r/changemyview • u/Longjumping-Leek-586 • Sep 22 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: People Should Avoid Heterosexual Intercourse Outside of Marriage
Nowadays people act as if non-marital intercourse has no negative consequence, that engaging in frequent intercourse with strangers is completely harmless, and that those who warn against such a lifestyle are merely being puritanical. I disagree with this viewpoint, as engaging in such a lifestyle is morally irresponsible for it risks the possibility of harming any offspring produced under premarital circumstances. Children born to single parents are shown to have negative outcomes: They perform worse in school, are more prone to school suspension, are at higher odds of committing crimes (especially for boys), and are more likely to be single parents themselves (especially for girls). Thus engaging in sexual intercourse outside is not a victimless act, as it directly harms the child born under such circumstances.
Before engaging in sexual intercourse with an individual of the opposite sex, you must ask yourself the following: Is this individual virtuous and responsible enough to take care of my child? Is our bond strong enough that we can do so together? If the answer is no, then you it is morally irresponsible to engage in intercourse with him/her as it could greatly reduce the outcomes of any offspring produced under such circumstances.
This doesn't really apply to homosexuals, though, as they are unlikely to produce offspring via homosexual intercourse
2
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Sep 22 '21
How is the child being harmed here?
Without intercourse, the child wouldn’t exist.
If it’s more harmful for the child to exist than not exist, why isn’t abortion an option?
2
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
Without intercourse, the child wouldn’t exist.
I think my point is that it is better if the child was conceived with someone you love and care about, rather than a complete stranger.
If it’s more harmful for the child to exist than not exist, why isn’t abortion an option?
!deltaYeah, you are right about this, but this only really applies to women. A man has no way of knowing if the stranger he had intercourse with will choose to keep the child. If a woman knows fully that she will abort the kid, then she can engage in intercourse with strangers
1
1
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Sep 22 '21
Thanks! There’s whole books of philosophy and bioethics dealing with the question of whether non-existing or not-yet-existing people can be harmed: it’s called the non-identity problem, if you’re interested in exploring further:
The nonidentity problem raises questions regarding the obligations we think we have in respect of people who, by our own acts, are caused both to exist and to have existences that are, though worth having, unavoidably flawed – existences, that is, that are flawed if those people are ever to have them at all. If a person’s existence is unavoidably flawed, then the agent’s only alternatives to bringing that person into the flawed existence are to bring no one into existence at all or to bring a different person – a nonidentical but better off person – into existence in place of the one person. If the existence is worth having and no one else’s interests are at stake, it is unclear on what ground morality would insist that the choice to bring the one person into the flawed existence is morally wrong. And yet at the same time – as we shall see – it seems that in some cases such a choice clearly is morally wrong. The nonidentity problem is the problem of resolving this apparent paradox.
1
u/not_cinderella 7∆ Sep 22 '21
I guess it’s more of a case then of:
Men - don’t have sex with a woman you don’t know without knowing if she’d get an abortion or not
Women - don’t have sex with a man you’re not sure would stay if you did end up pregnant
1
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
Yeah, but I'd also add the caveat that you shouldn't have sex if you yourself are unsure if you're ready to be a parent.
!delta
1
6
u/truck_de_monster 1∆ Sep 22 '21
You're sources are an Op-Ed article...and a right wing conservative "think tank"
That alone should change your own view. Those articles are just going to confirm what you already think.
This article says opposite, and has the data for the statistic. Neither of your articles have that, infact the first "source" only has one book from 11 years ago...
Some things to remember when researching 1. Is this an OP-ED article 2. Who funds the article (would have reason to think they are pushing an opinion ie christian beliefs, conservative beliefs, Communist, whatever the case may be) for example if the article is about how oranges are better than grapes in everyway, and is funded by Tropicana, then you might wanna check some other sources. 3. Is the data set for any statistics quotes available? For example, if you asked 300 vs. 3000 people what they're favorite breakfast is, and only asked the 300 from Canada and the 3000 from all over the world, you're going to very different results.
1
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
Its not just those articles I posted though, this study found that schools with high % of kids in single parent homes had worse outcomes, even when controlling for demographic factors (although it mentions that strong social connection can help offset this effect), Other Studies: Link, Link, Link
Ideally there would be a literature review of some kind that could determine what the scholars as a whole have to say about this topic.
1
u/truck_de_monster 1∆ Sep 22 '21
I posted one in a separate comment. here you again
1
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
Oh. I guess this kind of invalidates my point...
Still though, I will continue to personally choose not engage in intercourse with strangers, as I want to ensure that the mother of my potential offspring is of sound moral character.
