Serious question, could fornication be wrong...?

Question

Serious question please give me your answer. Could waiting to have s*x after marriage (commitment, life bond, contractual obligations, etc) be a positive human survival trait that is learned socially?

In other words, should “No s*x until after marriage” be a secular goal?

Humans do not have as strong of natural instincts as most animals; we are dependant on nurturing social contact to teach much of our complex nature starting from an early age. Many of those social structures are passed on to us in the form of morals, “common sense” parental commands, laws, and for some of us religion.

As our knowledge grows larger and our society becomes increasingly more secular we have found that we have a lot in common and (hopefully) that our moral systems are similar (definitely not the same) even if some of the details are not.

I have noticed, however, that many organized religions put a heavy emphasis on the importance of a couple bonding by not having had s*x before marriage. Whether it is labeled a godly sin, or the value of virginity, or the man having to establish himself before he can approach the bride’s family, or the bride/groom price, etc almost every organized religion that I know places sanctity on the couple forming a powerful bond through the act of first having s*x with each other.

It makes sense that a parent bond that is at least strong enough to last until the child grows up would be very beneficial to the child and society in general. That bond also seals the support of the families of both parties as well.

Could the growing acceptance of casual s*x (before marriage) be detrimental to improving our species?

Answer 1

"Could the growing acceptance of casual s*x (before marriage) be detrimental to improving our species?"

No. Since we are intelligent social creatures that develop and manipulate the environment, we are able to have s*x without reproducing. It's called birth control. And while it does fail at times, so do marriages. There is no guarentee, even with marriage, that both parents or even one of the parents will stick around until the child is able to move on his/her own.

I get what you're saying, though.

Answer 2

Nicely stated context and question.

Sorry if this answer appears to be a cop out, but I think it is the best that can be managed.

For reasons that are implied by your own explanation of the question, the only answer I can offer is "yes for some, no for others". It's pretty hard to generalize about humanity, besides stating the obvious facts that we are, first and foremost, a species of mammal.

The kind of marriage rules you discuss are certainly not cultural universals, but you're right, there are similarities in many societies which more often than not rely on religious ideologies.

On the secular side, however, it is worth considering the equally vague evolutionary consequences of premarital s*x issues:

*  s*x of any kind, especially with multiple partners, increases the probability of genetic contribution and profileration of the species (a plus for extra-marital s*x)

* However, as you point out, human infants and young are generally defenseless organisms, and slow to reach sexual and socio-sexual maturity - so there may well be an evolutionary advantage to delays in  sexual behavior for humans - whether based on ideology or science.

Finally, as some of the answers above attest, personal feelings can not be discounted in consideration of issues like this, whether considered from a scientific or ideological perspective.

Answer 3

I just want to add that early people lived without privacy. Children copy adults so this was a problem.  Life on the move is hard for children and can slow a group down, so the group may not want a lot of children. I think the religious thought is once you have s*x, you are more of the world and less of God. Of course, you are busy afterward in that you have children and a family to take care of. You need time to get educated and mature enough to take on the adult role of responsibility. Time enough to know God(responsibility).  

Answer 4

This isn't my place to answer this, because my beliefs would strongly place me against my community and family, but i do find this incredibly interesting! I hope you find your answer. :]

Answer 5

I don't think there's any question that children growing up in single parent households generally have a harder time off than those in a 2-parent household.

So the goal you're really trying to get to is: how do we perpetuate a stable society with dual parent caregivers to children?

That goal is independent of waiting until having s*x before marriage.  In fact, waiting until you get married to have s*x may actually be counter-productive to your goal.  After all, s*x is a very important part of a marriage...do you really want to leave that to chance before making a lifetime commitment?  If it turns out your spouse is a cold fish and you go off looking for side-nookie, that's gonna blow up the family structure you're trying to preserve.

Answer 6

* Yes, there might have been societies limiting the number of children because they would be the first to die in case of food shortage, which would be "inhumane" (!)

* It is always women preventing to have s*x before marriage not men, so it is related to the social standing of the children. Without an official father, the children would have a low rank in society (and so would the mother) and lower chance of surival.

*Thirdly, Humanes need a lot of time to learn all the aspects of life. Postponing the start of a family (In modern times 30+!) there will be more time for learning without being bothered with raising children.

Answer 7

Perhaps it is not so much a matter of right or wrong as it is one of beneficial or unbeneficial to Humanity as a whole.

There is no such thing as absolutely effective birth control except abstinence of intercourse.  If intercourse is only practiced by couples who have sufficient commitment to each other to raise children, then marriage is not an issue excepted religiously.

There is a major problem, however, in that religious reasons also prevent other physical intimacies under the guise of the young are apt to lose control.  As a consequence, youth have little or no experience properly expressing their emotions and this seems to be the biggest failure of many societies.

Although it is true that s*x can be a purely physical act with little or no emotional component, it is also a primary method of emotional expression.  These feelings can be expressed without penetration and the possibility of unplanned parenthood.  Perhaps the humans as a species are not sufficiently developed socially to understand these differences.

The fault seems to lie in the failure of societies to teach children how to express their emotions and what the differences are between s*x without emotion (or with romance instead of love) and the expression of deeply felt emotions for their partners.

People always tend to believe that they are in the morally righteous and everyone who differs is automatically wrong.  This has been true for physical abuse, the use of drugs, gambling and sexual behavior.

Answer 8

Well my parents always taught me that despite what society is doing nowadays. You MUST ALWAYS wait to have s*x until AFTER marriage. And my parents are still together and they both waited. And I'm waiting as well... Plus I want the person i do that with to love me and actually be willing to spend their life with me before anything else. So i personally think it is better for society if people actually waited.