Young Writers Society

DELETED by author

About purity........its nonsense to the people now.Sex is as casual to some people now as buying a packet of potato chips.

I do support only post-marital sex since its one effective way to control STD if everyone does follow it,but for those who do not.......I think its fine as long as you end up marrying the same person.If not, you are spreading the chances of STD transmission with your spouse.

YES, we should remain virgins until marriage. i think the jonas brothers and selena gomez and demi are good rolemodels. mileys a little iffy, but anyway, waiting until marriage and only doing IT with one person makes it SO much more special and memorable. plus, you dont run up ur parents blood pressure:] but also, most teens that dont wait regret it in the long run b-cuz of 5 reasons(of so many more) one, they get STDs, two, the female has to drop out of school to take care of a bby and the father runs away, having taken advantage of her, three, their parents kick them out of the house to fiend on their own, four, everyone in school calls them a slut or a whore(which happens even if they have an abortion. once anyone hears in school, itll spread like wild fire.) and five, they let ppl down and guys in school will call the girls easy. (so basically, if you're a girl, there are more disadvantages). i mean SURE, it feels good and EVERYONES doing it, but if you wait, youll more likely be the one with the nicer car, house, job, driving by the homeless lady with ten kids that used to be your classmate. so, its ur choice......

Just a not, having sex does no mean any of the following.

You will *always* get an STD.

You will *always* get pregnant.

You will get a bad reputation for it.

Like I've said previously, and will always maintain, that having safe protected sex is absolutely acceptable, and always your choice. I believe sex is beautiful and spiritual, and should be practiced often and passionately in any serious romantic relationship.

I also bring up the point, we as people do not all intend to get married. Marriage is something that, though I respect others choices to marry, I will never be able to do it myself. It doesn't fit into my lifestyle, religion, or any of my basic beliefs. In my position, the ceremony means nothing, and is completely unnecessary.

I think that in order to truly be ready for sex, you need to fully educate yourself on the subject. Know about how to protect yourself, and take the necessary steps to do so.

Don't have sex if you're not ready.

If you feel as though you are, and have taken all appopriate means to protect yourself, go for it.

Also, just a completely unrelated side note-- people will take your argument far more seriously if you take the time to use proper grammar and spelling

adri-rox, I am not disrespecting your views, but I do disagree with them.
Personally, I wish to remain a virgin-for now, anyway-but not for those reasons.
It's just that I haven't found anyone I want to give that part of me to yet.


And you seem to have stereotypical view of young people-I mean, we can be in loving relationships!
And isn't the point that sex is good in a loving relationship? Your reasons outline some of the negatives of 'doing it because everyone else is doing it', but not everybody wishes to have sex because of that.

And Young Gun, sex is casual to SOME people, but let's not tar all non-virgin unmarried people with the same brush!

summergrl13 wrote:Well, if you have sex before marriage then what's the point of getting married? Heck, what's even the point of having a strong relationship if you wanted to just go ahead and have sex with anybody you want. It's not right at all. Especially if you have a kid. That kid will never have a normal life because of that and it's not the child's fault. Not to mention the millions of STDs out there which condoms don't do anything against.

It's hard to wait but just giving in is wrong. How'd you like to know after you got married that your spouse slept with a ton of people and just didn't care about your abstinence that you saved for them.

This is very detrimental thinking Summer, you claim wrongly that marriage is about the sex aspect, marriage isn't about that. To give an example:

Why do you think gays and lesbians care so much about marriage, it's because it's more than about sex, it's a sacred bond with two people who adore and promise to stay with the person. It's a bond of trust of friendship.

Now back to main point of the debate, abistence ignores many factors within a child life like the urges that hormones bring. Sure you can try fight it, but sometimes curiousity and pressure from peers leads to you needing it. In all reasoning abistence isn't practical, it's like giving a teenager a loaded gun and saying don't shoot it, when of course they will. These methods just don't work, instead the child normally does the complete opposite.

Young gun wrote:About purity........its nonsense to the people now.Sex is as casual to some people now as buying a packet of potato chips.

I do support only post-marital sex since its one effective way to control STD if everyone does follow it,but for those who do not.......I think its fine as long as you end up marrying the same person.If not, you are spreading the chances of STD transmission with your spouse.

