He may be a jerk but he's the one stuck with a kid and doesn't have a girlfriend that obviously would have had sex with him. That guy is obviously the dumbass in this situation.

this... is an understatement.

he means he doesn't have premarital sex with you... what a jerk. Men... smh

**** you, 53.

single? there's an App for that.

72, priceless XD

at least your an aunt=) but that sucks sorry OP

53- Yeah, not all guys are like that. So shut up.

22: That doesn't fully make sense. He *did* have free access to sex-- he just didn't pick the OP to screw. And he could be in a relationship with OP's sister now, meaning, again, free access to sex.

no 53, I meant what a jerk for lying to and cheating on his girlfriend.

op hope you cut his balls off. that sucks but look at the silver lining you aren't ALSO preggers with his baby

i can help you with the horny part ;)

Any guy who doesn't believe in or want to have sex (with his girlfriend) is gay.

193 - Apparently the boyfriend isn't gay. Idiot.

i can ease your needs, or at least the sexual part.

193- Shutup. There is a difference between not WANTING sex and not HAVING it. Every man and woman wants sex. it's human. however, men can be celibate and straight for moralistic or religious reasons.

you shouldn't have believed him. Women are bitches because of men like that, how could your sister do that to you !

hey I was gunna say that lawl

agree with 54 :)

Are you sure? Because they don't want to have sex they are gay? Idiot...

apparently he was doing a little more than that

oh your horny now arnt you ? oh the magic you can do with your hand.

Ydi for thinking a guy can go without sex

perhaps she was the marriage material, guys around here dont ever touch their marraige material, doesnt mean they wont touch other girls.... though the sister? awkward

naive? that isn't naive. it'd be more normal for him to be antisex (bc some people are surprisingly) then to knock up her little sister.

I'm not wishing the ex good luck. At least I didn't mean to, I meant good luck with DEALING with your sister, the baby and your ex. Because since he got her sister pregnant, she'll probably see her ex around. Or not. That depends.

****

hey

it takes passion and commitment to make a bitch believe you like that I am impressed

/agree

... ....... Seriously? I'm not sure if many guys would WANT to bullshit their girlfriends about no premarital sex. At least, I don't know of any. From the way the girl makes it out to be, she was definitely DTF.

Ha, you ******* champs.

yeah I agree with her guys u r losers shut up

asshole

I don't think that's true. Not always does that line mean that. sometimes, yes. But it is a matter of personal opinion. Just because I say I am not going to have sex with my boyfriend doesn't mean I don't want to. I actually want to have sex with him, but I told myself and him that I'm going to wait. I don't know, I think your statement is pretty generalized.

my boyfriend and I are waiting. And it's not easy. We've come very close to doing it on many occasions, and then he always says "remember our promise?" and we stop. Just because a guys not having sex with you doesn't mean he's being unfaithful.

But you can't possibly know if he's not cheating on you ^^

It's called trust and the fact that some people out there in the big wide world aren't dickheads.

Cinn is right.

0 advantages... except that then when you get married you know for sure your genitals aren't wrought with disease. Just saying.

Wow. What do they teach the kids in American schools these days? Genitals wrought with disease. Class. You are aware that if neither you nor your boyfriend have had sex with anyone else then as long as you only stick with each other, you're not going to get a disease. Also, there's this new thing called a condom which, if you or he has slept with someone, prevents disease. Not to mention, if you're worried, you could go get checked with him. And finally, if he did have a disease and gave it to you because you had sex before marriage, you are aware that he would also give it to you if you were married. Marriage is not an effective block for STIs. So much wrong with your statement it's unreal!

89 you kind of supported what I said. If you don't have sex with anyone til your married than you're practicing abstinence. If you have sex with three people, then wait to have sex til you're married with your current partner, you're not.

I'm not agreeing with what you're saying at all. You're saying that if you don't practice abstinence then your genitals will be "wrought with disease". I'm questioning this. I've slept with 3 girls, but sensibly, not gone sleeping around with anyone, but certianly not practiced abstinence and yet, my genitals are fine. So your one advantage of practicing abstinence is null, as in this day and age, it is fairly easy to avoid STDs/STIs if you engage your brain.

I agree with JohnBoy - what on Earth do they teach kids now? You'll notice that on here, a woman that sleeps with even one guy is automatically a syphilitic *****. Guess what people - sex is normal, fun, and you're being lied to in the name of some unrealistically naive religiously motivated notion of celibacy propagated by people who are too self-conscious to tell you the truth. If you choose not to do it, fine - no big deal, it's your own decision, but if you are safe, responsible and get checked out every so often, it's not the 'sky falling in' that you're being taught. Treat your partner(s) with respect, behave like a responsible adult, and make your own choices.

