Is pre-marital sex okay??

by **enigma** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 2:06 pm

Friends do u thing pre-marital s-e-x okay?

One school of thought finds in immoral, unethical and anti-Indian culture

Whereas others find nothing wrong in it.. they say sexx is a natural desire and there nothing wrong going for it.. infact they question they need for marriage at the first place.

what do u ppl think.. ??

by **Smocking Rock** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 2:29 pm

yep it\'s ok, as far as you keep it as a secret.

by **Purushothama** » Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:17 pm

Yes, if two adults agree to stay together without marriage. It is prevalent in many countries and in big cities in India too.

by d » Fri Apr 18, 2003 12:13 am

nope. it is not ok. i would like to have an emotional attachement and commitment with my Man/Woman before I indulge physically with him/her. either of emotions are felt when we get to know each other for a period of time. I take it so that sex is a desire which should evolve out of love for my wife/husband extended into future, where the innate desire to mate and reproduce with a strong, healthy person are met with.

by **Anon** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:07 am

All is fair in love (AKA lust) and war.

by **DuDe_iN_tOwN** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:16 am

In reference to the Indian Context and the way \"people\" frown upon it I\'d say NO ..are you outa your mind!? ..I mean honestly guys/gals ..our society is so not open to that concept. It may happen behind people\'s backs, but if it comes out in the open ..it\'s just too much to handle for the most \"modern\" of people. I know it\'s a personal choice and people should be able to do it if they feel like it. But the society in India, I reckon is not ready to accept it. Personally though, I\'d say living together whilst staying happy with the person you love is more of a test than \"doing it\".

by **Anil** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:59 am

The fact that you have sexual feelings is just as normal as the fact that you have sexual organs. But even though you may be physically ready to have sexual intercourse, emotionally it might not be the right choice for you. There are many possible consequences to take into consideration before having sex, like:

Emotional hurt,
Guilt,
Anger and disappointment in yourself as well as anxiety, and
The fear of pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections (including HIV/AIDS, hepatitis).
Your friends and partners may still try to pressurise you to have sexual intercourse. They may often use phrases like:

\"If you love me you’ll have sex with me.\"
\"Everybody is doing it,why won’t you?\"
\"I want to show you how much I love you.\"
There is nothing wrong with making love, it\'s natural.\"
\"If you don\'t sleep with me, I\'m going to leave you.\"

To say \"NO\" is really hard. But it\'s much easier to say \"NO\" than to deal with being pregnant or feeling guilty about having had sex. Being able to say \"NO\" and being honest without being unkind, can help you establish a relationship based on trust and respect.

Lastly, sex is fine, whether pre-marital or marital, as long as you don\'t lead a life of promiscuity. My personal opinion: Extra-marital sex is worst and sinful than pre-marital sex!

by **Jatinder** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 5:59 pm

\"People look at things and say WHY. I look at things and say why not?\" - Adapted from G B Shaw...

by **Faheem** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:26 pm

I suggest you research this practice in west specially USA and decide for yourself.

by **Samata** » Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:29 pm

Believe it or not, there was a time in human history when, Gasp!, nobody cared who slept with whom and when and where and why. It was the advent of patriarchy which completely changed matters. As the adage goes, \"maternity is certainity but paternity is conjecture.\" The only way to guarantee paternity is to ensure that no other man had sex with the mother. Thus it is to ensure patriarchy that the restrictions on sex were devised and enforced with brutal severity.

That is why I say that there is no moral reason to outlaw sex and in my (rarely) humble opinion, consensual sex of any kind between adults is always okay.

by **Rakesh** » Wed Apr 23, 2003 4:58 pm

dear Samata....\"There was time\"..yeah yeah..you are talking about when we were living in herds,we were not civilized and we were not as advanced as we are today....I\'m surprised that you want to go all the way back!!! Well that\'s your personal dicision, since we are civilized enough, we can\'t stop you from doing that...but to say a few things on your (mis)quotes...
(1) \"It was the advent of patriarchy which completely changed matters\" -- of course it did...it bind us in a society, remember those were the times when there were no police to save your skin...there was no law....so males were supposed to protect and they did....now the things have changed...we have a social fabric in place where we are safe enough to live alone. This provides us the option trying to experiment with our long held notions and traditions....but it will eventually lead us back to the same old sorry state...its, I, guess a natural periodic phenomenon of rising and falling back...tides will turn again...
(2).\"maternity is certainity but paternity is conjecture\"...
Well I don\'t find it at all amusing to think myself as half bastard...I\'m not sure about others...
(3) \"Thus it is to ensure patriarchy that the restrictions on sex were devised and enforced with brutal severity\"...
See we are not talking about any ordinary animals..we are talking about Humans...and the decision of not having sex other than husband must\'ve been a collective one...in fact as far as I\'ve seen traditionally ( not recently) I\'ve seen women more reluctant to having sex outside marriage rather then men out of moral reasons....that they were forced to do so with \"brutal severity\"..is my friend not merely an exgageration..but in fact a sacrilege...
On pre-marital sex ----- okay if you are going to get married...but casual sex is not good..

