Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 5/3/83; site ukc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!wmmw
From: wmmw@ukc.UUCP (W.M.M.Weir)
Newsgroups: net.nlang.india,net.women,net.religion
Subject: Re: Premarital Sex
Message-ID: <5256@ukc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 15:36:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: ukc.5256
Posted: Mon Jun 24 15:36:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 20-Jun-85 20:44:23 EDT
References: <1648@amdahl.UUCP> <296@ihlpm.UUCP>
Reply-To: wmmw@ukc.UUCP (W.Weir)
Distribution: net
Organization: Computing Laboratory, U of Kent at Canterbury, UK
Lines: 38
Xref: watmath net.nlang.india:441 net.women:5934 net.religion:7154


[Munch me]
I often think that there is a good deal of material talked about premarital
sex that people should be ashamed of. The talk that's going on at the present
is mere pandering to wont.

It is very easy to say that there is nothing wrong with premarital sex, and
equally very easy to say (dogmatically) that it's right out. What annoys me
is that people are so ready to jump on the band wagon. I mean, for instance,
is the analogy of shopping for a car *really* applicable to marriage? Would
the marriage be best arranged if the partner was a belonging, primarily
designed to satisfy? It's a very appealing analogy because it favours
that which satisfies. Now just suppose I came up with an analogy suggesting
that premarital sex is completely immoral. I'd have a flame on my hands.

And should we also rule out talking to the opposite sex if we are to
rule out premarital sex (an infered, serious suggestion)? Surely this
"reasoning" is folly.

Let us have consideration for other people and not ourselves when we come
to judgements about morals which will effect future generations. What we
decide here will either de-restrict pre-marital sex or control it.
A new generation of children will be, in increased measure, of single parent
families, and if the concept of marriage cheapens further, the family unit
will dissolve. These are facets of the permission of pre-marital sex which we
should not ignore. How can we argue with respect only to our own benefit?

And here I should make my point of view clear. I am deciding.
But I am not willing to jump on a bandwagon, and I am not willing to take
the easy way out merely because it is satisfying.

[Note, I am seemingly arguing here for sex restriction, but that is only
 because it is the system under attack. If sex were totally de-restricted
 I would probably argue from the other point of view. Just let's THINK!]

No smileys.

W.Weir