boyfriends, and while kissing in public isn't anymore the taboo (*gasp* what will the neighbors think... and the minister?! and our social status will fall!) it was, there are many who can't do that... or flirt, or explore sexual activities. I know girls who aren't allowed to have guy friends, because it can only lead to haram, or because of "highly moral" parents... and they have no ways of sneaking around.
It's not all of society, just societies within society, though, yes.

[GoodWitchOfTheNorth]

Come up with a good, solid, reasoned argument for waiting till marriage that isn't based on emotion or religion.
I don't think you can.

Taxes. :D

What do I win??

Not that I'm arguing for or against, but I found one.

[Palmer of the Turks]

first off, i believe that a person can marry any number of people and be happy with them for the rest of their lives. there isn't necessarily that one true love in the universe.
I'm of that camp myself, actually.

so by that reasoning, if someone is careful who they marry, it should last till the end. granted, people make mistakes, and that is what divorce is for. but the modern mentality is usually to realize you're not happy and just bail out.
Aside from the different use of words, I fail to see a difference here.
What, pray tell, is the difference between divorce and "bailing out"?
In both cases (?) the situation is the same.
There is a relationship. It ain't working. It's ended.
Yeah, if you're careful, it *should* last till the end.
But that's not reality. And quite frankly, getting married doesn't increase the chances any.


i haven't mentioned religion yet, and i'm not going to, so don't you worry your pretty little head about it. i'm quite aware that i can't quote the bible or something and be making an argument that everyone will believe.
That was mainly aimed at BigJim... but in general, religion is a poor reason for anything. After all... not matter how popular your religion is... at least 2/3rds of the world doesn't agree with it.


sex is very different from writing a poem. and sex in itself is not love. in having sex, people are craving intimacy, and intimacy is so much more than sex.
Sex is not necessarily intimacy either. Ask any porn star or prostitute if what they do involves the least shred of intimacy.
And there are a lot of people outside the sex industry who can and do seperate sex from intimacy and emotion.

In any case, this reveals another logical fallacy.
Marriage does not equal intimacy either.

And anyways... by your own reasoning... the human race should die off soon.

wha? please explain this one to me.
You missed the rest of the quote, babe. Lets review he thread.
sex is a piece of yourself, it wouldn't be easy to deny that. so why are you giving yourself away to someone before you know they will stay with you forever?
And anyways... by your own reasoning... the human race should die off soon.

You CANNOT know someone will stay with you forever. Period.

End of discussion.

It's rather proven that even marriage means little... with the divorce rate over 50%.

Honestly, that one little fact shoots your whole argument right down the tubes.
You essentially state that you shouldn't give a piece of yourself away (via sex) to someone before you know they will stay with you forever.
But it is impossible to know that ANYONE will stay with you for any period of time, let alone forever. And Marriage is conclusively proven to have no direct bearing on whether or not it "lasts forever", as the divorce rate is huge.
Ergo, you shouldn't be having sex with anyone, as you really can't be sure.

No sex = no species.

Mind you, you completely ignore the option of an unmarried couple knowing they're commited forever and ever... but not getting married, as they know it's not needed.

You also seem to erroneously equate a permanent commitment with some mystical compulsion to get married.

let me say one thing, and i want everyone to stop using it as an argument against marriage. i know that there is a very strong relationship before marriage. that is, quite obviously, why people get married, as i have stated before.
Yes... but the thrust of my argument is to point out that there is very little, if any, real difference between marriage and a commited unmarried relationship.
And that point still hasn't been addressed.

i'm not quite sure how effective arguing about this is going to be. if you feel i have ignored one your significant points, number them next time and i will do my best to answer them.
I'll come back tomorrow and number them then, since I don't feel you've addressed very much of anything.

For now, tackle the above paragraph.

[BabyDiva]

Ok, I've stayed out of this long enough. If this post makes no sense it's because I'm sick and sleep deprived, so bear with me.

I'm anti-premarital sex for many reasons.

