BYU basketbal player kicked off team for pre-marital sex.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/04/AR2011030401742.html

Discussion. Go!

edited 4th Mar '11 7:38:20 AM by Fish1

Was it in the contract?

Well, BYU is a Mormon university. Their house, their rules, and their honor code for admission is pretty explicit about no extramarital sex.

edited 3rd Mar '11 12:13:54 PM by Pykrete

Then he broke the rules that he agreed to and got kicked because of it. I don't see a problem here.

edited 3rd Mar '11 12:15:48 PM by Usht

I can't say I have much sympathy for him. If he wanted to have sex, he shouldn't have gone to BYU.

Exactly. It's not like he couldn't have gone to another university...

Their house, their rules[...]

There isn't much I can add to that and I am rather sure he knew about this beforehand.

Another interesting thing here is the backdrop. This is BYU's best year ever, as far as basketball goes. They are currently ranked 3rd in the country, and they are(or were) in line for a No.1 seed in the NCAA tournament. Any other year, this wouldn't be news at all.

edited 3rd Mar '11 12:30:16 PM by Fish1

I think all professional athletes should have a celibacy clause in their contracts. Purely for lulz.

Well if he agreed to it, sucks to be him. Now he'll have to go to another school which will pay his education, my heart bleeds.

He's suspended from the basketball team. Not expelled.

And yet, I bet he's being actively courted by other colleges with good basketball teams who don't have no-sex clauses in their admission contract.

It's a stupid clause to have in the first place.

Not important EI. It's a matter of the fact that it was there, not whether or not it's stupid (which would be an entirely different topic anyway).

And I should care about this because...?

@English Ivy Yeah, you think celibacy is evil, we know.

It's a matter of principle. I don't happen to agree with it (these things are best discussed in a confessional or appropiate equivalent IMO), but you have to admire them on some level for at least making some attempt to practice what they preach.

While I may not particularly agree with the idea of having a "No sex before marriage if you want to be on the team" rule (I'd rather have a "No sex period as we don't need you pregging up people and being caught up in that noise" rule but eh...) this dude should have known. He probably did know in fact. So sadly...their house, their rules. Deal with it.

I pretty much don't have anything to add that hasn't been said. Stupid rule, but he agreed to it, etc.

He agreed to it. He chose to go to a school with this sort of contract. He signed up for it. All his fault. I don't think the school did anything wrong.

I mean, if you say here are the rules, take them or leave them, and they take them, not following them is their own issue.

Interesting thought-if a contract preventing one from having sex is allowed, then why is a contract forcing one to have sex not allowed?

Because it violates rape and sexual harassment laws.

Because trading sex for stuff is wrong apparently. Never saw a reason personally but good luck getting the whole country to change their opinion on something.

But this is my point:If trading the positive is wrong, how is trading the negative any less wrong?

For the same reason that promising not to do illegal drugs is ok, but you can't force people to do illegal drugs.

But illegal drugs are themselves illegal, while premarital sex... isn't.