I disagree. there are condoms. And you can still can get a STD when you are married. Disease don't infect people according to thier marital status. It when people have sex with people they don't fully know or haven't got tested.

adri-rox94 wrote:YES, we should remain virgins until marriage. i think the jonas brothers and selena gomez and demi are good rolemodels. mileys a little iffy, but anyway, waiting until marriage and only doing IT with one person makes it SO much more special and memorable. plus, you dont run up ur parents blood pressure:] but also, most teens that dont wait regret it in the long run b-cuz of 5 reasons(of so many more) one, they get STDs, two, the female has to drop out of school to take care of a bby and the father runs away, having taken advantage of her, three, their parents kick them out of the house to fiend on their own, four, everyone in school calls them a slut or a whore(which happens even if they have an abortion. once anyone hears in school, itll spread like wild fire.) and five, they let ppl down and guys in school will call the girls easy. (so basically, if you're a girl, there are more disadvantages). i mean SURE, it feels good and EVERYONES doing it, but if you wait, youll more likely be the one with the nicer car, house, job, driving by the homeless lady with ten kids that used to be your classmate. so, its ur choice......

Number one having sex before marrige doesn't have to be during the teen years, it is something intilled in us by the media so every time someone thinks sex before marrage, they think underage teen sex, which is not exactly true.

Number two, as I explained above you can get an STD from your husband/wife. Marrage doesn't have a magical effect that everything will be fine. If that was the true the divorce rate would be MUCH lower.


Number three, your argument isway to o much based on speculation. Not all cases involve the father running away, people getting kicked out of the house, and dropping out of school. Please base your arguement in real life and not on "The Secret Life of the American Teenager"

This post is dead. Does anyone has a responce. Sex before marrage people. HUGE DEAL!

I think that while abstinence obviously appeals to parents, it's not the most sensible plan for kids. Their hormones are simply going to prevent them from being "pure"--and purity is rather a ridiculous idea nowadays anyway. Everybody's impure, for goodness' sake. If you want your kids to have a healthy sexuality, then emphasis on "purity" is not going to be helpful.

Virgins debating the point of abstinence is like a Wall Street Banker debating the need for no monetary regulations. Reading this thread is like peering into a crystal ball or using a Ouija board.

It's absolutely depressing seeing how we're going back to pre-20th century ideals, and otherwise moralizing through domination by numbers, and not evidence or practicality.

It's absolutely depressing seeing how we're going back to pre-20th century ideals, and otherwise moralizing through domination by numbers, and not evidence or practicality.

Then quit your bemoaning and infuse some evidence and practicality into the argument. :P

For instance, in arguing against abstinence, several of the folks have cited hormones and a "need" for sex as valid reasons to have sex whenever. Quite frankly, I find that a poor excuse as one is essentially saying they have no control over their actions; it's their body's fault they had to have sex because their hormones told them too.

Well, last I checked, "needs" were defined as that which one absolutely requires for survival. Food? Needed. Shelter? Needed. Sex? Uncomfortable to do without (for some), but ultimately not necessary for individual survival. Therefore, not strictly "needed".

In addition, just as hormone-fueled temper tantrums aren't given automatic free passes, hormone-driven sex drives shouldn't be given free reign. Just because something seems like a good idea at the time does not mean it is, and impulsiveness tends to lead to regrets further on in life.

If you choose to engage in extramarital sex after thinking the matter over rationally and reasonably, then it is your prerogative. But claiming that abstaining from sex is ridiculous just because there are teenagers out there who feel horny is pretty ridiculous in itself.

Though if you insist on a biological basis, teenagers are still growing and forming the synapses necessary to make consistently reasonable and rational decisions. It is why teenagers are renowned worldwide for making particularly stupid decisions -- their brains are not fully developed yet, and the hormones are wreaking havoc on their decision-making capacities. Knowing this, and knowing the risks and consequences of sex (physical, emotional, and otherwise), is it really wise to encourage teenagers to go out and experiment with sex? Wouldn't it make more sense to pressure the teens to wait until they are mature enough to understand fully the consequences of their actions before they engage in risky behaviors such as driving cars, operating heavy machinery, getting married, or having sex?

---

In arguing for abstinence, there seems to be an assumption that abstinence entails maintaining virginity until marriage, and that all extramarital sex leads to Problems. Neither idea makes much sense.

As OverEasy pointed out earlier in the thread, not all religions adhere to the institution of marriage, especially not the Christian concept of marriage. In addition, there are people who, for various reasons, choose to remain unmarried or lack the option to be married. Many of those people are in relationships that involve extramarital sex, and that sexual aspect of their relationships has no detrimental effect upon them. Not all instances of extramarital sex lead to problems that ruin peoples' lives. And though it's true that there is always that chance for problems to arise, there is that same chance when you get into a car that you might be involved in an accident.