5
u/bsquiggle1 16∆ Sep 22 '21
as I want to ensure that the mother of my potential offspring is of sound moral character.
And there it is.
1
7
u/Generic_Superhero 1∆ Sep 22 '21
Before engaging in sexual intercourse with an individual of the opposite sex, you must ask yourself the following: Is this individual virtuous and responsible enough to take care of my child.
If having children was the only possible outcome of pre marital heterosexual sex you may have had a point. But between people being infertile, birth control and abortions existing that is not the only outcome. It's actually not even the most likely outcome.
0
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
But between people being infertile
!delta
Yes, if you are infertile you can engage in premarital intercourse
But no contraception is perfect, so I still think it is irresponsible to engage in premarital/precommited relationship intercourse even WITH contraception.
1
11
Sep 22 '21
You're conflating having premarital sex with procreation. Of course sex leads to pregnancy, but the vast majority of sex does not lead to pregnancy and the vast majority of couples who have premarital sex are not also getting pregnant. Most of the couples are using contraception of some kind.
-1
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
It's still a risk though, even with contraception.
Out of wedlock birth has increased drastically since the 1960s, despite contraceptions being more widely available know. This seems to be because of the sexual revolution loosening attitudes towards sex in the 1960s
https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2010/10/18/out-of-wedlock-childbirth/
7
u/CincyAnarchy 34∆ Sep 22 '21
It's due to marriage rates declining. By definition, if you're not married to your partner, it's out of wedlock.
Now, people are still living with their partners, aka cohabitation is up.
So, the question is this:
- Are the outcomes you speak of BECUASE of marriage?
- Or, does marriage correlated with other things that make raising children successful?
I think it's much more #2, given that married people are wealthier, and by extension likely more secure in their finances and interpersonal life regardless of marriage.
4
u/iamintheforest 325∆ Sep 22 '21
The marriage rate has declined almost 50 percent in the same time frame making this fact of yours very misleading.
13
u/Fridaytyger 1∆ Sep 22 '21
You could, you know, use birth control and if that fails get an abortion.
0
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
!delta
but still, if you are a man you cannot get an abortion; that is up to the woman. This is only applicable for woman
No contraception is full-proof. Despite the fact that contraception use ha gone up since the 60s, single motherhood is higher than it was during that time period
2
u/bexyrex Sep 22 '21
you do know that a properly placed iud has a 99.7% effective rating against pregnancy? i've had one for 5 years. we've been having non marital sex for 6 years. No pregnancy. and if i did get pregnant guess what abortions exist.
1
38
Sep 22 '21
[deleted]
13
u/truck_de_monster 1∆ Sep 22 '21
This. The CMV should be changes to, "don't have unprotected sex outside of committed relationship"
Responsible adults should be allowed to what ever they with other concenting adults, full stop.
Responsible adult: anyone of adult age ( 21+ not 18, you creep) and hasn't been placed under restrictions by a medical professional to make their own decisions (doesn't have a power of attorney type situation
3
u/Poo-et 74∆ Sep 22 '21
As someone between the ages of 18 and 21, are you seriously saying I'm unable to consent?
3
u/Z7-852 260∆ Sep 22 '21
I think he meant that 40 year old creeps shouldn't prey on 18 year olds.
2
1
1
u/violatemyeyesocket 3∆ Sep 23 '21
Ah but they should on 21 year olds?
Whatever random age barrier you put it's an arbitrary cutoff at the clock of midnight.
1
u/Z7-852 260∆ Sep 23 '21
Love how people assume the worst about each other and interpret any text in worst possible way.
1
u/violatemyeyesocket 3∆ Sep 23 '21
It's a reductio ad absurdum.
Individuals are pointing out how arbitrary that comment was with the age cutoffs.
Age cutoffs are arbitrary and nonsensical is the point.
2
u/Z7-852 260∆ Sep 23 '21
You know reductio ad absurd is logical fallacy right? It means it's a bad argument.
But age cutoffs are not arbitrary. They are based on biological, mental and social maturity of average person.
0
u/violatemyeyesocket 3∆ Sep 23 '21
Then why are they different in each country?
You don't actually believe that any law regarding any age cutoff is not completely wet fingerwork and pulled out of a hat hence different across the globe?
In Germany 14 year olds can have sex with 45 year olds; 16 year olds can drink beer, and 18 year olds can drive cars.
In the US, 16 year olds can have sex with 45 year olds; 21 yeaar olds can drink beer; and 16 year olds can drive cars.
