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.

Someone brought up the point about Europe being more permissive of nudity than the US. I think it's very, very interesting to point out that the more permissive the society, the lower the rates of teenage sexual activity, teenage pregnancy, abortion, and rape are.

The more restrictive the society, the higher the rates of violent sexual crimes are.

Just talk to anyone who comes from the highly religious and restrictive "third world" about their rates of child molestation for example!

As natural, normal views of sexuality increase, sex crimes go down. As restrictive, religious, and antiquated views increase, sex crimes go up, way up.

Did anyone see the news today about the international child porn ring that was just busted? It was based in Europe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17022345/

Why does the "whenever, whoever, whatever" person have an issue? What's the problem with that philosophy? Sex is fun, it doesn't need to be confined to marriage, and there's nothing wrong with multiple partners . . . at least that's what most people here are saying . . . what am I missing?

I think you are making this too much a black and white thing. Yes, there are people out there who don't think sex is much more then a fun biological function. That is fine to do whenever, whoever, whatever. There are those who believe you should only have one partner, your spouse after marriage.

And in between is a spectrum of people basically who think sex is OK within a relationship, but don't define that as marriage. What they do define as a relationship may vary of course, but it's not just one or the other.

I think you are making this too much a black and white thing. Yes, there are people out there who don't think sex is much more then a fun biological function. That is fine to do whenever, whoever, whatever. There are those who believe you should only have one partner, your spouse after marriage.

And in between is a spectrum of people basically who think sex is OK within a relationship, but don't define that as marriage. What they do define as a relationship may vary of course, but it's not just one or the other.

I agree with you! I was just astounded by the claim that the people who espouse the "whever, whoever, whatever" have a problem -- especially from someone who says that the people who believe in abstinence have a problem.

Why does the "whenever, whoever, whatever" person have an issue? What's the problem with that philosophy? Sex is fun, it doesn't need to be confined to marriage, and there's nothing wrong with multiple partners . . . at least that's what most people here are saying . . . what am I missing?

Well I think that most people would view a "healthy" view of sexuality to be sex that takes place responsibly, and not say, unprotected with someone has HIV.

Or with someone who is underage, or with say, your best friend's husband. That kind of thing.

"Whenever, whoever, whatever" is a decidedly irresponsible-sounding mantra when it comes to sex. One would hope that the majority of people take the appropriate precautions and responsibilities and not completely throw caution to the wind, which can result in many long term and unpleasant consequences.

That being said, it is not my position to judge the person that adopts that thinking, but I would think they may face issues down the road if they take a completely irresponsible attitude.

Did anyone see the news today about the international child porn ring that was just busted? It was based in Europe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17022345/

I didn't say Europe has no sex crime, I said it has a lower sex crime rate than the United States.

We define healthy and responsible differently. And I recognize that it is everyone's right to define it however they'd like.

Did anyone see the news today about the international child porn ring that was just busted? It was based in Europe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17022345/

I didn't say Europe has no sex crime, I said it has a lower sex crime rate than the United States.

"VIENNA, Austria - Austrian authorities said Wednesday they have uncovered a major international child pornography ring involving more than 2,360 suspects from 77 countries, including hundreds in the United States, who paid to view videos of young children being sexually abused."

The suspects were from all over. Most seem to be Americans, followed by Germans then French, at least based on the numbers in the article. Countries from Algeria to South Africa were involved, as well as Russia.

When I look at the world around me, I see sex crime increases as promiscuity increases. In the US, Europe, Africa, Canada, South America, and everywhere else.

"VIENNA, Austria - Austrian authorities said Wednesday they have uncovered a major international child pornography ring involving more than 2,360 suspects from 77 countries, including hundreds in the United States, who paid to view videos of young children being sexually abused."

The suspects were from all over. Most seem to be Americans, followed by Germans then French, at least based on the numbers in the article. Countries from Algeria to South Africa were involved, as well as Russia.

That's what I said. In international ring based in Austria. And since the population of the US is larger by just a smidge than Germany or Austria, one would expect the US offenders to be greater in quantity. I suppose we could do a statistical analysis of offenders to population. I also think the article highlighted the number of Americans because it is broadcast to an American audience.

If your parents didn't have a problem with it and didn't teach you to have a problem with it, why were you horribly embarrassed?

Oh, as for that, my parents were both Europeans but I was a stolid little Canadian girl, a product of my own culture in many ways, and this was the early 1960s.

Fascinating webpage about rapes per capita by country. Of course, as with all statistics, easily manipulated and can be skewed by underreporting, definition of rape, etc. -- but still interesting:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

When I look at the world around me, I see sex crime increases as promiscuity increases.

Really??? Shall we get into a discussion of the rape rates in Darfur, a country of devout Muslims? Do you think their society advocates promiscuity?

Shall we talk about child sex slaves in Iran, or what's happening in Utah today with devout religious people forcing innocent young girls to marry against their will?

No, it's not promiscuity that causes an increase in sex crimes, it's fundamentalism.

I am amazed at how everyone is jumping to the conclusion that my friend's dear, dear 10YO boy doesn't respect women because he doesn't ogle them. This boy is incredibly kind and respectful, and his mother is not teaching him that the human body is dirty or sinful. She is teaching him that it is not for public consumption. AND she is teaching him to respect not only women, but all human beings of all sizes, shapes, and shades.

.

I think what concerned some of us was that this woman was telling the child that he must not look whenever some underdressed babe wanders by. This kinda puts the female body under the category of a taboo object and thus freights it with more emotional weight than it might otherwise have had. Certainly the child is not going to feel comfortable around young women nor take them for granted as, well, part of the landscape. Indeed, it is my opinion that once they are designated as taboo they will become more erotically charged.

I think I am going to agree with Sunta. Rape and other sex crimes aren't about sex, they are about men having power over their victim. Since many fundamentalist religions emphasize men's power over women, I would imagine that sex crimes also increase in those areas.

Fascinating webpage about rapes per capita by country. Of course, as with all statistics, easily manipulated and can be skewed by underreporting, definition of rape, etc. -- but still interesting:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

What I wonder as I read that is how underreporting may vary by country. In some countries, being a victim of rape is so shameful the woman is killed by her relatives, or expected to kill herself. I would think that would affect rates.

It is an interesting link in all though.