This topic was brought up in the HPV vaccine thread, and I wanted to get everybody's opinion on it.

I think that sex before marriage is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it, along with living together, gives couples a chance to see what their marriage might be like. Sex is a huge part of marriage, and bad sex can undermine a marriage, IMO. Plus, it helps you figure out if what you are feeling is true love or just plain lust.

I personally believe that the push to make teens abstain until marriage may actually be contributing to the high divorce rate. If people think that they have to be married to have sex, I think they might rush into a marriage because they might not know the difference between lust and love. Take my former roommate, for example. She and her boyfriend dated for 4 years before they got married. To my knowledge, they were both virgins when they married. They separated within 6 months of marrying and were officially divorced the day before their first anniversary. I really believe that the disgrace in having sex before marriage and living together (he was Mormon) contributed to the failure of their marriage. I think that if they had been allowed to see what each other was truly like, apart from dates, they wouldn't have gotten married.

Just want to jump in for a second. The comment about rape being not about sex, but solely about domination or brutality, was a very popular position that psychologists and other professionals took for a while. They are finally beginning to come around to admitting that rape IS about sex, as well as dominance and brutality.

And it seems to me that on both sides of the sex before marriage question, many are speaking to extremes one way or the other.

I believe that most of us are somewhere in the middle of the road on this. Most of us are not either extremely promiscuous (whenever, wherever or whoever) or believe that abstinence only (nobody ever) is the definintive and correct answer to the question.

Much of what has been discussed has to do with respect, which goes to the core of all of this. If a young lady or young man is considering whether they should have sex before marriage, we have hopefully instilled in them a proper respect for themself as well as their potential sexual partner.

Indiscriminate sex and sex with no respect for one's partner is where societal problems arise and what results in one partner being taken advantage of and being used in a harmful way. That can never be a good thing.

When both partners care about each other and respect each other, sex before marriage can be great and wonderful. If one's religious beliefs prohibit premarital sex, then that person should seek out like-minded individuals to date.

But in any case (in this long second of mine) we should make absolutely certain that our children have an education that includes anatomical lessons as well as philosophical ones or if they don't they could wind up like me, a virgin, married at 19 to a very religious virgin guy, both with no sensible sexual education. Our education was simply a religious one - ABSTAIN BEFORE MARRIGE.

The result of that union, on my wedding night, was an extremely painful, unromantic, awkward and unsatisfying experience which left me practically unable to walk the next day. The marriage should have ended the day after the wedding, but instead, I felt so compelled by my church to make my marriage work that I stayed with the idiot, supported him while he worked on his degree in architecture, got drafted and before leaving for Viet Nam made sure I was pregnant, and upon his return 13 months later, was still the pompous, religious, I'm the man and I am perfect and you are my subserviant wife. Fortunately I divorced his butt after 4 years and it was the best decision I ever made in my life.

You better believe that before I married any other man, I would know what the heck I was getting into. I am now married to a wonderful man who repsects everything about me (as I do him). He doesn't go about professing his high moral values and his Christianity or his religious beliefs. However he is has the highest moral values and ethical standards of anyone I have ever known. *Lesson learned*

Today I remembered an article I read many years ago; I've been trying to find it and I can't, but I'll keep searching. The gist of the article was that a woman's cervix was more likely to develop dysplasia (and therefore cervical cancer) the more sexual partners she had -- but not because of the increased potential for exposure to STD's. The reason was that a woman's cervix "reacted" to a man's semen (almost like a chemical reaction), and if she had multiple sexual partners the cervix was unable to stabilize to one partical chemical composition of semen and she was more likely to develop dysplasia.

I've been looking for the article but I can't find it. Has anyone else ever heard of this?

It does ring a bell for me, if I find anything I'll post it.

Today I remembered an article I read many years ago; I've been trying to find it and I can't, but I'll keep searching. The gist of the article was that a woman's cervix was more likely to develop dysplasia (and therefore cervical cancer) the more sexual partners she had -- but not because of the increased potential for exposure to STD's. The reason was that a woman's cervix "reacted" to a man's semen (almost like a chemical reaction), and if she had multiple sexual partners the cervix was unable to stabilize to one partical chemical composition of semen and she was more likely to develop dysplasia.

I've been looking for the article but I can't find it. Has anyone else ever heard of this?

This is true. Furthermore, the earlier a girl becomes sexually active, the greater her chances of developing cervical cancer.

Today I remembered an article I read many years ago; I've been trying to find it and I can't, but I'll keep searching. The gist of the article was that a woman's cervix was more likely to develop dysplasia (and therefore cervical cancer) the more sexual partners she had -- but not because of the increased potential for exposure to STD's. The reason was that a woman's cervix "reacted" to a man's semen (almost like a chemical reaction), and if she had multiple sexual partners the cervix was unable to stabilize to one partical chemical composition of semen and she was more likely to develop dysplasia.

