Why sex should be confined by marriage ?

[Guest guest]

1. To stem the spread of STDs - one of the most obvious benefits.

2. Prevent teenage pregnancies and extramarital offspring -- when two young

individuals head over heels in love and find themselves in very passionate

moment (mausam haseen vagairah vagairah..) and true love sublimates into

passionate sex -- is there time to pause and get a condom. And if you do get up

and go for a condom...then according to me it is more for physical

gratification....but not the sublimate experience Anchita is talking about.

Girls are more responsible and mature at any given age and have more to loose

and hence the social expectation that the girl better say no !

To say NO in such a passionate moment it really has to be ingrained

genetically and culturally --it is no easy task -- I can speak on the basis of

personal experience...and I feel proud of Renuka's cultural upbringing and hope

we can impart the same to our children.

Here in America, society has witnessed the myriad of social problems because

of its liberal attitudes to sex---sex without boundaries...and is slowly trying

to limp back to the days when sex was one of the fruits of a consummate

marriage.

STDs, teenage pregnancies, orphans, divorce (not solely because of sex though

-- but read below), unfortunate children of divorced parents and their

psychological problems, the crumbling of the institution of marriage which is so

crucial for emotional and mental well being ETC ETC

As condom is so unreliable when immature teenagers (thanks to the raging

hormones) are engaging in sex, hapless moms here are getting depot shots for

their daughters and again invariably sending a wrong message.

Big billboards are coming up in impoverished neighborhoods with teenage girls

proclaiming that abstinence is the best policy.

3. The risk of sex becoming one of the foundations of a relationship that

culminates in marriage.

Anything 'physical' doesn't last long. So if two individuals think they are

so made for each other every time they have passionate (good) sex -- they will

be overlooking so many other incompatibility / compatibility issues which

actually determine if you are " made for each other "

Getting carried away by physical/superficial issues is why so many love

marriages end up in divorce.

Inspite of having a love marriage I am an admirer of arranged marriages too --

where marriage helps two strangers to fall in love and a beautiful relationship

emerges -- to me that is one of the pinnacles of civilization.

4. Mr RIGHT / Ms RIGHT -- All of us who have been married for some years (

love or arranged ) know there is no Mr/Ms RIGHT/IDEAL -- " Very compatible " is as

good as gets -- And as time goes by we might realize Mr/Ms RIGHT is not actually

Mr/Ms RIGHT.......with time and maturity you find the person with whom you want

to spend the rest of your life with.....how beautiful it would be if you had

saved yourself for this person --( in the woman love/sex/emotional well being

are more intimately linked than in men -- that's nature's design.)

Here in America two people will have a relationship for years living together

and end up having a divorce within six months of tying the knot !

When two young individuals are heady with their newly found TRUE LOVE -- it is

almost impossible to seperate infatuation from true longing.

Hence after marriage when reality hits, sparks start flying.

To avoid all these pitfalls and complications and heartbreaks isn't it wise to

save sex ( read also as safe sex) for after marriage ???

<<And as for true love comes once and waiting for the right one, Renuka,does

it have to be your husband. why can't that 'true love' be the

'boyfriend' you could not marry? Of course one has to stay for lifewith the

latter (again in the Indian context) but so what if you have

relationship in the past?>>

Oh man !! That sounds so dismal as far as the sex life of this hapless couple.

It would have been so much more convenient if the person would not have

experienced it with some one else so the person can think/enjoy what he/she has

as the best possible !!

So my message for all the young ones reading this is -- Save yourself for the

one you will marry and in return save yourself from so many hassles and

disappointments )

Ashok 1984

manish n kothari wrote:

wah anchita...

that was quiet a brain storming

seems you have vented out emotions canned inside you for ages .

you probed well that even men have emotions besides lust and even they get hurt

and frustrated in failed relationships.

overall well said...

you deserve 9/10 if this was a debate

On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 Anchita Patil wrote :

>Thanks Kishoreda,

>And though I have been reading all the replies, I have refrained from

>replying till now.

