Is premarital sex wrong from the standpoint of morals?

Question

I understand premarital sex is considered "bad" by basically all major religions, even though 99% of the religious hypocrites don't practice abstinence....but I was wondering from a moral philosophical point of view, if premarital sex can be considered wrong...esp. with regard to the philosophy of love...

FYI I am no prude, I wasn't raised religiously...but my parents do have strong family conservative values, most of which I have bypassed....

Answer 1

Well, there are emotions involved with sexual intercourse, as well as the chance of pregnancy and disease. The reasoning behind waiting until one is married is that the emotional bond is there, love, no one taking advantage of the other person, a pregnancy wouldn't be a tragedy, and the risk of STD transmission is practically 0%. It takes a strong person to be so trustworthy and dedicated to another and not be out to use sex for the wrong reasons, which could be devastating in many ways, as well as bring a child into the world without love, which is not a choice any one would want to be born under a guise such as that.

Answer 2

The answer to that question depends on what your moral viewpoint is. There isn't a standard philosophy of morals, there are several philosophical theories about what makes an action right or wrong. You might believe that premarital sex is right or wrong, depending on which theory of morals you subscribe to.

I don't think that it's wrong. If two people care about each other and are engaging in sex by choice, neither of them is being hurt or being disrespectful to themselves or their partner. (On this view, casual sex can, in some circumstances, be less right than sex in a relationship, because casual sex sometimes involves manipulation or a lack of respect for yourself or your partner. This is not always the case, but sometimes.) Sex, whether in a marriage or not, can bring a lot of intimacy and happiness to a relationship, so as long as both parties are happy doing it, there is no harm done.

Answer 3

I agree with the relgious hypocrites line. I say you make your own morals. If your parents taught you right from wrong and actually explained why its right and why its wrong thats a great start. Religions say "no" because someone said it was wrong. But what century was that in? My best advice is if you are going to have premarital sex (which by the way now adays its hard to find a virgin out there) be super safe. Dont just trust the other person always get the tests. If they cooperate they truely care about you and have nothing to hide. Love is a great thing to be in when having sex. And remember to always respect the other person. Always have strong morals and standards. So you dont end up with the wrong people.

Answer 4

No.

I was not raised religious, but I have pretty strict views on when I think sex should happen. This is MY personal view and I would not enforce it on anyone else.

My parents did not get married until 2 years ago. They were together for 21 years prior and they were (obviously-hey I was born) having sex the whole time. Don't dare tell me they did not love each other just because they did not have to piece of paper.
A piece of paper does not equal love.
Some long term couples never get married and still spend their whole lives together. There is nothing wrong with that.

Whether someone wants to sleep with one partner or many partner througout their life is none of my business.

Waiting until marriage can have it's problems as well. Problems with sex can cause other problems in the relationship which can stem off into divorce if bad enough.

My morals may not be someone elses. I think that explains it well enough. Practice safe sex and be cautious and there should not be a problem.

Answer 5

Yes, it is wrong.

I do have religious views on this, but from Social, Family and especially the Philosophy of Love perspective, premarital sex has it's problems.

As an early answer said, this is not the 1940s. So what happened since then that changed things and have the changes been for the better?


In the 1960s, there was a "Love Revolution" which tore down a lot of basic social / family values. Hollywood is run by some of the idiots from that era and they continue to push morals onto each new generation without facing the responsibility of social and family breakdowns that have been growing since then.
Why should today's generation take its moral values from idiots from the 1960s?

PHILOSOPHY OF LOVE:
Love has a few characteristics.
- Timeless (if it is real love, it doesn't turn to spite from one week to the next. It may not stay as hot all the time, but you can't treat someone you really loved as a stranger.)
- Self Sacrifice (being willing to delay or give up some personal unimportant things for the benifit of the relationship)
- Respect (if a bf/gf makes hurtful jokes at your expense, that does not grow love. Violence is even worse)
- One Partner (even religions that teach polygomy say, "you can marry more than one wife, but only if you can love each of them equally" [Koran] - which to me sounds like only one wife ... and Gen 29:31 to 30:24 shows how wives treat each other in non-monogamous relationships)

FAMILY:
At 15 I wondered if a 25 year old would knock on the door looking for his/her biological parent. How many families out there could be in such a position?
By having sex outside of marriage, even with your fiance, does that give the message that extra-marital relationships may arrise in the future? By staying faithful to sex within marriage, there is a deeper trust between spouses that there will be faithfulness when temptation arises

SOCIAL:
Sex is never just between two people unless it is one partner for life. There are ex-bf/gf's that have an emotional tie with you or your spouse. There is comparing going on in bed. When marital problems come up (money or kids), will questions of "What if I stayed with that partner?" seem more attractive.