I've been looking for the article but I can't find it. Has anyone else ever heard of this?

Yeah, I remember reading this article. It noted that nuns tended to have the lowest incidence of cervical cancer and women who were sexually very active had the highest incidence. Another article which came out around the same time, this one on breast cancer, noted that women who had children tended to have a lower rate of breast cancer. After reading these two articles I thought to myself, Oops!

Also noted in another article around this time was that Jewish women tended to have a lower rate of cervical cancer. It was surmised that this was because their men are circumsized and therefore cleaner. Less foreign material is being dropped off at the cervix. If my memory serves me, all three studies were made at least 2-3 decades ago.

He would blush and literally get angry at my roommate when she would even mention the words "tampon" or "pad", even when it was in the context of writing them on a grocery list. He would also avoid that section of the store. I'm sorry, but I think if you avoid the underwear section of stores entirely and can't even hear the names of feminine products, you are repressed, not respectful.

I conditioned my boys early. I made them go to the store and buy tampons for their younger sister. Now, thanks to my early training, they have absolutely no problem going out for tampons/pads for their wives. My daughters-in-law appreciate that. I also "taught" my husband to buy the right ones for me, when I still used them (I had a hysterectomy at 33).

Another article which came out around the same time, this one on breast cancer, noted that women who had children tended to have a lower rate of breast cancer. After reading these two articles I thought to myself, Oops!

I have read that women who BREASTFEED have a lower incidence of breast cancer, but did not realize it extended to all women who have given birth. The only woman in my family to have breast cancer was a great aunt who never had children. Might be something to it.

I have read that women who BREASTFEED have a lower incidence of breast cancer, but did not realize it extended to all women who have given birth. The only woman in my family to have breast cancer was a great aunt who never had children. Might be something to it.

Uh, you are undoubtedly right.... I think I remember that it was women who breastfeed.

Sunta, it's clear from the totality your posts that you believe fundamentalists are the cause of all the world's ills.

I would not say that fundamentalism is the cause of all the world's ills, but I really don't think anyone can ignore the ills it does cause, such as wars, the denigration of women, violence, child rape, suicide bombing, and torture.

I don't see how anyone could deny these facts. If anyone truly thinks that religion is not bloodthirsty, they need to take a closer look at history.

Sometimes I wonder if you all think I try to come off as knowing it all about everything. I sure don't know it all. I've just lived a long time and I have lots of experiences. I also have lots of opinions and love to share them. LOL

My mother and sister both died from breast cancer. I have been through a lot of research including speaking with quite a number of doctors and medical personnel. I volunteered for a study in Canada that involved the question of using a certain drug to keep from getting breast cancer. After going through all the background studies, I wound up opting out, which I was later glad of because the people doing the studies in Canada skewed the stats a little.

Anyway women who wait until their mid-30s or in their 40s to start a family have a higher incidence of breast cancer.

Women who have never had children are more prone to breast cancer than those women who have had children.

Women who have children are less prone to get cancer if they breastfeed than those who do not breastfeed their babies.

But I wouldn't get too excited about those studies one way or the other. There are 5 different kinds of breast cancer. Some are influenced by female hormones, some not so much. Some genetic predisposition to breast cancer may make you more apt to get breast cancer, but it is not a large percentage (2%, last I heard) of increased risk. Getting a double mastectomy, if you are genetically predisposed to getting breast cancer, will not guarantee that you won't get it (you still will have some suseptible tissue).

The best way to live with this ever constant threat of breast cancer is to do breast self-exams on a regular basis. You do need to learn how to detect cancer with a self-exam. There are doctors who can teach you and who can provide an artificial breast with the 5 kinds of cancer lumps present for you to feel. You would be surprised how difficult it is to find each of them even when you know they are there.

It takes about a million cells present for an x-ray to reveal cancer. It only takes one cell for it to have metastisized. You have to take responsibility for your own health. If you ever find a lump, do not wait. Get it analyzed immediately. If you have any doubts or do not feel comfortable with the results, consult an oncologist! Find out all of your options. Early detection gives you the best chance for survival. But being informed and making your own decisions based on the help from doctors who specialize in breast cancer diagnosis and treatment, is imperative.