1. Both of my sisters engaged it in. The oldest ended up marrying the 2nd or 3rd guy because he happened to be the one who got her pregnant. The sex was good but they have a miserable marriage because the love that SHOULD be there isn't. That intimacy meant crap in their marriage. The middle sister got pregnant with the guy she lost her virginity to, married him and thankfully they have a pretty good marriage. The fact still remains that those situations led to people getting pregnant and having to give up a life they'd planned. And yes, both of them used some method of protection. One was on the pill the other used condoms.

2. Sex is THE most intimate physical act you can share with a person in your life. I want only one person to share this with for many reasons. #1. There's an emotional bond formed between the couple and years later if I get married to someone else, I don't want that emotional bond to wear on me in my marriage. #2. I personally don't WANT to be able to compare my future husband to someone else. That would mean that I would constantly have another guy in mind when he's making love to me. That would be counterproductive and cheating him out of the fullest of my intimacy.

3. Everyone I have talked to, friends, who waited until their wedding night to have sex said they would NEVER have wanted it any other way. That entire night is nothing but discovery about the other person. I honestly feel that there is a chance that when you wait you know beyond a doubt you're ready, so you won't be as tense and it MAY just hurt less. (Give me credit, I'm trying to avoid using Biblical references so ya'll don't crap on me).
Those of my friends who have had sex before they were married often claim their wedding nights to be more boring than romantic because you already know what is going to happen. They also tell me that they would rather have not had sex with so-and-so because it made them have an attachment to them in such a way that they will never be able to regain that part of themselves. Most the people I talk to say they would RATHER have waited.

4. This whole thing about it increasing intimacy is, while somewhat true because it IS physical intimacy, crap because you're saying that two people abstaining can't be that intimate with each other before they are married. You can experience intimacy on many different levels. There's the physical, mental, emotional, spiritual, etc etc... No level is better than another, but they all add up to make each other more special. I'm a firm believer that if all the other levels are high and intimate, the physical can wait until you're married. The physical is enhanced by the others.

I am not saying those of you who are not virgins are wrong, not saying that those of us who are virgins are better or anything. I'm saying that you cannot tell me that it's better before marriage when none of you are married. Pain and discomfort varies from person to person, as does horror and romance stories of wedding nights. It's all a matter of what your beliefs are and where your own priorities are. Marriage should be mroe than just a signed piece of paper, then it wouldn't be so easy to break. Just keep in mind that there are more sides to just being physically intimate, and that remaining a virgin until your wedding night is not necessarily sentencing yourself to torture. It could be something completely and totally wonderful. Personally, I can't wait to find out.

[BigJim]

Aside from the different use of words, I fail to see a difference here.
What, pray tell, is the difference between divorce and "bailing out"?
In both cases (?) the situation is the same.
There is a relationship. It ain't working. It's ended.
Yeah, if you're careful, it *should* last till the end.
But that's not reality. And quite frankly, getting married doesn't increase the chances any.

as you oft mention, there is no REAL difference. it's just a public showing of a private committment. fine. that's great. but i feel that the public expression makes a BIG difference when it comes to staying committed and loyal to that person.

why?

if no one else knows about the committment, if it's not a public knowledge, there is less pressure and reminders to make it work. if there's things not going your way, if there's no outside knowledge it makes it easy to just bail and drop the ball, move on, or even cheat.

however by marrying and making it public to all that you want to be with the person forever, it places a mark on you to achieve that, to strive to make it work. you dont want to disappoint others, or have others point the finger at you if it collapses. if you're just together and you break up, most people think 'oh well' and move on. but if you're married people wonder why, they might try to help reconcile you and provide assistance.

why? because that public display tells everyone how you feel.

while it may not make a difference to the present relationship it can have a marked difference down the track.

as for security, a lot of females have concerns about this. to them having that public committment eases their heart in the knowledge that you will publicly work to continue together, working to remain in love and loyal to each other.

i'm out of time now (go to go!!), but that will suffice for now.

