Is it best to wait

    • You have to decide. I mean I would feel terrible telling you that you should just go for it cuz you only live once and then your condom breaks and you get an STD or get a girl pregnant. That's why we all have to decide and live with the consequences. Personally I was super close to two former gfs and we never did jt. I regretted it. I lost my vCard to someone I wasn't dating and that was great but also confirmed my thoughts that I was stupid to wait.

    • I'd think it would be better to do it with someone you know (whether that's a serious relationship or a really good friend) and want to do it with, than to just do it with someone just to get laid

      Good Friend :play: Kinda Romantic :love: Ready to Rock :zomg:

      "If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day."

    • I think sex is special and should be reserved for someone special so that it is meaningful. It may be a pie in the sky way of looking at it, but its how I'm wired. I don't think it is something we should enter into lightly and you must be fully aware of any consequences that go along with it and I'm not just talking about pregnancy or STDs or what not. Emotions and feelings come into play and we all must be prepared to deal with that ... unless you are a shell of a human being and just view it as a means to get your rocks off. Lots of folks are like that and to each their own I always say but I ain't wired that way at all.

      The wisdom of a gay 15 year old.

    • txvttxvt wrote:

      I mostly have long distance relationships but is it better to wait for the right one to work out

      Or should i just say fuck it and try to get laid without dating?

      In other words, should i wait to have sex or should i just do it because i feel like im getting old
      It's up to you
      Some people do it just for the heck of doing it and for pleasure, others prefer to be in a romantic relation and be sure they do it with soleone they love
      There is no right answer to that question

      I had sex young I was 12, I think I wasn't ready maybe I should have waited coz I didn't really know what I was doing
      But it sure felt great :D

    • Ryanschmo wrote:

      it's always best to wait. Having sex for the sake of sex is a terrible idea. Ideally you'll want to wait until marriage. The rise in depression rates has coincided with the rise of promiscuous sex and decline in the marriage rate, and that's no mere coincidence.
      Thaets your opinion. And I would say that to a scientist without data to back up their statement. And I assume you're not a scientist, and you probably don't have definitive studies collaborating the cause and effect of sexual activity and depression.

    • Gabraham247 wrote:

      Ryanschmo wrote:

      it's always best to wait. Having sex for the sake of sex is a terrible idea. Ideally you'll want to wait until marriage. The rise in depression rates has coincided with the rise of promiscuous sex and decline in the marriage rate, and that's no mere coincidence.
      Thaets your opinion. And I would say that to a scientist without data to back up their statement. And I assume you're not a scientist, and you probably don't have definitive studies collaborating the cause and effect of sexual activity and depression.
      I can find those studies if you really want me to. But it's pretty self-evident. By every metric, and according to every study, married people are happier than single people, and this holds true whether the single people are sleeping around or not. It stands to reason that you'll be happier overall if you wait until marriage and remain monogamous within marriage. If you desire a long-term partner (spouse), then sleeping with whoever beforehand is just adultery practice. And everyone would rather their spouse not have a past, when it comes right down to it. Promiscuity serves no one; it feels good in the moment but has literally no benefits and tons of very serious drawbacks. It's just not worth it for the fleeting pleasure. On the other hand, the feeling of being able to tell your spouse you waited for them, on your wedding night, is DEFINITELY worth missing out on a few meaningless flings.
      What would you say is contributing to the huge rise in mental health problems that just so happens to coincide with the Sexual Revolution and breakdown of the family?

    • Ryanschmo wrote:

      Gabraham247 wrote:

      Ryanschmo wrote:

      it's always best to wait. Having sex for the sake of sex is a terrible idea. Ideally you'll want to wait until marriage. The rise in depression rates has coincided with the rise of promiscuous sex and decline in the marriage rate, and that's no mere coincidence.
      Thaets your opinion. And I would say that to a scientist without data to back up their statement. And I assume you're not a scientist, and you probably don't have definitive studies collaborating the cause and effect of sexual activity and depression.
      I can find those studies if you really want me to. But it's pretty self-evident. By every metric, and according to every study, married people are happier than single people, and this holds true whether the single people are sleeping around or not. It stands to reason that you'll be happier overall if you wait until marriage and remain monogamous within marriage. If you desire a long-term partner (spouse), then sleeping with whoever beforehand is just adultery practice. And everyone would rather their spouse not have a past, when it comes right down to it. Promiscuity serves no one; it feels good in the moment but has literally no benefits and tons of very serious drawbacks. It's just not worth it for the fleeting pleasure. On the other hand, the feeling of being able to tell your spouse you waited for them, on your wedding night, is DEFINITELY worth missing out on a few meaningless flings.What would you say is contributing to the huge rise in mental health problems that just so happens to coincide with the Sexual Revolution and breakdown of the family?
      I think it would be very hard to prove any of that
      1) there have been lots of relationships outside marriage through history. Kings had many mistresses, there where harems, some religions encouraged multiple wives
      2) how does being married work, for the many people who aren't happy. Being abused or just falling out of love. For a long part of time people stayed married just because there religion wouldn't let them divorce, many girls would get married because they needed a husband to provide for them. And still people who are in abusive relationships because they're to scared to leave
      3) how do you qualify depression through history, mental health is a very recent understanding in history. It used to be thought that the moon made people mad (lunacy), or that a woman's womb made her crazy. Just look at how the understanding of being shell shocked (in the world war) is now changed to PTSD, and the better understanding and treatment of it
      4) how do you quantify happy? Everyone has different things and levels that make them happy. Some people work success makes them happy, so can feel sad if they have an amazing family but their work life isn't working

      Good Friend :play: Kinda Romantic :love: Ready to Rock :zomg:

      "If you try to follow fashion you'll always be chasing, and probably never catch it. If you be yourself and make your own style, fashion might just bump into you one day."

    • 1) Mistresses are not a good thing. Kings had them because they could, not because it was healthy or good for the woman. Harems: are you kidding me? Do you want those to be a thing again? Multiple wives are still wives. Also not ideal, but it's not a counterpoint.

      BJade wrote:

      Ryanschmo wrote:

      Gabraham247 wrote:

      Ryanschmo wrote:

      it's always best to wait. Having sex for the sake of sex is a terrible idea. Ideally you'll want to wait until marriage. The rise in depression rates has coincided with the rise of promiscuous sex and decline in the marriage rate, and that's no mere coincidence.
      Thaets your opinion. And I would say that to a scientist without data to back up their statement. And I assume you're not a scientist, and you probably don't have definitive studies collaborating the cause and effect of sexual activity and depression.
      I can find those studies if you really want me to. But it's pretty self-evident. By every metric, and according to every study, married people are happier than single people, and this holds true whether the single people are sleeping around or not. It stands to reason that you'll be happier overall if you wait until marriage and remain monogamous within marriage. If you desire a long-term partner (spouse), then sleeping with whoever beforehand is just adultery practice. And everyone would rather their spouse not have a past, when it comes right down to it. Promiscuity serves no one; it feels good in the moment but has literally no benefits and tons of very serious drawbacks. It's just not worth it for the fleeting pleasure. On the other hand, the feeling of being able to tell your spouse you waited for them, on your wedding night, is DEFINITELY worth missing out on a few meaningless flings.What would you say is contributing to the huge rise in mental health problems that just so happens to coincide with the Sexual Revolution and breakdown of the family?
      I think it would be very hard to prove any of that1) there have been lots of relationships outside marriage through history. Kings had many mistresses, there where harems, some religions encouraged multiple wives
      2) how does being married work, for the many people who aren't happy. Being abused or just falling out of love. For a long part of time people stayed married just because there religion wouldn't let them divorce, many girls would get married because they needed a husband to provide for them. And still people who are in abusive relationships because they're to scared to leave
      3) how do you qualify depression through history, mental health is a very recent understanding in history. It used to be thought that the moon made people mad (lunacy), or that a woman's womb made her crazy. Just look at how the understanding of being shell shocked (in the world war) is now changed to PTSD, and the better understanding and treatment of it
      4) how do you quantify happy? Everyone has different things and levels that make them happy. Some people work success makes them happy, so can feel sad if they have an amazing family but their work life isn't working

