Talk:Premarital sex

We should get a new tag for Ed Stub. There is an article now, but it is a quote from a Moonie site. 10:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the number of politicians and royals who have indulged outside marriage, the biblical view a useful suggestion for anarchists?

82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Marriage bias
I hate the term 'premarital', as it implies that the people having sex will get married, or should get married, or something similar. I prefer the term 'nonmarital'. Tropico 3 (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but this is the term that is used. Тy Yes? 23:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I think it depends on whether we want this article to be spefically focused on cultural and religious reactions, or be more general. AD (talk) 23:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the nature o' teh wiki, I'd say the former. Тy Complaints 23:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think articles should also give some general information, but whatever. DickTurpis (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good point, but as we are (or should be) more specifically addressing the religious prohibition and general marks against such a thing, it really is understood in the context of marriage. That is, if it were not for the religious / morality police out there, favoring marriage, no term would exist, period.  So it probably should stand as it is.  [[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * All good points, but I'm still right, so there. Fallacy (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * "That's nice, but this is the term that is used."-- il' Dictator   Mikal  00:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Polite way of saying IDGAF. Тy Yes? 00:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's kind of weird, seeing as I don't see how I'd give a fuck that you don't give a fuck. CowHammer (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

This could make a really good cover story
Not as it stands, of course; but there is so much room to talk about the politicization of sex, sexuality, etc., here. unless that's it's own article. ;-) But seriously, we could talk about what effects it has, how the media portrays it, the reactions of "the right" about that very portrayal, etc.  Godot    Grow a vagina 00:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you should get right on that. Fallacy (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I nominate HBK!

-- il' Dictator   Mikal  00:54, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Long list before this, Fallacy. I've already done 3 articles this week.  I've only got so much sanity in me.  ;-)[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]Godot    Grow a vagina 02:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Biased article lacking citations
This article is very poorly written. It is biased and lacking in citations. I will pick a few examples to demonstrate my point:

"These are traditions largely rooted in the monotheistic, patriarchal religions, Christianity, Islam and Judaism."

The author clearly has little to no understanding of cultures outside of medieval European culture. It is not true that traditions recommending against premarital sex are LARGELY ROOTED in monotheistic religions. Many cultures containing traditions which oppose premarital sex are NOT rooted in monotheistic religions, for example Indian and Chinese culture. From Understanding Chinese Society edited by Xiaowei Zang: "premarital sex was widely opposed and rare before 1978". In India, premarital sex is considered immoral and condemned by Hinduism. Source: The Cultural Context of Sexual Pleasure and Problems: Psychotherapy with Diverse Clients: Psychotherapy with Diverse Clients edited by Kathryn S. K. Hall, Cynthia A. Graham

"There is no logical, rational, biological, or sociological gain filled by restricting sex to marriage."

That is a meaningless statement. Who decides what's a "logical" or "rational" gain? What makes the author think that he or she is qualified to make such a statement? Not even the most knowledgeable logician would be qualified to make such a claim. What's rational or not depends on the goal to be achieved. The goal is not specified, therefore the sentence has no meaning.

"Sociological gain" is unqualified and of course no citations are provided. Presumably the author thinks it's obvious that there are no sociological consequences for prohibiting premarital sex, which is patently false. Since there are sociological consequences, one would have to examine at least most of the different situations and circumstances that are likely to exist in order to conclude that prohibition of premarital sex NEVER gives net positive utility, which I find an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence. This is not done. No evidence is given to support the claim that there are no situations in which the prohibition of premarital sex may provide net positive utility.

I am neither religious nor a social conservative but I find the bias and lack of citations in the article to be utterly disgusting. If a scientific claim is to made, it must have scientific evidence. This article is not up to the rationalwiki standards. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Forces / talk / contribs
 * RationalWiki is very America-centric (and sometimes euro-centric) (which, nobody wants that, but it's difficult to get people to write about anything that isn't directly related to America (or sometimes Europe)). If you can make the article less America-centric, then that would of course be appreciated.
 * RationalWiki also does not require citations for any opinions the writers want to put in the article or remove from the article. But claims with citations are of course worth more than claims without citations, so if you can provide citations for claims you care to put in, then that is of course appreciated. Nullahnung (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

What about the working and agricultural classes?
... who had quite different attitudes towards such matters - common law marriages, starting a relationship once the intended marriage had been decided upon, 'selling' spouses to each other (The Mayor of Casterbridge) etc? In La Traviata Violetta is 'a necessary adjunct' to Alfredo's sister being 'as pure as an angel.' 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)