[EaCS]

BigJim, if a relationship requires the pressure of knowing that they are bound by marriage to keep it together then the relationship isn't very strong in the first place.

Reflection, I don't see why you think that being married to someone ensures their commitment to you, because it doesn't. I think the divorce figures show that perfectly well.

[BigJim]

BigJim, if a relationship requires the pressure of knowing that they are bound by marriage to keep it together then the relationship isn't very strong in the first place.

you tell me whether you think it'd be easier and less hassle to dump a girlfriend than divorce someone? you would naturally try to make a marriage work harder, wouldn't you?

it's not a matter of NEEDING the pressure, just that some peer pressure is beneficial, such as with this case.

[hunny]

This has gotten somewhat offtopic,it's more a debate about the importance of marriage, but that's ok.
I think marriage is important. I want to be married someday. Especially if you want to have kids, which I do, then I think it's important to be married to their father.
For people who say 'marriage is just a piece of paper', and you can be just as committed with out that, then I ask you this: IF you say you love the other person every bit as much as if you were married to them, then what if THEY want to get married? What if your gf or bf wants the security, and the legality of a marriage, then , would you do it?
If you say no, then I think that says something about your level of 'commitment.' And it just seems to me that if that's your mindset, then you really aren't thinking in terms of 'forever', which ideally is what you're supposed to be doing when you enter a life partnership with someone.

[Palmer of the Turks]

The importance of marrige part isn't the actual point of the debate, thoug it is central.

Fact is... there is no definitive that premarital sex is "worse" in any way than waiting for marriage because there is no definitive proof there is a real difference, relationship-wise, that marriage is really any different from a simple commited relationship.

-----------

Jim: You seem to be assuming that by not being married, a couple conceals the fact they are indeed a couple from everyone.
Cuz i'm in a commited relationship, and more people know it than I could ever invite to a wedding.

Our commitment is VERY public. it's just not formalized in that specific manner... especially considering that we feel the bond of our hearts is stronger and more significant than marriage can be anyways.

And, like it's already been said... anyone who believe marriage is going to make their relationship "more secure" is a divorce statistic in the making.

http://www.wordscapes.net/extramarital-affairs.htm

60% of the people surveyed here admitted to at least one case of extramarital sex.

[EaCS]

BigJim, I'm not saying that it's no harder to get a divorce than to dump a girlfriend, I'm saying that I don't think that's a very good reason for getting married. Getting married because you think it'll make it harder for you to be dumped isn't a very good reason to do so in my opinion. Even then, I wouldn't say it would be much more hassle as you say to seperate from a wife but not divorce than to dump a girlfriend.

[reflection]

i'll just say this. there are many people who regret having sex before ever being committed to a real relationship with real love, i hope you'll grant me that.

getting married is a concious decision that you want to make a life with someone. even if you are in a long-term relationship, when do you reach that point where you know it is permanent? for the great majority of people, the decision to get married is precipitated by many questions, such as, "will this person be a good parent?" etc. (unless the guy got the girl pregnant, which is violating rule number one, anyway). i'm saying that there should be proof of commitment before sex.

ok, Palmer, i get that joke/comment now. i do know that there is no way to make someone stay with you forever, i am familiar with the practice of divorce. and you misunderstood what i was saying. i was stating that the current prevalence of divorce was due to modern person's mentality that if something isn't working, just bail out, i.e. just get a divorce.

and you can't really say that getting married doesn't decrease the chances of a relationship breaking up, because where are your statistics for that? i don't believe that anyways.

ok, so where's that list for me?

[reflection]

actually Palmer, we have a little problem here. there is the original question of premarital sex. now, you seem to have no problem with casual sex. but we can't really hold a discussion on premarital sex when you don't believe in marriage. so what are we going to focus on?

[Palmer of the Turks]

i'll just say this. there are many people who regret having sex before ever being committed to a real relationship with real love, i hope you'll grant me that.
Ahh... but therein lies the crux of the issue.
I never said anything about pre-relationship sex. Just pre marriage.
Unless, of course, you're defining "real relationship" strictly as "marriage", which I don't believe you are.
And honestly... what defines a "real" relationship?