      2) None of this addresses anything I said, but I'll answer anyway. In cases of being unhappy or "falling out of love," that's what marriage counseling etc. are for. There are many ways to go about fixing a broken marriage that don't have to result in divorce. Unhappiness and "losing the magic" are temporary. Easy divorce has made marriage vows essentially meaningless to many people, and wrecked the mental health of untold millions of children and youth, myself included. In cases of abuse, even those can be worked through if the abuser is willing to go through some serious changes (which may include jail time, depending), but with relentlessly repeated abuse, the marriage should probably end. Abuse happens just as often in unmarried couples, though, so you can't use abuse to argue against marriage.
      3) I'm talking the 20th century, after depression had become well-understood. There are also surveys on people's self-reported happiness levels, which are at a near-record low right now. If you compare the increasing divorce rates and falling marriage rates, correlated to the Sexual Revolution, with the rates of depression and suicide, you'll see a very clear trend. Is the destruction of the family unit solely to blame? No, but it's the single biggest contributing factor, not just in my opinion but in many others' as well, backed up by the data.
      4) Very good point. It's difficult to quantify happiness, but again I'll point you to surveys taken periodically which ask people to rate their overall happiness. "Overall" takes career, marriage and family, friends, living environment, and everything else into consideration. And the overall happiness levels have decreased dramatically. While some find more fulfillment from a career than from raising a family, for most this isn't true. We are biologically programmed to desire the latter. Without it, our species dies out. And because of the Sexual Revolution and all the fallout from it, that's exactly what we're starting to see. People aren't having kids...and they're not as happy. But we can help reverse this trend, by waiting for marriage and responsibly raising families.

    • Ryanschmo wrote:

      BlackParadePixie wrote:

      Alot of people arent having kids because they cant afford to.
      That seems logical on the surface, for real, but then you have to remember that poor people tend to have more kids than rich people.
      you mean immigrants and minorities? Because if you go deeper into all of these polls you're talking about you'll find that it's mostly white/Europeans whose birth rates are falling.

    • BlackParadePixie wrote:

      Ryanschmo wrote:


      BlackParadePixie wrote:

      Alot of people arent having kids because they cant afford to.
      That seems logical on the surface, for real, but then you have to remember that poor people tend to have more kids than rich people.
      you mean immigrants and minorities? Because if you go deeper into all of these polls you're talking about you'll find that it's mostly white/Europeans whose birth rates are falling.
      The birth rate is falling everywhere in the world outside sub-Saharan Africa. And even there, it's rising but at a slower rate. The world population is expected to level off sometime mid-century at around 10 or 11 billion people, then start falling. This is due to many factors and is not fully understood by anyone. It's also worth noting that "immigrants" is not by any means a monolithic term, and that the definition of "minorities" changes from country to country. One thing that is true pretty much everywhere though...is that the poor people tend to have more kids than the rich people.

    • Ryanschmo wrote:

      it's always best to wait. Having sex for the sake of sex is a terrible idea. Ideally you'll want to wait until marriage. The rise in depression rates has coincided with the rise of promiscuous sex and decline in the marriage rate, and that's no mere coincidence.
      Even if the figures show a negative correlation between marriage and depression, i.e. you are more likely to be depressed if you are not married, this does not mean that having sex while not married is the cause of the depression. In my view it is much more likely that the pleasure we experience from orgasm, whether that is from masturbation or sex, is relatively short lived and therefore has a limited effect on long term happiness, while feeling loved and having someone to love in return almost certainly has a significant effect on long term happiness.

      So, other than religious objections, I don't see a reason why you should not have casual sex if you want to, just as there is no reason not to masturbate as and when you want to. Whether it is worth the effort of finding someone willing is another matter entirely.

      collin13 wrote:

      BlackParadePixie wrote:

      Alot of people arent having kids because they cant afford to.
      That is probably a good and responsible thing. At least they aren't reliant on the Government to use tax dollars to support them.
      That's fine as long as there aren't a significant number of people who find they can't afford to have any children at all. I have known people who say: "Well, they should just work harder" but there is limited scope for increasing income by working harder. Those who get more money from their work are usually those that work at better jobs. Education, and opportunities, are things government policy has a significant effect on and, if a significant proportion of people are too poor to have any children then government policy is a failure.