>But there are a few things that i would like to say.

>1. being a boy or girl should not make much of a diffrence. The moment

>we say that 'boys will be boys' and 'sex is always on their minds'

>kind of thing we are giving them an unsaid licence to be that way! why

>can't we 'condition' our sons (sorry, I don't have one, but....) to

>link love with sex (or marriage) the way we tell our daughters. Why

>don't we question our sons when they come home late, (except when we

>suspect that they may be out boozing), why aren't we suspicious that

>our sons may be 'making out' the way we are with our daughters? The

>same messages need to go both ways.

>2. Sex with or without love would feel the same for both the sexes.

>Good sex, done the right way (sorry for being blunt) would feel god

>and bring the same physical satisfaction for both the boys and the

>girls. Why assume that boys would be the ones physically satified and

>not the girls? Why do we undermine a woman's sexula desires? And sex

>with emotional involment would mean the same, and perhaps feel better

>for both.

>3. From point 1 above, where renuka has said that girls must be

>careful, why? Is it just the pregnancy issue? Use condoms then! But if

>it is deeper, the issue of 'getting hurt' suposing things do not work

>out, doesn't it hold true for the boys too? And now at least there are

>umpteen number of cases where the girls are doing it 'for fun' nad if

>it is the boy who is 'involved' wouldn't he get hurt. Is it just

>because loss of virginity 'shows' in a woman? I think we must think

>deeper than culture and the 'usual' stuff. and no Shyam, it is not

>West vs. east (India). It is a belief and not just what goes on in

>society, here or there. Because my thought hinges on emotions and not

>just doing it 'for the fun of it'.

>4. as for age and maturity, the two do not necessarily go together.

>And especially when diffrentiating between love and lust goes, I doubt

>the strength of correlation (stastically speaking!!!!)

>Coming to sex within marriage, and related to point 4 above, we all

>just have to introspect our relationships and see how often we make

>love out of lust and out of love!!! And simply because we are married

>and have all the right and the reasons to do it, we don't give it a

>second thought! (that includes me, and 'us', by the way - I'm thinking

>while writing this!).

>And as for true love comes once and waiting for the right one, Renuka,

>does it have to be your husband. why can't that 'true love' be the

>'boyfriend' you could not marry? Of course one has to stay for life

>with the latter (again in the Indian context) but so what if you have

>relationship in the past? Boys too (because 'boys will be boys') and

>that too with prostitutes (sorry, commercial sex workers!) that is OK,

>but not for girls!

>Let us just rethink, make space for changes, and accept that neither

>love nor sex is 'bad' (as Kishoreda says). and we have to first live

>with ourselves and then with society. So..... everybody to what they

>are comfortable with.

>And just as an off-shoot, for those who haven't read the daVinci code,

>plaese do. I know the book seems like an attack on Christianity, and

>i'm sorry for that, But i am recommending it for an insight that it

>offers on the man-woman relationship and it's 'sanctity' and the

>'sanctity of sex'. And that sanctity need not be marriage!

>Ideas on 'forced' post-marital sex later Kishoreda!

>Anchita (93)

>

>> Mmmm! Anchita. That was a beautiful and thoughtful mail.

>>

>> Yes, we Indians do make such a big issue over a small tissue. Premarital Sex

>> (with or without love) has been going on since marriage was invented by us

>> crazy humans.

>>

>> I just beg to differ from you in one important aspect. Girls think of love

>> first, while boys think of sex first. If both occur at the same time, well

>> and good. However, they need not be together to give a beautiful experience.

>> Remember, love has nothing to do with sex and vice versa. And both are not

>> wrong. Society has imposed the wrongness on them.

>>

>> Whether we admit it or not, pre-marital sex has been going on in Sevagram

>> since ancient times. Yes, even before the very pre-historic times of 1974.

>> And everyone involved was having a jolly good time until this HIV thing

>> cropped up.