Maybe you look back on your BF who you lost it to in HS and go "what was I thinking". But it may have been that the love and relationship were very real, at that point. Love, emotions and expectations grow and change.
The Crimson Mage (long ago) posted about this...

When she was 14... she was in love, more than ever before... it was glorious and nothing could be stronger.

When she was 16, she was in love again. It was powerful and intense... and looking back to when she was 14... that old love paled in comparison to what she felt now.

When she was 18... love struck again... the greatest love she had ever felt. It was greater than her previous 2 loves combined and then some... they were like mere crushes compared to what she had now.

But... each of those previous loves were the greatest, finest love she had ever had... or ever could.

At that time.

Just because her love now is so much stronger and deeper, does that invalidate the previous loves? She, and I, don't think so, because you have to compare them in context. Doing it that way... you see that all 3 loves were actually equal, because they were the greatest she could ever have.

Maybe the love you had for your BF in HS is nothign compared to what you have for your current husband... but that doesn't mean it wasn't love after all now, does it?

Yes... some people regret it. But in almost all cases, it's because their partner turned out to be other than he appeared.

In almost all cases... it's a matter of regretting who, not when.

getting married is a concious decision that you want to make a life with someone.
Moving in together is as much the same decision. It has ALL the same ramifications, except those specifically relating to the marriage ceremony, and divorce.
You can still be sued for alimony after a breakup, and child support. You still get spousal benefits as if you were married.


even if you are in a long-term relationship, when do you reach that point where you know it is permanent?
How is this different from the marriage issue at all?
Couple 1 decides it's permanent and gets married as a result.
Couple 2 decides it's permanent, but doesn't bother getting married.

Big difference.

i'm saying that there should be proof of commitment before sex.
See... but proof of commitment CAN be marriage, but it can also be a lot of other things.
Marriage = Commitment, but commitment doesn't always equal marriage.

Fact of the matter is... your above sentence, combined with mine, has been the entire thrust of my argument this whole debate.

Your initial stance was marriage-only.

i was stating that the current prevalence of divorce was due to modern person's mentality that if something isn't working, just bail out, i.e. just get a divorce.
So you advocate staying in a miserable, loveless relationship... just because it's marriage?

and you can't really say that getting married doesn't decrease the chances of a relationship breaking up, because where are your statistics for that? i don't believe that anyways.
There are no statistics for this that I know of... but I do know this.

Most relationships do not work. Simple fact. But marriage makes it a lot more difficult to get out of a failed relationship...
The end result is the same, but the process is different.

ok, so where's that list for me?
Do I even need it anymore?

actually Palmer, we have a little problem here. there is the original question of premarital sex. now, you seem to have no problem with casual sex. but we can't really hold a discussion on premarital sex when you don't believe in marriage. so what are we going to focus on?
I did debate the issue quite well... I focussed on the lack of differences between marriage and commited relationships.

[BigJim]

BigJim, I'm not saying that it's no harder to get a divorce than to dump a girlfriend, I'm saying that I don't think that's a very good reason for getting married. Getting married because you think it'll make it harder for you to be dumped isn't a very good reason to do so in my opinion. Even then, I wouldn't say it would be much more hassle as you say to seperate from a wife but not divorce than to dump a girlfriend.

i never said it was a reason to get married, i just said that it was an advantage of being married.

[reflection]

But... each of those previous loves were the greatest, finest love she had ever had... or ever could.

At that time.

Just because her love now is so much stronger and deeper, does that invalidate the previous loves? She, and I, don't think so, because you have to compare them in context. Doing it that way... you see that all 3 loves were actually equal, because they were the greatest she could ever have.

Maybe the love you had for your BF in HS is nothign compared to what you have for your current husband... but that doesn't mean it wasn't love after all now, does it?

you don't think that maturity has anything to do with it? the loves are not equal, and i dont' think she is a very good example. she is still develpoing, she can't fully appreciate what love truly is. it is very possible that when she is 40, she will not regret a relationship she had at 30 and 35, but she will regret jumping into "love" at such an early age as 14.