Fallacy: Anyone who has sex before marriage is a *****. Fallacy: Anyone who waits until marriage is a stupid, ignorant maniac. Reality: All people who convince themselves that only their methods are correct are obtuse and should be put in solitary confinement. I think, but I could be wrong, that this is something 137 hinted at. If so, I thank you for being intelligent.

...To each their own, I presume?

Yep, that was what I was getting at, but the 'fire, brimstone and virulent pustules' that I was railing against, sort of made my rant a little one-sided. I feel that people are being fed an unrealistic version of what sex is and represents. Obviously, it's not for everyone, and I'd strongly advocate that a choice of abstinence is a valid one, but it seems to be the only one promoted, I believe at the expense of education that - lets face it - most people will genuinely need. The thing about choice is that it's a two way street - to tell kids they can choose to be abstinent should also come with the acceptance that they can choose to not be.

Blue balls!!!

CitrusGirl: I'm certainly not against abstinence, but citing the avoidance of disease as the sole motivation for staying abstinent is rather silly. As oc mentioned, there's a multitude of totally nonsexual ways to contract diseases. For example, my grandpa contracted Hep C through a blood transfusion during open-heart surgery. Shall we abstain from such procedure as well, to prevent contraction? And before you cite the necessity of such surgeries, consider that many responsible, mature adults do see sex as necessary, either physically, or for maintaining a healthy romantic relationship. I will agree, though, thar fear of cheating is a ridiculous reason to decide to have sex.   oc, your point about [absolute] merits may be right. (I'm not saying it is-- I'm saying it's arguable, and since that argument doesn't further this discussion, I'll frame this response within the hypothetical.) However, individual preference does account for a vast number of personal life choices, so I think it shouldn't be dismissed so lightly. Preferences often dictate your  viewpoint on the merits and disadvantages of a decision, so really, it's a pretty subjective thing. Zeb:  Whether I agree with you or not depends on who you're addressing when you said this: "...you're being lied to in the name of some unrealistically naive religiously motivated notion of celibacy propagated by people who are too self-conscious to tell you the truth." If you were solely addressing CitrusGirl, then I can agree with the gist of your comment (but not all of your assumptions), since your response was based on her rather weak argument. If you were presuming, however, that anyone who chooses to be abstinent fits that description, I couldn't disagree more. As you said, people should "make [their] own choices", and choosing one lifestyle over another doesn't necessarily signify brainwashing, immaturity, or hastily-made, poorly-considered decisions.  boopity: Once again, we're in full agreement. :]

Ah. Then Zeb, we do agree. I'm particularly against abstinence-only sex ed, both within schools and at home.  meteor: "To each their own" is a fine philosophy, as long as it isn't used to justify, excuse, or God forbid, propogate ignorance, especially in something as important as sex. I have a hard time leaving each to his own when an "each" is content to mindlessly accept that "Premarital sex is just bad!" And I can't, in good conscience, accept it when an "each" is teaching that message to young people-- then it's not only stupid, but incredibly irresponsible and dangerous. The potentially disastrous results can be permanent and long-reaching, both before marriage and after.

I have to agree with Irish, discussing sex should be done without any kind of bias. Some people chose to wait, some chose not to, and people should understand the merits of both whilst making their own choice.

Alright...first off, no, having sex before marriage doesn't guarantee that you'll have an STD/STI, However, not having sex does pretty much guarantee you won't. (Yes, you will probably have a form of herpes, but not all forms of herpes are an STI) You won't have to worry about if they have them or not. Also, getting tested isn't always going to help, because, for example, HIV can take up to three years so show up on a test because it's not an active virus. Abstinence isn't the only way to go to stay protected, but it's a good way. Also, because anyone says anything, condoms don't protect you against EVERYTHING, so be careful with who you sleep with.

To the people on here who think people should have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want; STD's are one reason not to, obviously, and using condoms isn't always going to help this. Condoms don't work 100% of the time. Some people don't have sex because of their religion, and no one on here has a right to judge what people believe in. I'm not taking sides or anything, btw. :] In Health Ed. they teach kids not to have pre-marital sex because it can ruin their life, basically. You have to decide whether or not you're going to take the chance. So, basically, it's an individual decision, but before you make it you should understand the dangers.

Doing something wrong? No. Being one of the people I referenced earlier as acting obtuse? Yes.

Give me one good reason someone should have sex that isn't tied to his/her own selfish personal satisfaction. Maybe the reason some people don't have sex before marriage is above what you can comprehend.

Arn't long discussions that lead to the benefit of no one just great? ( please reply, feed tha trullz! )

Jane - I think we're on the same wavelength. In Australia, sex ed just tells you what's what. How it works, where the dangers are and how to minimise them. It was clear, concise and told you what you need to know. The teenage pregnancy rate amongst the people I was at school with was zero. My rant included religion because - especially in the US - religion seems to have wangled its way into sex education to the immense detriment of the people who are being taught. Abstinence only sex education isn't a strategy that prevents teenage pregnancies, it's a strategy that causes them. People WILL have sex, regardless of if others think they should or not, and to specifically deny them information is about as responsible as getting them to drive a car without lessons. In most jurisdictions, this is a choice people are permitted to make when they're 16. To say that someone can make a decision, but to deny them the information to make it safely is a travesty. It just bugs me that people would be so reckless with their childrens' health and lives while claiming to protect them.