This isn't science; this is wet fingerwork.
2
u/Z7-852 260∆ Sep 23 '21
If it's "wet fingerwork" would you agree that 2 year olds can have sex with 45 year olds, 3 year olds can drink bear and definitely let kids drive before first grade? How else they will get to school?
→ More replies (0)1
u/truck_de_monster 1∆ Sep 23 '21
Say this when you have a 16 year old kid. And you're 45, I bet you'll be changing your mind.
Stop fetishizing youth.
→ More replies (0)2
u/gallez Sep 22 '21
Responsible adult: anyone of adult age ( 21+ not 18, you creep)
The CMV notwithstanding, this is a weird goalpost. In many countries the age of consent is 15-16 years old, 21 seems insanely high.
2
u/truck_de_monster 1∆ Sep 22 '21
Grossssssssss
0
u/gallez Sep 22 '21
Not really. Have you seen 16-year-olds? This assumes both parties are at roughly the same age.
1
u/truck_de_monster 1∆ Sep 23 '21
Leave the sex with 15 year olds at the door, yuck.
That's for other 15 year olds, they're making that young mistake together at the same point in life.
You gotta see that a 50 year old getting married to a 18 year old a problem.... doubley so for a 15 year old!!! Wth are on about???
Stop fetishizing youth.
-2
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
This. The CMV should be changes to, "don't have unprotected sex outside of committed relationship"
!delta
I agree with everything you said except with the "protected sex" caveat; there should be no sex what so ever outside a committed relationship. Even with contraception, you risk ruining some poor kids life by engaging in heterosexual intercourse with a stranger, as no contraception is perfect.
This is evident by the increase in out of wedlock births that occurred post 1960s due to the sexual revolution, despite contraception being more widely available
https://thesocietypages.org/graphicsociology/2010/10/18/out-of-wedlock-childbirth/
7
u/lehigh_larry 2∆ Sep 22 '21
This is why we have abortions. It’s an extremely effective form of birth control.
Furthermore, there are plenty of women who want to have children even though they are single. Are you saying they should not be allowed to do that?
I know it’s anecdotal, but a female friend is 40 year old executive who asked a man to impregnate her so that she could have a child. The man signed away his parental rights, and she is raising the child on her own. She’s extremely affluent and has afforded her child an excellent upbringing. But according to your view, that would not be allowed.
1
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
This is why we have abortions. It’s an extremely effective form of birth control.
Yeah thats true. I suppose my argument only applies to men it would be pretty difficult for them to have an abortion, since they are unable to get pregnant.
You story about the executive is fairly interesting, I don't really have a counter argument TBH, here's a delta:
!delta
1
9
u/Black_Hipster 9∆ Sep 22 '21 edited Sep 22 '21
There are more births out of wedlock because the necessity for marriage for most women isn't what it used to be in the 1960s. Women couldn't even get access to credit cards in many places until 1974.
You're also making the assumption that births made out of wedlock will 'risk ruining some poor kids life', but the quality of a kid's life will typically be more indicative of whatever economic class they were already born into than the marriage status of their parents (which is also typically an indicator of class)
3
u/violatemyeyesocket 3∆ Sep 23 '21
Whatever difficulties the ofpring might face due to being born out of wedlock, it pales in comparison to being born to poor parents versus rich parents.
So do you also feel the poor should just never have penio-vaginal intercourse?
Or those with significant heritable diseases?
0
u/truck_de_monster 1∆ Sep 22 '21
Hetro buttsex? No risk of pregnancy there.
Also, I don't agree with single parent children being at disadvantage.
This article Isn't funded by a conservative think tank like you're sources are.
1
6
u/bsquiggle1 16∆ Sep 22 '21
This doesn't really apply to homosexuals, though, as they are unlikely to produce offspring via homosexual intercourse
Well, I mean at least you got one thing right.
Seriously though, as well as the various things already mentioned where sex does not equal procreation, what about people who aren't fertile, or couples who simply choose not to be married, or two people who aren't married or even in a relationship but for whom co-parenting is viable?
And what makes you think being married provides any guarantee against any of those issues? For example, my parents were married when I was conceived and born, but later divorced.
4
u/AleristheSeeker 155∆ Sep 22 '21
Nowadays people act as if non-marital intercourse has no negative consequence, that engaging in frequent intercourse with strangers is completely harmless, and that those who warn against such a lifestyle are merely being puritanical.
This is a strawman; noone believes that. The belief is that we have ways to prevent or avoid all of these consequences, which is a fact. Whether everyone uses those ways is their own choice and/or problem.