Yes... some people regret it. But in almost all cases, it's because their partner turned out to be other than he appeared.

In almost all cases... it's a matter of regretting who, not when.

i disagree. i'm sure that there are people who regret "when" rather than "who." there are probably many people who wished they had had the same relationship with the same person a few years later so that they could have a better grasp of what they were getting into.

Moving in together is as much the same decision. It has ALL the same ramifications, except those specifically relating to the marriage ceremony, and divorce.
You can still be sued for alimony after a breakup, and child support. You still get spousal benefits as if you were married.

i remember a statistic i read that couples who move in together before they get married have a greater chance of breaking up. does that have any implication here?


So you advocate staying in a miserable, loveless relationship... just because it's marriage?

what i'm saying is that in many cases people wallow in their misery and just let things happen to them. they don't make an effort to fix things, a sincere effort. i'm saying that people give up too easily, and it goes back to my whole idea that people can be happy with more than one person, which you agreed with. if it is truly unsalvagable, then divorce is fine, but for a large part, happiness is what you make of it. if you decide to be miserable, you will be. but you have to have a good grasp of what you want in a partner, and choose well from the beginning.

ok, so where's that list for me?Do I even need it anymore?

do you think you could stop making these smart-ass, cocky comments? i'd appreciate it. it really has no relevance to the argument -- it's superfluous and unnecessary.

[Palmer of the Turks]

you don't think that maturity has anything to do with it? the loves are not equal, and i dont' think she is a very good example. she is still develpoing, she can't fully appreciate what love truly is.
Ah ha... but see, here you are trying to decide what love is, and for another person, no less.
The fact was, at each of those points, she experienced the greatest love she had ever had. And you say it's not really love, because she was young?
She herself looks back on each one and still considers them true loves... because they were.
What happens in the present doesn't affect the past.
You're trying to judge an inherently non-quantifiable concept, not only in quantified terms, but by applying a uniform metric to vastly disparate experiences.
This isn't comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and nuclear submarines.

it is very possible that when she is 40, she will not regret a relationship she had at 30 and 35, but she will regret jumping into "love" at such an early age as 14.
It's also equally possible that at 40, she won't regret a relationship she had when she was 14.
What about the woman who "falls madly in love" with a guy when she's 12 and screws his brains out.
She's gonna regret it? She doesn't know what love is?

What if they go on to get married, and die still married after 65 years?
Will she regret it? I rather doubt it.

Was her love not real? She couldn't appreciate it? *shrug*
Over the years her love may have grown and deepened and strengthened. But that does not mean the earlier incarnation was not love.

Some people do indeed regret their actions. It's called "making a mistake".
Not making any mistakes is called "dead". Because only the dead can avoid making mistakes.

i disagree. i'm sure that there are people who regret "when" rather than "who." there are probably many people who wished they had had the same relationship with the same person a few years later so that they could have a better grasp of what they were getting into.
You aren't very clear here on the exact situation being described.
It sounds like you're saying that if A hadn't been involved with B until, lets say 4 years later, then A isn't going to regret screwing B?
A better grasp of what, exactly? Do A and B break up after a while? And so A regrets having had sex with B, who wasn't so great a guy after all?
But being 4 years older, she'd have a better grasp on what? That he still si an asshole and they still are going to break up, and so there is no material difference between then and now?

i remember a statistic i read that couples who move in together before they get married have a greater chance of breaking up. does that have any implication here?
You must know the saying about lies, damned lies and statistics, right?
Statistics can be used to prove most anythng by spindoctoring the numbers to match your desire.
I've seen a few different sets of statistics... in all cases, the breakup rate between co-habiting and non-cohabiting couples varied by a mere handful of percentage points...

As well, you have to consider a number of factors behind the statistics, including secondary characteristics of the survey sample group.