Merit for waiting: Piece of mind that the only person you have had sex with is the one you're with. That it is something special, just between the two of you. No exs or anyone else to worry about being jealous and spiteful of no longer being with you (or possibly tempt you back). Just a belief in general that sex is for only the person that you know is 100% committed to you. These I consider much more of value than not catching a disease. In reality it's the people who sleep around that worry about catching diseases. I doubt the people waiting even look at it as a concern.

CHILDREN! Agree to disagree and march the hell on. I didn't read any of this, but I'm going to agree with OC. Only because he's flying solo in this thread and I feel sad for him.

You missed it completely. If that's how you're trying to quantify having sex vs. not having sex, then you have struck down every possible reason someone should have sex before marriage with that same argument. There are no tangible reasons. It all comes down to what the person wants. I just don't think that it's right to call the person stupid for wanting to do it. That's why I feel similar to Jane or boopity etc.

Most of the health benefits seem to be linked to the ****** and exercise that come from sex. However both of those can be achieved without having sex. Also some people hardly have any sex drive at all. If a study claims that people who have sex are healthier than those who don't. They should probably see if people who have no desire to have sex are generally less healthier than those who do have a desire regardless of if either have actually done so. Obviously the correlation could just be that people who are most likely to engage in sex are simply healthier than those without a desire to have it. I don't think there's any research available that can account for that.

A question for you, organisedchaos: Imagine a hypothetical situation in which you have the option of killing just one person, and you instantly receive one million dollars; there are no other effects on or from the rest of the world. Unlikely, to be sure, but were you in this situation, what would you do?

Why? There's "real world merit" in just stabbing the victim. You get money, and nobody else cares about the incident.

Since I'm familiar with each of you, I have to say that this argument is going to go nowhere. Some may believe having sex before marriage is wrong and selfish. Some may believe that having sex before marriage is perfectly healthy and normal, but it's truly a matter of opinion. Let's let people do what makes them happy, as long as they're not doing harm onto themselves or other people.

I agree w/ 234 :] That's basically what I was trying to say.

C'mon, FFML, I'm tryin' to work here. But I agree with you. However, it doesn't mean I won't at least shoot down some arguments (from both sides, preferably).

I was moody, because I ran out of popcorn and this argument suddenly became frustrating! I'm better now though. Carry on.

My boyfriend and I have been dating for two years and have agreed on no sex before marriage. It prevents unwanted pregnancy and makes that "first time" feel that much more special because you are each other's first. We keep our sex drives down by doing other sexual activities. It's not impossible. Both of us are 22 year old virgins and are content with our choice. That being said, we don't judge or care about other people's sex lives. What people do in the bedroom is of no one's concern except for you and your partner (and future partners if there are health risks involved). Just be safe and use protection if need be :)

^^This.

Friendship is a relationship too, and there most certainly is. It's hard to imagine, especially in this era, that some people aren't promiscuous, but some people are.

It sounds as though you are implying there are only two options: celibate and promiscuous. That would be incorrect.

ImFoe is right, Dickster. If you're having sex four hours into a relationship, you may be promiscuous. Four months is a bit long, but 4 years is ridiculous.

Since when has four months become long?

Since I've gotten old and impatient ;)

I pretty much agree with comment 9. sexless relationship for four years? y..? no1 is getting any younger.

I haven't had sex in just about a year and a half, funzies! I actually am getting younger, every time I grow another year older, people tell me I still look 16/17...

Oh, how I wish snickerdoodles were here. Imagine what she'd say to this.

Disagree.

Actually it was a specific reply to the comment above mine. For the sake of relevance however, I don't believe that sex is a requirement or a necessity in a relationship, depending on the people's views of course.

wait so are you saying that you can't be a boy/girlfriend of someone before you have sex? and before that you're just friends?

My boyfriend and I have been dating for two years and have agreed on no sex before marriage. It prevents unwanted pregnancy and makes that "first time" feel that much more special because you are each other's first. We keep our sex drives down by doing other sexual activities. It's not impossible. Both of us are 22 year old virgins and are content with our choice. That being said, we don't judge or care about other people's sex lives. What people do in the bedroom is of no one's concern except for you and your partner (and future partners if there are health risks involved). Just be safe and use protection if need be :) Note : this is ALSO a response to the ridiculously long conversation above. I couldn't post there due to too many comments and I felt it was just as relevant here.

i agree. ;D

******* up her life with some random guy will help her? Lol, stupid.