Replies

So now having sex is a lower standard?

Having casual sex with no intimacy or long term involvement is a lower standard for two reasons. Either the person is enjoying sex without missing a major component (intimacy) or they want intimacy and are settling for sex without it. Either way, sex without intimacy (which requires more than a fleeting introduction to a person) is a lower standard than sex with intimacy.

So having sex is inconsistent with self-respect?

Having sex when you would rather not or don't want to because you feel expected to or feel you have to is. So is being dumped again and again by guys who a woman thought she was having an intimate relationship with once they've gotten what they want and grow weary of her. If the guys are getting what they want and the women aren't, then the women are being used. That seems pretty simple to me.

Have you ever, ever considered that there might be a downside to being a virgin?

Sure. It's kind of hard to have kids if you aren't having sex. But maybe you should consider the downside, particularly for women, of having non-monogamous sex with guys who are also promiscuous including unwanted pregnancies, STDs, cervical cancer, and psychological issues related to intimacy.

Believe it or not, there is data available on this.

That's not data. It's anecdotal evidence. If you find that compelling, I suggest you read the book Unprotected by Dr. Miriam Grossman, Modern Sex: Liberation and Its Discontents by Myron Magnet, or A Return to Modesty: Discovering the Lost Virtue by Wendy Shalit. Lots of good anecdotes in all three demonstrating the problems you are ignoring.

Obviously, I am not advocating that twelve-year-old have sex. But there comes an age where it is better to have sex than to not have sex.

And what age is that, exactly? And why? And how would you react if I said that, instead, the argument should be, "There comes an age when it's better to be married than to not be married," or "There comes an age when t's better to have children then to not have children"?

Having casual sex with no intimacy or long term involvement is a lower standard for two reasons. Either the person is enjoying sex without missing a major component (intimacy) or they want intimacy and are settling for sex without it. Either way, sex without intimacy (which requires more than a fleeting introduction to a person) is a lower standard than sex with intimacy.

Yes. Everyone I know, myself included, prefer sex with people they love.

However, being a virgin at thirty and above is an even lower standard. Who wants that? Nobody I grew up with ever wanted that.

If the guys are getting what they want and the women aren't, then the women are being used. That seems pretty simple to me.

One of the things I want is to measure up to other people. One of the things I want is love. I prefer to have both, but I can have the first without the second.

But maybe you should consider the downside, particularly for women, of having non-monogamous sex with guys who are also promiscuous including unwanted pregnancies, STDs, cervical cancer, and psychological issues related to intimacy.

Fair enough. Teenagers do have a habit of only performing one-half of a cost/benefit analysis, especially on sexual issues.

The downsides of sex do decrease with age. After all, at fifty-five unplanned pregnancies are almost impossible.

And what age is that, exactly? And why?

Sometime between twenty and thirty. Certainly by thirty, everyone a person would meet would have had prior partners.

A lot of heartbreak and stress over finding a mate would not exist if everyone found a spouse at fourteen. But that is like wishing there was some magical force to prevent airplanes from crashing. In the real world, airplanes crash. In the real world, people who get married past twenty-five or so marry someone who have had prior sexual partners.