Now... the survey was about married or divorced/seperated couples exclusively. The difference between the two groups was that ine group lived together before marrying (and presumably had premarital sex, but might not have) and the other group did not live together (flaw #1: it's assumed they did NOT have sex, when really they may very well have.)
Not only that... but when you consider that a couple can live at both their homes, and alternate back and take breaks from each other... they're technically not co-habiting.

So even then, the statistics aren't about premarital sex at all, though it's implied that way.

Not only that, but other details about the sample group aren't known as well.

How long had it been since the couples got married? Ideally they all should have gotten married near the same date... in the same month of the same year would be fine. But this is unknown. A couple that's only got married a year ago is a far cry more likely to still be married. But when you change it to 10 years, the breakup rate goes way up.

As well, the religious convictions and other societal mores and conditioning also play in. Fact is... those who don't live together before marriage are more than likely deeply religious. Those who are deeply religious also tend to have conservative social mores. These mores often include strong conditioning that even if a relationship has gone to hell and beyond, you stick with it.

Most christian churches, and especially Catholicism (the strongest opponent of co-habitation) also teach this anti-divorce/breakup stance.
Such things can lead a person to remain in a failed relationship when others would have left.

All of these unknown factors can significantly affect the outcome, and can even be easily manipulated by unscrupulous researchers.


So you advocate staying in a miserable, loveless relationship... just because it's marriage?

i'm saying that people give up too easily, and it goes back to my whole idea that people can be happy with more than one person, which you agreed with. if it is truly unsalvagable, then divorce is fine, but for a large part, happiness is what you make of it. if you decide to be miserable, you will be. but you have to have a good grasp of what you want in a partner, and choose well from the beginning.
But therein lies the difficulty... first off... some people may give up too easily... society is pretty bloody apathetic these days.
But the fact is... a relationship is failing. Now you have 2 choices.
Fix it or leave it. Both choices are perfectly valid. You favor fixing it. I favor neither. It may be that fixing it may not be worth the effort. You can't reclaim what you had. HAD is past tense.
In many cases, you may be better off ending it now and moving on.

The choosing well in the beginning part... nigh on impossible to do. Everyone thinks they choose well. Would you marry someone if you thought you chose bad?
People change as well. There was one recent case in Malaysia where a 63 year old man, married happily for over 30 years... went on a business trip.
And upon his return, suddenly divorced his wife. So he could be with his new wife.
Who he married while still on the trip, before divorcing his first wife.
Oh, and wifey #2 is 16 years old.

You would think that after 30 years you could be confident you had made a good choice, eh?

Obviously, to last 30 years, he must have been a good choice. But he obviously also changed.

And everyone changes. He may be the perfect man when you start out. But he can change. And you can't control that.

do you think you could stop making these smart-ass, cocky comments? i'd appreciate it. it really has no relevance to the argument -- it's superfluous and unnecessary.
It was meant in the sense "is it really needed anymore? We seem to be covering plenty already.

And I think everything I had to say was addressed.

Amazing, though, how this has moved from a discussion on premarital sex to one on marriage alone,a nd sex is a side topic.

[reflection]

Ah ha... but see, here you are trying to decide what love is, and for another person, no less.
The fact was, at each of those points, she experienced the greatest love she had ever had. And you say it's not really love, because she was young?
She herself looks back on each one and still considers them true loves... because they were.
What happens in the present doesn't affect the past.
You're trying to judge an inherently non-quantifiable concept, not only in quantified terms, but by applying a uniform metric to vastly disparate experiences.
This isn't comparing apples and oranges. It's comparing apples and nuclear submarines.

ok, i can see what you're saying. maybe i'm letting my experiences color my views too much, friends i've had, etc. one of my friends has effectively ruined her life b/c she grew up too fast. so i can't believe that maturity doesn't have anything to do with it, b/c if it didn't, you would agree that a 6 yr old who was madly in love with her "boyfriend" should be able to have sex with him. there is an age, even after puberty hits, where people still shouldn't be having sex because they don't know what they are getting themselves into.

i think we'll just have to agree to disagree, because i'm getting tired arguing about this. a lot of it has to do with values, and i can't argue that with you. i suppose i'm copping out, whatever. but there has to be something to an institution that has been around for as long as civilization, i'm just too stupid to argue effectively for it. i can't agree with you Palmer, just because. call me ignorant, old-fashioned, clueless, whatever, but i think i'll be happier doing things my way. no hard feelings ok? peace..