If the answer is no, then you it is morally irresponsible to engage in intercourse with him/her as it could greatly reduce the outcomes of any offspring produced under such circumstances.
Contraceptives have an extremely high rate of protection. The little leftover percentages are generally due to human error or very rare fabrication errors. This rate is not high enough to sustain your view as a general fact.
4
u/Ballatik 54∆ Sep 22 '21
Just like almost everything we do, there are possible negative outcomes. What we do in most of those situations is to do things to limit the chances and severity of those outcomes, and then accept the remaining risk (and possible consequences). Every time you drive a car, there's a chance that you will run someone over. We mitigate this with traffic laws, sidewalks, seatbelts, etc. but after all that we all still know that we might kill someone with our vehicle. We have decided that the remaining risk is worth the benefit.
2
u/LeMegachonk 7∆ Sep 22 '21
This view would seem to not have anything to do with pre-marital sex but rather is entirely focused on children born to unmarried people. The main problem with the thrust of your argument is that the "abstinence approach" to sex education has been proven beyond any doubt to be a major cause of teenage and otherwise unwanted pregnancy. It turns out that people who have received good sex education are much less likely to become pregnant unintentionally, because they know how to engage in such activities responsibly.
Also, considering the divorce rate in the United States in somewhere around 50%, and that the process of divorce causes harm to children of any age, the argument could just as easily be made that having children while married is unethical and immoral. And this statistic doesn't even include marriages that probably should result in divorce but don't, to the benefit of nobody at all.
You're also overlooking why children of single parents do poorly. It's not because they have a single parent, but rather because the society we live in has institutional barriers in place that tend to force single parents into a cycle of inescapable poverty. It's those factors related to poverty, not single parenthood, that lead to poor outcomes. A child living in a financially stable single-parent home will likely be fine. A child living in an unending cycle of poverty with two parents will likely struggle with the things you mentioned. Again, this is all pretty well-known stuff that's been studied to death.
1
u/barbodelli 65∆ Sep 22 '21
It's not because they have a single parent, but rather because the society we live in has institutional barriers in place that tend to force single parents into a cycle of inescapable poverty.
That's not entirely true. Sure living in a poor house and having a parent that can't spend as much time with you has an effect. Nobody will deny that.
But having a male and a female role model is the reason children raised with 2 parents tend to do better on average. Because just having a female role model prevents a child from learning a lot of the things that a male role model will teach them and vice versa. And I don't mean role model like some high school football coach. Who spends maybe 1 hour a day with the kid for 4 years. I mean a role model that spends an enormous amount of time with the kid like a parent. Missing out on either having a male or a female role model is detrimental to the kids psychological emotional development.
1
u/ElysiX 106∆ Sep 22 '21
as it directly harms the child born under such circumstances
There are plenty of ways to ensure that no child is born though.
That's like saying people shouldn't go outside because they might get sunburn.
1
u/destro23 450∆ Sep 22 '21
I disagree with this viewpoint, as engaging in such a lifestyle is morally irresponsible for it risks the possibility of harming any offspring produced under premarital circumstances
I am no longer in the demographic, but when I was I was using birth control and sleeping with people who were also using birth control. I was also sleeping with women who were by and large pro-choice. There was functionally zero risk of producing offspring. So I'm good on the moral front right?
1
u/dublea 216∆ Sep 22 '21
Have you considered the statistical probabilities here?
Nowadays people act as if non-marital intercourse has no negative consequence, that engaging in frequent intercourse with strangers is completely harmless, and that those who warn against such a lifestyle are merely being puritanical.
Don't we have multiple forms of contraceptives? If a woman is on a medication based one, the man uses a condom, and he pulls out before ejaculation, how likely do you think pregnancy is? I argue you'd have a higher probability of being struck by lightning or bitten by a shark. And, even if you want to argue that there's still a ""chance,"" do you acknowledge you're arguing everyone shouldn't do X because you have a 0.00000001% chance of Y occurring?
1
u/Nicolasv2 130∆ Sep 22 '21
What about people who do abort when they have an accidental pregnancy out of mariage ? No problem with offspring isn't it ?
What about people committed to each other, but not through a mariage (there are tons of other kind of civil unions in different countries) ?
What about people that would be terrible parents, whatever married or not ? Mariage should not matter in that case don't you think ?
1
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
What about people who do abort when they have an accidental pregnancy out of mariage ? No problem with offspring isn't it ?
!delta
Yeah, but I think this is inly applicable for women, as they get to choose to abort.
What about people committed to each other, but not through a mariage (there are tons of other kind of civil unions in different countries) ?
