Abstinence until marriage

Does abstinence really work?

I've heard various statistics both for and against.

I myself kinda get pretty urged at times but dunno if my partners would always be up to it. Plus I am somewhat of a Christian...

For those of you digging deep enough into your Bibles to find this out, what verses support abstinence?

And for the secular crowd, what kind of evidence have you seen for and against, anecdotal or statistical?

Well, aside from the morality thing, the main reason for abstinence would be prevent ST Is and stuff. That makes sense, but people are born with tgem and can even get some from nonsexual contact.

So, it only MOSTLY works.

Sounds pretty pointless to me, but hey, to each their own. Can't say I'd date a girl who wanted to remain abstinent until marriage, though... mostly because I never plan to get married.

XDDDDD

Sex should be safe, sane, and consensual. In a pinch sane can go, but the other two remain important. The only way to know if a partner will respect your boundaries and wishes in this regard is via shared sexual experience. Why on Earth would you marry someone you don't know was trustworthy in this regard first?

I'll leave it to other tropers to drop the ton of data detailing how utterly pointless it is telling young people to not have sex.

Abstinene until marriage IS the safest way to go. If you know your partner has an STI, you can already know and always be prepared and protected. If they DONT have an STI, all the better.

As opposed to random stranger sex.

It's not a waste to teach as much as it is over hyped.

... at doing what?

Obviously you won't get pregnant or catch something if you don't have sex but, technology being what it is, we have workarounds.

I am a fan of the sex, so I appreciate these developments

edited 20th May '13 8:41:53 AM by TheBatPencil

Monogamy does not require marriage, so any benefits derived from that facet (the STI stuff etc) will be equally valid without it.

edited 20th May '13 8:42:15 AM by Elfive

True. One usually leads to the other, and I was more thinking in a "no sex until marriage" mindframe.

Don't know how reliable this is, but apparently "Abstinence only" does not work.

And ultimately: Abstinence should be a choice. Your own choice, not one made for you. And whatever you choose, you should be fully informed of everything regarding both sides if the choice and what to do if you chose one of them.

This "Abstinence or I CAN'T HEAR YOU" stuff is just plainly stupid and repressive.

Bob wants to wait until marriage? Great for Bob, worthy of respect. The couple next to Bob doesn't? Their choice.

But all of them should be informed of all the alternatives.

edited 20th May '13 8:46:17 AM by 3of4

I wouldn't date a girl who was waiting until marriage, one reason is I'm not religious at all, the other is that sex is a very important part of a healthy adult relationship, and unless religious conviction on both sides is there to fill that void, it just wouldn't work.

It's kind of like how buying a car you never got a chance to test drive is a really risky proposition. What if you buy it and you're locked in for years and tons of money, only to find out it's a crappy ride? Nobody likes a crappy car when they could have been more discriminating and found a good one.

I never really got what was the big deal about marriage.

I mean Whoop-dee-fucking-doo, you signed a piece of paper.

A piece of paper that may ruin you down the road, no less. But that's a whole other discussion.

The symbolism and stuff of "HEY LOOK EVERYONE WE'LL LOVE FOREVERS ALWAYS" ... And the legal/economic stuff

and a reason to party ...

edited 20th May '13 9:08:27 AM by Ringsea

I find that as time goes on, men have less and less reason to get married with how one-sided that deal is and how often we're the ones getting screwed when divorce looms.

edited 20th May '13 9:11:42 AM by Barkey

Theres a reason why the old WASP joke is to refer to your wife as "the old ball and chain"

Abstinence is, of course, the safest option. That said, if that's your choice, if/when you get into a relationship and you're pretty sure that you could end up marrying your SO, or proposing at the very least, you'd better have a candid and thorough conversation that lays out mutual likes/dislikes and what both of you are willing/unwilling to try once you do share a bed. Post-wedding is a horrible time to find out that you're incompatible for whatever reason.

edited 20th May '13 9:37:10 AM by Willbyr

Abstinence until marriage/civil unionship may be the safest route, but I wouldn't be okay with marrying some without intimate relationship before that event. Abstinence can lead to sexual frustration. Best way is popping the pill and wearing condoms.

Props to Barkey, I dislike the implication that sex is somehow immoral.

If sex is immoral, eating, drinking and breathing is immoral

The analogue I like is taking a shit. Sure, it's really bad form to do it on your neighbour's lawn in the middle of broad daylight with everyone watching, but still, telling people to never to it at all except in a specific set of circumstances in the company of one specific person is just inhumane.

EDIT: Before you bring up the example of toilets, I would bring up the example of camping and long road trips on empty mountain highways.

edited 20th May '13 9:52:58 AM by RadicalTaoist

I'm just a firm believer that people should embrace and explore their sexuality in an open and comfortable way, so long as they aren't pushing it on other people.

In other words, it shouldn't be taboo to talk about in a frank manner. I think a lot of people have really screwed up sex lives because of a lack of communication due to embarrassment and such. I was lucky enough to get broken in early by an older girl(I was a Freshman who lost his virginity to a girl who was a junior) and got to learn a few of those lessons early. But even I had a few relationships when I was younger where the sex was horrible because for the most part neither of us really just got comfortable with each other and talked about what we wanted in bed.

Although honestly I'm something of a prude by some standards. I know about pretty much every fetish under the sun since I used to sell porn, and I've seen most every fetish under the sun at one point or another, maybe that's why none of those things really get me going. I'm pretty much a nothing fancy kind of dude.

Anyway, straying off into Nunnery territory there, the point is that abstinence or no, communication is important. If a couple are together and saving themselves for marriage, so long as they've really communicated about that and are on the same page, that's perfectly ok. Although honestly I kind of look at the christlike little couples who are saving themselves, but still go for the oral, or the popular mormon girl tradition of "technical virginity"(Only doing anal before marriage). I mean whatever's clever, but that kind of seems like cheating.

My closest thing i've had to sex thus far was making out. Have no idea if it truly satisfies me as much s sex tho. But if my mom or church knew this info, i'd probably be shunned by at least one.

So yeah my oath as already been broken essentially!

Not even close to the same bro, for all intents and purposes you're still abstinent.

Unless you can attain orgasm from making out alone, maybe that counts.

edited 20th May '13 11:13:53 AM by Barkey

Personally, I think that abstinence-only 'education' is bad. It leaves people less prepared for when they actually go for it. Abstinence as a personal choice is fine, though.

There's the old joke that no abstinence program can ever match up to the effectiveness of a subscription to World Of Warcraft.