>>

>> Okay, now Anchita, lets have your views on post-marital sex, I mean the one

>> where the marriage is not fulfilling and the spouse seeks fulfilment

>> outside.

>>

>> Kishore Shah 1974

>>

>> Re: Dressing up-Moms and Dads

>>

>>

>> > Well, decided to chip in regarding this pre-marital sex issue.

>> > two-three things I would like to say.

>> > We must examine our own values on the whys of sex. Just because it is

>> > our 'culture' of no pre-marital sex, does it make everyone engaging in

>> > it wrong, and as a corollary, does it make everybody involved in sex

>> > post-marriage right?

>> >

>> > To clarify, let me give two extreme situations. a boy and girl very

>> > much and truly in love, want to share it all, including their bodies,

>> > want to experience it all with the one special person, want to give it

>> > all to that one person, so decide to have sex (I'd prefer the tern

>> > 'love-making' here!). of course, they are not married, and i will not

>> > discuss whether they intend to get married, are engaged, or... this is

>> > immaterial.

>> >

>> > On the other hand is this couple, very much married, but 'horrible'

>> > husband, but who feles it is right to have sex with his wife and

>> > so..... This is sex within marriage.

>> >

>> > On a very neutral and 'culturally appropriate' for India setting, an

>> > arranged match, girl boy do not really 'know' each other, not really

>> > in 'love' are put in the same bedroom on the first night and expected

>> > to....., or if not then, a few days later on the honeymoon.... Of

>> > course the physical plaesure etc. is there, and the 'hormones' rage

>> > then, it's not forced, but what about love????

>> >

>> > Basically when I think about sex, I remember what my mother had told

>> > me when she had talked about the 'birds and the bees'. She said that

>> > there was no doubt that sex done well gives you physical pleasure. but

>> > that was not all. Sex with the right person, gives you such an

>> > emotional bond, a 'high', a sense of emotional fulfilment.... I

>> > remember she said " You cannot get any closer to a person, than when

>> > you are making love " . She went ahead and said that this is something

>> > we should keep in mind should we (my sis and i) ever decide to have

>> > sex. Of course as a mother she cannot realy tell us that pre-marital

>> > sex is OK. But if we ever engaged in it for 'love' and keeping all the

>> > above in mind, 'as a woman' she would understand why we did it!.

>> >

>> > And even 18-19 years down the line, I have not forgoten that!

>> >

>> > So rather than drilling 'culture' and dos and don'ts, and 'not your

>> > age' fundas, explain what it really means to have sex. of course as

>> > docs we can add the 'dangers of unprotected sex!! But let's that not

>> > dilute the issue of the 'beauty' of sex, as I like to think of it.

>> >

>> > I'm going to gift to my daughter what my mother had gifted to me.

>> >

>> > Love to all.

>> > Anchita (93)

>>

>>

>>

>>

>> ------------------------------

>> Website: www.mgims.org

>> ------------------------------

>>

[Guest guest]

As far as I could decipher, here are the arguments, minus the adjectives:

The Anchita school of thought:

If illeg preg is the only concern (along with STDs), use a condom.

Having sex and leaving with an experience of a lifetime is far more

wonderful than marrying someone and living incompatibly forever.

Love and Sex are both different and beautiful things and should be savoured

independently or together according to circumstances.

The Ashok Bhaskar school of thought:

Condoms are hazardous as they frequently fail.

Sex is no guarantee that marriages later will work.

Marriage is the most sublime experience, even higher than sex.

To summarize, I present my school of thought, hereinafter called the Kishore

school of thought:

Use strong condoms, preferably with a back up of contraceptive pills.

(Prostaglandins are a lifeline here.)

Have sex only with someone you do not expect to marry. No expectations = No

disappointments.

Be prepared for divorce irrespective of whether you marry someone you have

sex with or otherwise.

In short:

Have sex with the sexy and marry the homely type.

Kishore Shah 1974

PS: Sex was invented billions of years before marriage was invented. In fact

the first sex occurred when two amoebae exchanged some proteins.