The chances that a woman will get breast cancer are about 1 woman in 9. They used to say one woman in 10. Some argue that the number is 1 in 8 now. I believe that you can't live in fear (like I used to) of getting breast cancer. You just need to be careful, take good care of yourself, don't stay stressed for long periods of time, be happy and laugh a lot, spend some time helping others. That's the BJean guide for healthy, happy boobies. Oh yeah, when you are no longer using them to feed your babies, it's helpful to use them for entertainment for your significant other. Your body will thank you because your breasts will love the attention.

Bet I just lost some of the guys who were having fun reading this thread.

BJean - no sweat on my end. I come across as a know it all, when in the real world that's not the case at all. I just carry strong opinions, and a fair amount of knowledge, and have no problems speaking up. Including when I don't know something. I'll be the first to ask about it so I can add it to my repetoire.

And it's the best when two "know it alls" disagree on something! :biggrin1:

wHEETSIN: Amen, darlin'! They make for the most interesting and educational threads!!

(I just re-read my post from earlier about pre-marital sex and saw a really glaring error. My Bad. That's what I get for posting in a hurry.) :omg:

......they could wind up like me, a virgin, married at 19 to a very religious virgin guy, both with no sensible sexual education. Our education was simply a religious one - ABSTAIN BEFORE SEX.

The result of that union, on my wedding night, was an extremely painful, unromantic, awkward and unsatisfying experience which left me practically unable to walk the next day. The marriage should have ended the day after the wedding, but instead, I felt so compelled by my church to make my marriage work that I stayed with the idiot, supported him while he worked on his degree in architecture, got drafted and before leaving for Viet Nam made sure I was pregnant, and upon his return 13 months later, was still the pompous, religious, I'm the man and I am perfect and you are my subserviant wife. Fortunately I divorced his butt after 4 years and it was the best decision I ever made in my life.

Bjean, I also was a religious and virginal 19-year-old, marrying a very young, religious and inexperienced guy. Our wedding night was fantastic and fun---all that exploring!--- and something we still talk about, even after 38 years of marriage. I think what happened to you had alot more to do with the type of man you married than anything relating to either religion or sexual experience. Your first husband sounds like an egotistical jerk, and they can be found in anyone, religious or not. I have known several men who have been sexually active since their early teens, and they are some of the most egotistical people on earth. They treat their wives and girlfriends like slaves and think they are God's gift to women. I always thought it was because they took sex so casually and didn't learn respect or self-control, but now I think it is just because some people are just born to treat others like dirt, whether it is to make themselves feel important or just because they don't care about anyone except themselves. I am sorry to hear about your first marriage, but he sounds like the type of guy I was talking about and you are far better off now, thank goodness!

Karen

Thank you, BJean, for your post on breast cancer. Knowledgeable posts are fun! We all get to learn from each other.

Some of you may not know that Jewish women who have their roots in Eastern Europe have a significantly higher chance of developing breast cancer. It's a genetically linked issue.

And here is another depressing bit of information: if all the women in your family have developed breast cancer the odds are dreadfully high that you will, too. I knew a woman who fell into that category. She was receiving mamograms quarterly for this reason. Less than a month and a half after she had been declared clear she could feel a lump.

And don't forget that men can develop breast cancer, too, even though this is less common.

Karen: Of course you are right about there being sensitive and respectful and thoughtful religious men in this world. I wasn't suggesting that all men who are religious are like my ex!

I can tell you though, that the Church where he grew up and that I later joined, did produce an innordinate number of young men with the same feelings of entitlement from women and the same feelings of superiority over women. It was often addressed from the pulpit and it was preached to us as a congregation what the Southern Baptist interpretation of the Bible says about women's and men's roles in marriage. In fact, according to their interpretation of the Bible, they believe that my ex and I are still married. We spent time counseling with the pastor, who said that I should cleave to my husband and that if he hurt me in any way physically or mentally, I was to forgive him and quietly support my husband in every way that the Bible tells a woman to help her husband. So his religion did play a very important role in our marriage and in his treatment of me. (By sharing this, some of you may understand why I reacted so poorly to a certain religious discussion on another LB thread recently.)

I have also known men who aren't religious who treat women as objects. As for those men who are egotistical and insensitive and who may suffer from low self-esteem, they can probably use some help sorting out the reasons for their lack of respect for women.

It is interesting to note that in some ways, society approves of their chauvanistic behavior.

It is interesting to note that in some ways, society approves of their chauvanistic behavior.

Yes, and have you ever wondered why there seem to be so many women willing to put up with these egotistical and chauvanistic jerks? Especially when they are being beaten and abused? I know there are many psychological reasons for the willingness of a woman to accept abuse, but it seems to me that we focus so much on the woman's issues and not enough on the reasons and the cure for men who like to abuse. We put them in jail, then they get out and do it again. Oftentimes to the same willing woman. I wonder if it is even possible to fix a truly abusive man?