imagine if you would the whole world unable to have sex until they were married and only to that person that they are married to. what would be good and what would be bad about a world like that?
2006-10-07 14:17:43 · 24 answers · asked by Jay 2 in Social Science ➔ Anthropology
good: there wouldn't be any STD's, no such thing as AIDS, no messing with kids minds with divorce etc.
bad: can't think of anything at the moment
2006-10-08 15:14:02 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure that we would even be human without that. We have these enormous brains to cope with our complex social environment-- it is what drives our sex lives. Sure, we have a sex drive-- every animal has that. Yet we can also overrule it with our brains, we can limit who we have sex with, we can marry for power or wealth instead of attractiveness, we can choose to not have sex at all.
If the whole world was unable to have sex until marriage, how would that develop? Marriage is a social convention that confers legitimacy upon a couple, creates a new social unit in the community and brings two disparate families together. Plus, different societies construct marriage differently. Some concieve of it as a for-life thing, and others allow you to divorce simply by announcing it. Some say just one man and one woman, others say one man and several women is OK, and others (though very few) say one woman and several men is OK.
So perhaps the bad thing about it would be that this would not be a human world. And perhaps the good thing about it, too, would be that this would not be a human world.
2006-10-08 03:00:20 · answer #2 · answered by almethod2004 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
First of all, it would be a world that wasn't populated by humans, because that would _never_ happened. Adultery and premarital sex happen in even the most straitlaced societies.
People would marry young, because they would really want to have sex. Some of those marriages would be happy, but I think a lot would end up being fairly miserable. After all, people who marry young tend to divorce pretty quickly. If divorce was still as easy as it is now, I think we'd see a lot of serial marriages. The abortion rate would probably go down a bit, but it wouldn't disappear, nor would unwanted children. Sorry, guys, but just because you're married doesn't mean accidents don't happen and you can afford every kid you end up with. I think STDs would still be around, too, and maybe even more prevalent. I say that because it would seem to me that married couples would be more likely to skip out on the condoms, and, as I said before, I don't think people would stick to one partner forever. I don't know. It would be different, but it would hardly be a utopia, especially since humans don't seem to fit into the monogamous, life-time couple thing very well. The 1950s nuclear family thing just did not work out for long.
2006-10-07 23:43:55 · answer #3 · answered by random6x7 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Good Side: Less populated regions and more money to give to the mentally ill, poor, and hungry. There would be no need to purchase contraceptives etc.
The Bad Side: Since we live in the "microwave era" there would be a lot of sexual displacement and accidents, as those who are addicted to sex would probably revert to having their sexual fantasy's via microwaveable orgasms.
2006-10-07 21:32:03 · answer #4 · answered by Ms-No-It-All 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The good: a lot less STDs floating around
The bad: a lot of people having to live with really terrible sex--I mean in general. I don't believe in waiting until marriage to have sex because sometimes people are not physically compatible. Why wait until after marriage to realize that?!
2006-10-07 21:20:41 · answer #5 · answered by Amelia 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think the state of "marriage" would be more drastically changed than the general state of sex. Homosexual marriages would have been legalized a long long time ago. People would marry just because they want to get laid.
2006-10-08 16:33:20 · answer #6 · answered by a.kam 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While it may be that some would be able to find something bad in that world I'm sure there would be less single family homes with one parent struggling to make it.
Our population, world wide, would also drop drastically.
2006-10-08 16:59:19 · answer #7 · answered by drg5609 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A lot less people and unwanted babies. No disease is good too. I don't think it would be boring. It would great!! People would have more self-respect. Sex should be for someone you really care about. There shouldn't be anything casual about it.
2006-10-07 21:30:31 · answer #8 · answered by northerntweet 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Good & Bad would be the arrangement of marriages based upon the possible genetic outcomes of the offspring.
2006-10-07 21:26:24 · answer #9 · answered by iamofnote 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The good would be that you'd know where your child came from and bad would be that you always try on a pair of shoes before you buy so to speak
2006-10-11 16:36:22 · answer #10 · answered by Eugene R 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There'd probably be a whole lot less crime and welfare. It'd probably be like June Cleaver's neighborhood. Every kid would have a mom and a dad. I'm failing to see any real downsides to this equation. Of course, you'll have plenty of whiners on here carping about how "not fun" that would be. I'd just be happy there hadn't been an army of other guys in my wife's hole.
2006-10-07 21:21:15 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