by **Surender** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:26 am

Hello! I wonder if someone could help me with this! I have inherited a property in Hyderabad (Gopanpally Village). It is a residential plot of 300sq yds. I live in the US and have never been to Hyderabad. Wonder if someone could give information about what the values in the area may be going right now. Also, where this place is (in the Ranga Reddy District) and anyone of you familiar with the area to please give any information possible. Thanks for your help! You may also email me at nsbhatia2000@yahoo.com

by **b.n.singh** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:51 pm

Hi Engima, this is B N Singh. I would like to know what made you think about this?

by **Samata** » Fri Apr 25, 2003 11:42 pm

“… living in herds,we were not civilized and we were not as advanced as we are today....” 
The original definition of Civilization was “living in cities.” To define human advancement as moving from a tribal organisation to the cities of today is, in my opinion, akin to defining cultured as wearing a suit. Let’s not argue semantics however, and use civilization in the sense that you intended. Human beings for the most part made a transition from a nomadic tribal existence to a civic society. Archaeological evidence has unveiled many proto-civilisations such as the Indus Valley Civilisation for example. Slowly evidence has been mounting that such cultures were matrlineal (properties are passed from mother to daughter) and women had a fairly high status and were on mostly equal terms with men. Interesting there is also evidence that sex was not criminalised as it is today, women (and for that matter men) were free to have pre-marital and extra-marital sex without it being considered an issue.
 
There are various theories about the rise of patriarchy but there is considerable consensus that one of the fundamental tenets of a patriarchal society is the criminalisation of sex. For property to pass from father to son it is necessary to ensure that the mother has not had sex with any one else. The most effective way to do this would be to make sex with anyone other than the husband wrong and sinful. It is interesting that the major religions such as Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, however they may differ on all else, agree on one thing, that sex is wrong outside of marriage and must be severely punished. Also noteworthy is the punishment for transgression, men typically get off much more lightly then women. There are passages in the Bible, for example, which set the punishment for a man who rapes a woman as a fine to the father of the woman, however, the woman for the crime of being raped is to be stoned to death.
 
“...it bind us in a society, remember those were the times when there were no police to save your skin...there was no law....so males were supposed to protect and they did....”
 
What males protected was mostly their rights and privileges. Since women were mostly considered property they took precautions to protect their women same as slaveowners took precautions to protect their slaves from damage and theft.
 
“....that they were forced to do so with \"brutal severity\"..is my friend not merely an exgageration..but in fact a sacrilege...” Practically every religion has rules which state that women who engage in premarital or extramarital sex can be burnt, stoned hanged, beaten and made outcasts. There is ample evidence that not only were these rules enforced in the past, they are still being enforced today.
 
To take examples from popular culture, i.e. in our movies when a girl gets raped, she is either made to marry her rapist (talk about rubbing salt in the wound) or she is killed off in some fashion. It is very rare that she puts her life back together and goes on. A girl who willingly engages in premarital sex is again either killed or she is made into an outcaste who spends the rest of her life alone. The guy who engaged in sex with her however, gets to marry, have kids and live happily ever after. Naturally women get the lesson from an early age, that their so-called virtue is the only important thing they possess and that to lose it is to lose everything, even their life.
 
In conclusion, I will say again, that sex between consenting adults is always okay.

by b. » Sat Apr 26, 2003 12:40 am

I sincerely hope this is not another one like the xyz in trouble, wasting our time.!!

by **melkor** » Sat Apr 26, 2003 6:50 am

that is a pretty good debate samata.. obviously you seem to have put some \"thought\" into this... i agree with ur view that sex between consenting adults is fine... i would be opening up a big can of worms here if I ask how you can define \"consenting adults\" in the first place though....