By the same token, there is no guarantee that remaining abstinent will result in a good marriage or future relationships. If you date or marry an abusive partner, you're going to get abused regardless of whether or not you remained abstinent for that partner. Abstinence does not grant a free ticket to sexual bliss, but what it does do is emphasize the importance of waiting and exploring all one's options before making a life-changing decision that has a very real potential to leave emotional and physical scars that may never heal. After all, you are more likely to find a partner (or partners) that are worthy of your trust and love if you wait until you are mature enough to make well-reasoned decisions rather than running on full impulse.

---

Ultimately, though, I find it quite ironic that while abstinence comes with the assumption that people who marry will have sex, it doesn't take into account those who marry but continue to abstain from sex, of which I am one.

I have no issue with the practice of abstinence. It's a personal choice just as much as being sexually active is. Abstinence as a personal choice gets kind of a bad wrap, considering how hard it's been pushed in schools and how totally the religious community claims it. In a lot of teen's minds, abstinent means prudish or "churchy". Or if you're like me in high school, it could also just mean "I don't want to have sex with any of you. Go away.".

Kyllorac wrote:Though if you insist on a biological basis, teenagers are still growing and forming the synapses necessary to make consistently reasonable and rational decisions. It is why teenagers are renowned worldwide for making particularly stupid decisions -- their brains are not fully developed yet, and the hormones are wreaking havoc on their decision-making capacities. Knowing this, and knowing the risks and consequences of sex (physical, emotional, and otherwise), is it really wise to encourage teenagers to go out and experiment with sex? Wouldn't it make more sense to pressure the teens to wait until they are mature enough to understand fully the consequences of their actions before they engage in risky behaviors such as driving cars, operating heavy machinery, getting married, or having sex?

I really agree with this. This is the approach I wish sex ed would take instead of hammering kids over the head with the idea that sex before marriage is bad (but only if you're female) and you will never be a happy, fulfilled person if you engage in it. Instead, I think it's possible for educators/parents/whoever to acknowledge that teens are going to want to have sex,and instead of trying to scare them off it, be honest with them about the risks and the benefits. Focus on building strong individual personalities and relationships and how sex fits into the scheme of those things.

What I don't like, especially in an educational context, is the idea of "purity". That word is intensely morally charged, and while I have no issue with a person who espouses the idea of purity when it fits in with their beliefs, I don't like it being applied to everyone. While it's true that sex isn't the basis for marriage, if you don't know the person you're about to swear to spend the rest of your life with is compatible with you in every way including the physical, that's quite a gamble. A marriage where there is sexual incompatibility can be emotionally harsh for either partner and lead to its own set of issues.

Bottom line, it's a personal choice. No matter what parents and teachers want or what they say, some teenagers are going to engage in sexual behaviors. How it will turn out for those individuals is impossible to predict.

i think it's the individual's own choice. i don't think it's right that certain religions say that people have to, but then, i don't agree with anything that limits peoples' choices. i think whether it's enforced or not,people are going to do what they want anyway, but if that's what you want to do, then you go (:

XxJoJoxX wrote:[size=85]I think that Abstinence is the only logical decision for those who think long term.
Not for those who live just for the moment.So it becomes obvious why a majority of teens( probably not now, due to the fact that it's currently "cool" to be abstinent) think it's lame or not worth the wait.
I practice it, and i don't believe that there's any other way to treat sex. It's waay to intimate to be treated so casually. And it's not something to be handed out like Halloween candy, either.
Hate me for this, but i just think it's a matter of self-respect.

Even though I'm not abstinent myself, I agree with you 100%. It is a matter of self-respect, and it takes some personal conviction to stick to your decision (either way). Then again, I'm not a teen and I wasn't when I decided to stop being abstinent. It wasn't a "heat of the moment" accidental thing, I thought about it for a very long time and I made sure it was done responsibly. I don't think most sexually active teens really think about that decision. I couldn't imagine my 15 or 17 year old self being sexually active...I was no where near emotionally or mentally prepared at that age.

XxJoJoxX wrote:And in order to "love" someone else first, i must love and respect my self.

THIS is so exactly right!! I hate the whole "if I don't have sex I'm not a man" or "If I don't have sex, boys won't like me" line of thinking! I get frustrated about this topic. It's a personal crusade of mine.