[Palmer of the Turks]

ok, i can see what you're saying. maybe i'm letting my experiences color my views too much, friends i've had, etc. one of my friends has effectively ruined her life b/c she grew up too fast.
And I, conversely, know a great many people who did have premarital sex, at ages ranging from 14 onwards, who don't regret it one bit... some are ambivilent about the age, but many think it was one of the best decisions they made to start when they did, and with who.
In fact, "who" is the deciding factor for most of them... they feel that because they learned with somene caring and supportive, it helped them both explore and appreciate their sexuality, and not to feel ashamed or hung up about it.

so i can't believe that maturity doesn't have anything to do with it, b/c if it didn't, you would agree that a 6 yr old who was madly in love with her "boyfriend" should be able to have sex with him. there is an age, even after puberty hits, where people still shouldn't be having sex because they don't know what they are getting themselves into.
Oh, I don't think anyone should be having sex before puberty, as a lowest common denominator... that being strictly physical terms.
And I think maturity counts for a great deal... but maturity is not linked to age. I know some 14 year olds with more maturity than my own mother.
And knowing what you're getting yourself into... there is a salient point.
I advocate knowledge, and specifically, widespread, universal, mandatory, comprehensive, all-inclusive sex education. And kuju is right alongside me with this one.

Abstinence education doesn't work, despite all claims that it does. I remember one report loudly trumpeting a "proven success".
Appearently kids who went through this program "delayed initial intercourse for up to 19 months".
Now, the average age of initial intercourse is 15-16. Add a year and a half on to that... and it's still kids in high school having sex.
And mind you it said UP TO.
And how they came up with this number makes me wonder, really...

And, to top it off... it's obviously NOT working, as abstinence ed is based entirely around "wait for marriage"
And if these kids are still in HS... they aren't married.
Also note that the measure for success was based around initial intercourse.
There's a LOT of sex you can do without actual intercourse.

And then, for the final kick in the teeth for abstinence ed...

http://www.technicalvirgin.com

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree, because i'm getting tired arguing about this. a lot of it has to do with values, and i can't argue that with you.
I have been trying to keep the debate as free of values as possible... again, my primary focus was on the differences between a commited relationship and actual marriage, of which I found virtually none.
The only real difference was semantic and symbolic.

i suppose i'm copping out, whatever.
No, you're just done is all.
but there has to be something to an institution that has been around for as long as civilization,
Depends on how you define civilization... and in any case, marriage hasn't been.
There are non-marrying indigenous cultures to this day, and ones that practice polygamy.
In fact, amny of the holy men of the bible had bevvies of wives, consorts and concubines.
Polygamy wasn't forbidden until the middle ages, and there is no scriptural support for the ban.

Several modern cultures allow polygamy legally as well.
This blows a hole in the one and only stance.

Marriage, as an institution, was never about love or sex, per se.
It was about ownership and paternity and politics.

i'm just too stupid to argue effectively for it.
Actually, stupid is the last thing I would call you. No one has been able to debate this well on this topic with me, ever.
i can't agree with you Palmer, just because. call me ignorant, old-fashioned, clueless, whatever, but i think i'll be happier doing things my way. no hard feelings ok? peace..
Never was any hard feelings on this side.
I don't think you're ignorant or old-fashioned or whatever other negative terms you seem to assume I would apply to you.
Rather, I have a good deal of respect for you.

See ya round.

[BigJim]

i'm archiving this, great debate material, even though i disagree with palmer and think he's a nutfuck.