sdb@shark.UUCP (Steven Den Beste) (09/17/83)
Well, a couple of people have posted articles saying they agreed with things I said about pre-marital sex, then state what they are - and oddly enough, I find myself disagreeing with what they said. Dave Holt says that he agrees with me that compatability is the most important thing in marital success. I don't think it is *the most important thing*, though I think it very important. There is an important attitude some people have that I dislike, to wit: if person A isn't exactly what I want, dump him/her and look for someone better. If "compatability" is taken to mean that the people fit perfectly with no work, then I don't think it i important because I don't think it is possible. Contrariwise, I don't believe that ANY ARBITRARY TWO PEOPLE can make it work if they just love enough. There are differences between any two people, and sometimes they are too great to surmount. Such differences can occur just as well in sexual compatability as in any other way, so I feel that the people in a marriage should try sex with each other enough before marriage to make sure their differences can be worked out just as they try out all other things before marriage. ihu1e!kinn (no name was signed) says he agrees with me that people should be able to go outside their relationships for sexual satisfaction; in essence agreeing with me that "open relationships" are a good thing. I don't recall having made any comment on that issue one way or the other, but the iron has struck, so here goes: I have no philosophical objection to open relationships, but I personally could never be part of one, and on a pragmatic level I don't think that most people could be. In other words: Go ahead if you want, and good luck - you'll need it. I personally feel that some needs should be fully provided by the person you are married to, and sexual ones fall into that category. (For you lawyers out there, this last statement makes no comment about those who are not married.) I *did* state that I was against casual sex regardless of the setting. Jeff Sargent said that he agreed with some of what I said, but then disagreed with some of the key points. He made the comment that birth control techniques short of sterilization are not perfect, and that the backup of abortion has both physical and mental risks for the participants. I admire him for his restraint, he obviously wanted to condemn abortions on moral grounds. For those of us who are atheists, he attempted to deal with my issues on the basis of pragmatism. Bravo! Birth control techniques are not perfect, but the level of safety is in the range (especially if you use redundant methods) where the risks are extremely low. Yeah, they do fail on occasion, and then the people are faced with the question of what to do. Jeff stated that there were physical and mental dangers associated with an abortion. On the physical level, nowadays an abortion is actually safer for the mother than a live birth! There is no question that there would be severe emotional trauma, however. One must balance the risks - the other side of the coin is that the people might be unhappy once married if they didn't try sex out. I suppose it is a judgement call - my judgement is that the risks of an unwanted pregnancy given premarital sex is far lower than the risk of an unhappy marriage without it (for reasons I gave in my original article and therefore won't repeat here). Jeff also made the comment, summarized by me (probably badly) that sex between unmarried people *no matter how committed* could not be the same as that between married ones - that unmarried people could not give as much or as freely as married people. I am not sure I give as much credence to the magic of marriage as he does - do you require a legal contract to trust someone you love? (You got one with your parnts?) I suppose I cannot judge either since I have never been married, but I don't think I had any troble giving and receiving from the women I have loved. Jeff made a more serious point, however, that one cannot really know what it is to be married without actually being married. That isn't really true - I don't think the transition is quite that drastic. Even if it is true, one can get close with co-habitation and premarital sex and at least get a better idea than if you are just thrown into it without any warning! Larry Bickford has been strangely silent. Steve Den Beste Tektronix
holt@parsec.UUCP (09/27/83)
#R:shark:-150300:parsec:45700004:000:766
parsec!holt Sep 20 14:26:00 1983
Well Steve,
Upon reading the title to the note to which this is a reply, I am
somewhat astounded. Were you talking about being misquoted?
Here's the text of my original reply to your original article:
"Steve Den Beste has said it all. Compatability is what makes
marriage work. And sexual comapability is as important as any
other type."
That's it. In total. I didn't say that compatability was the MOST
important thing in marriage, I said it is what makes marriage work.
Love, understanding, selflessness and a concern for your partiner
are important ingrediants too.
I was trying to agree with you that love alone does not a successful
marriage make.
sigh.............
Dave Holt
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs}!parsec!holt