by **Rakesh** » Wed Apr 30, 2003 5:57 pm

TO SAMATA
\"The original definition of Civilization was “living in cities.” To define human advancement as moving from a tribal organisation to the cities of today is, in my opinion, akin to defining cultured as wearing a suit.\"
I\'d like to hear from you the correct definition of human advancement and civilization and also before I should attempt to discuss with you your pre-marital sex specific issues, let have some answers from you.....
(1). why is your notion restricted to adults only? why not conseting partners? what is wrong with childern indulging in physical intimacy?
(2). Is \"Criminalization of sex\" a reference to monogamy? Are you saying that I\'m for men to have pre/extra marital sexual experiences whereas women not? Or it is simply that men are afraid to allow casual sex because then they won\'t know whose children they\'re calling theirs?
(3). I am not entirely sure that you are a misogamist but if you\'re not, what is the need of marriage? And if you are, then why not Marriage?
(4). Do you approve of the kind of sexual freedom you\'re talking about urself, being enjoyed by your parents also? Certainly you must. And You believe that that should not have any adverse effect on children?
(5). What defines the success of any species? That is to ask, are we humans, as a species, successful and is it only in numbers?

There are a number of points that you\'ve raised...well lets narrow down our discussion..I\'m not here to defend every other religion or culture..so lets talk about India and Hinduism for particular...
You are absolutely right in pointing out that \"women had a fairly high status and were on mostly equal terms with men\" in ancient civilizations...Further, we know for a fact that ancient India was permissive; widows could remarry, divorce was permitted for incompatibility or when estranged.And that is the way it should be, ideally speaking, instead of any one of the sexes having extra previleges...So what went wrong?? How did we land up here?? I may not be entirely right but I\'d try to expain this. India suffered a series of external invasions and eventually a very long period of oppressive rule under the mughals...the entire social strata of india was remoulded forcefully. Women were not at all safe outside so they became low profile against the societal backdrop and they got trapped in the households. British rule didn\'t bring much relief although it was better for women in terms of their coming forward in many areas..banning of sati tradition and opening up of co-education institutions for studies..and women did relatively well in this era those who dared to defy, made good heeds but things were not as smooth as they are today...it is sad that our society did not respond fully to women\'s issues after independence probably because of the after shock of independence and the burden of rebuilding the nation ,even though state declared not to differentiate.. But we should remember that neither women came out houses en mass. Post independence lots of women achieved fame and they were not dragged out and made to do good...they were the ones who had the courage and were prepared to pursue their dreams..Luckily we are here, in the 21st century where, almost once again( at least in Urban India) women are making huge impact..and it makes me feel good...
Well throughout this discussion my motive was not to justify whatever happened..but I simply said what did..Only thing I like to point out here is that there\'s no difference whether you\'re a guy or gal but if you sit and complain about there being no equal opportunities..well you\'ll be where you are or at best there will be n number of \"mahila jagaran samities\" to take you in.
To add a few other things, you said \"What males protected was mostly their rights and privileges. Since women were mostly considered property they took precautions to protect their women same as slaveowners took precautions to protect their slaves from damage and theft.\" and then at one point you also said that..\"..Slowly evidence has been mounting that such cultures were matrlineal (properties are passed from mother to daughter)..\" I\'d like to ask you that was this not wrong?? Were women not protecting their interests here?? The other way is unacceptable but why is this cited as example?? My point is that we should not try and blindly say that whatever happened in past should be the role model for present...conditions have changed and so should culture and religion must...Are we not good enough to decide what should our society be like? Why is that only our grand fathers/mothers are considered great and whatever they\'ve told us to do, we\'ll keep doing that only??
Your point about the fate of a woman been raped is sad and mostly true...what we\'ve to learn is that all these were medival period rules and mindset which has to change...as you said \"in our movies when a girl gets raped, she is either made to marry her rapist (talk about rubbing salt in the wound) or she is killed off in some fashion\" it is really sad and this must change..however the girl can oppose to get married to such a person...Movies have gone way beyond to show a stupid act of women commiting suicide or getting killed in order to maintain their \"dignity\"!! Well this is certainly outrageous..She\'s not done it out of her own will and this should not have any effect whatsoever on the dignity of that female...Apart from health problems I think men should accept a rape victim . There have been one or two movies pointing this out..\"Damini\" is one example.
I stick to my stand on casual sex....pre-marital sex between couples engaged to get married is okay..but casual sex...by no means..But I\'m strongly in favour of not having any law against the same..I want people to reason out what is right and wrong.

by **gungho** » Sat May 03, 2003 1:06 pm

This looks like a debate between samanta and Rakesh..why don\'t others speak? nonethe less..a nice debate

by **Viji** » Sun May 18, 2003 11:34 pm

What has this got to do with PreM Sex????
Or am I mistaken:-(

Who is online