Kids also expect mom and dad to stay together, and separations make love less real for them. They have lesser goals for good marriages for their future.
x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0

"Every generation blames the one before" ... and in relation to responsible sexual relationships, we are going to have a lot to answer for if we keep taking guidance from "The Gospel according to Hollywood"

Answer 6

Who's morals? Yours? Mine?
The simple answer is... if YOU feel it is wrong then it is, at least for you!
Morals are subjective, meaning, what I may think of as wrong, another may not.
Your parents may be against premarital sex simply to keep you out of trouble!
You need to do what is right for you, if that is having sex with out the benefit of marriage, then that's your thing, but I would suggest always using protection! Aside from all the STDS you would be opening yourself up to, are you really in a position to be starting a family of your own at this point in your life?

Answer 7

The answer you receive to this question is going to depend on one's morals. However, I think there are good reasons for abstaining from sex until marriage. Sex is not a toy, even though it can be a pleasurable activity. Sex is like a car. You need and education and a license to drive it. Wait until marriage. That way, if any babies come along, then they have the possibility for being raised in a stable home. Even if marriage does not work out, if you have given your all in marriage, then at least you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you did the right thing. There are too many STD's going around in this twenty first century. Remain faithful to one partner for life in marriage.

Answer 8

The question addresses a complex topic. The term 'moral' is rarely defined without some reference to one's sexual behavior. The complexity comes from WHY we define a thing as moral or immoral. The impact that any given behavior has on people is a critical measurement of whether it is moral or not. Because the impact of premarital sexual relations is very difficult to guage it has historically been considered immoral based on religious and cultural practices. The answer to your question lies in what ultimate impact premarital sex has on its participants and whether there is any bleed-over effect into surrounding circles of influence that the participants have.

example: In the event of an unexpected pregnancy where the male is not interested in having anything to do with the resulting child, how does the lack of commitment between the parents impact the mother or the child? There are endless scenarios that can be postulated to address 'what ifs' that are much more predictable and have much more concrete answers within the bonds of marriage.

Don't mistake the above example to say that a pregnancy has to happen in order for there to be consequences that impact the participants and others. That is merely one example. The difficulty lies in foreseeing all of the emotional, physical, and attitudinal effects of the activity. On an individual basis it is impossible to predict each of these factors. But with historical hindsight we are able to see what happens to societies over and over when these social mores are disregarded, sex outside the boundaries of marriage is generally considered to be immoral, even if it becomes so common that there is little social stigma. History is full of major societies that have fallen where the stigma of this type of behavior disappeared followed by the rise to prominance of chaste societies that took their place. This pattern shows the historical importance that mankind has placed on identifying this behavior as evidence of the unravelling of the social fabric.

Of course, premarital sex isn't going to cause the downfall of a society. It is the acceptance of a myriad of relaxed standards within a society that causes the social collapse. But the attitude that 'marriage (and all of its requisite responsibilities) is optional for sexual relations' is an indicator that a society does not recall history and the fate of preceding societies that have come to the very same set of beliefs. This march toward moral equivalence is insidious because the effects of such activities were not IMMEDIATELY recognizable. But, the cumulative effect of such behavior and beliefs are quantifiable historically.

Answer 9

The funny thing about your question is that I find MARRIAGE to be more morally objectionable than sex.

To put it bluntly, sex (or immense scientific intervention) must occur or there will be no humans. Marriage is at no point mandatory for survival. Thus marriage is at least less important than sex... if not comparatively unimportant.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for commitment, values, and the like. I think if you are going to have a child (one of the natural outcomes of sex) then you are going to need all the help you can get, be it male, female, young, or old.

The only moral objection that seems plausible for sex are along the lines of accidental parenthood and disease transmission. The only foolproof way of not having either of those situations occur from sex is not to have it.

IF you responsibly choose to accept those risks, as well as those stemming from possible relationship challenges and the like, then you deserve the rewards. Sex is important. Just don't be an idiot about it.

Peace.

Answer 10

It really depends on what society says and if you value the opinion of complete strangers. Regardless of what religions say, society's voice also plays a major role in people's decision making process.

If the people around you say that premarital sex is an indication of low morals, you can listen to what they say and
live your life as a doormat and allow people to walk all over you and have no respect for you as an individual.

On the other hand, regardless of what society says you can go ahead and do what you want, and accept whatever consequences or benefits result from that decision. This means that you are being your own person. A very admirable quality to have.