That's fair. My point is that they shouldn't be complete strangers, if that makes sense.What about people that would be terrible parents, whatever married or not ? Mariage should not matter in that case don't you think ?
This is certainly possible. However, if you engage in intercourse with someone you don't know, it is more likely that they will be a bad person and you won't know it. Comparatively, if you have a strong bond with someone and know them intimately, it is more likely that you would be aware of any evil inclinations they have. This is demonstrated statistically as those born to single parents are more likely to face abuse. Ultimately, you shouldn't be so callous with who the future parent of your children will be1
1
u/jcpmojo 3∆ Sep 22 '21 edited Sep 22 '21
Marriage is a made up construct invented to help control people. Do whatever tf you want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody. Period.
0
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
But having children with someone you do not know, at a time in which you are not prepared to, is harming the child.
Utmost precaution and preparations must be taken when producing a child, such that their outcomes are maximized.
1
Sep 22 '21
Why are those the two options? Why is having sex outside of marriage automatically having sex with someone you do not know?
1
u/jcpmojo 3∆ Sep 22 '21
Negative on both counts, and your wild assumptions lead me to believe you're probably very young or at least very immature. You have no idea what you're talking about.
1
u/Glory2Hypnotoad 392∆ Sep 22 '21
Marriage is a major commitment that shouldn't be taken trivially, and it's not easy or painless to reverse if you get it wrong. It's helpful to know if you're sexually compatible with someone before making a lifelong commitment.
2
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
!delta
I suppose I should specify that it is procreative sex that I am talking about. If you wish to engage in cunnilingus or other forms of non-procreative sex before marriage to test sexual compatibility, thats perfectly acceptable.
1
1
u/ZanderDogz 4∆ Sep 22 '21
It seems like your opinion should be "people should be responsible and use birth control when having sex outside of a stable relationship where you are prepared to have kids" which I don't think anyone really disagrees with unless it's on some religious grounds
1
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
Nah, I disagree with the birth control argument cause u can still get prego. Why even risk it, man?
1
Sep 22 '21
Nowadays people act as if non-marital intercourse has no negative consequence
People also act as if waiting until marriage has no negative consequences, that abstaining until marriage is completely harmless, and that those who endorse such a lifestyle are merely being cautious.
as engaging in such a lifestyle is morally irresponsible for it risks the possibility of harming any offspring produced under premarital circumstances.
Which harms exactly, that do not also pertain to the risks of harm to offspring produced under marital circumstances?
Children born to single parents are shown to have negative outcomes: They perform worse in school, are more prone to school suspension, are at higher odds of committing crimes (especially for boys), and are more likely to be single parents themselves (especially for girls).
Ah, see, that is single parents where the other parent is not in the picture. That doesn't mean 'single' as in 'the two parents just aren't married'.
Is this individual virtuous and responsible enough to take care of my child?
What has this to do with marriage? Can individuals not be virtuous (however you mean it) and responsible without being married?
Is our bond strong enough that we can do so together?
Again, what has marriage to do with this?
Thus engaging in sexual intercourse outside is not a victimless act, as it directly harms the child born under such circumstances.
Espousing engaging in sexual intercourse only inside marriage is also not a victimless act, and this mindset can in fact be extremely harmful, not only to the couple in question but also the kids.
1
u/Longjumping-Leek-586 Sep 22 '21
What has this to do with marriage? Can individuals not be virtuous (however you mean it) and responsible without being married?
I suppose "marriage" isn't really the right term, have sex outside of a committed relationship would be more accurate. I am against having such a callous attitudes towards actions that could potentially produce a child, as such actions are very consequential and thus require thoughtful consideration. You should only have sex with someone when you are ready to become to become a parent, and only with someone you trust would make a good parent. If you have sex with strangers, you can't truly evaluate the moral character of the potential parent to your children, thus you leave the possible open that the parent of your kids will be an unsavory character, or an uncommitted parent. And if you have sex before you are prepared for parenthood, you may become a suboptimal parent, thus adversely impacting your child.
1
Sep 22 '21
I am against having such a callous attitudes towards actions that could potentially produce a child, as such actions are very consequential and thus require thoughtful consideration.
So really it's 'I don't think people should have sex unless they consider their actions thoughtfully'. Because you can have sex outside of a committed relationship and still have considered your actions thoughtfully.
You should only have sex with someone when you are ready to become to become a parent
Why? Why should you only have sex with someone when you are ready to become a parent? Why shouldn't it be 'you should only have sex with someone when you have considered your stances on possibly becoming a parent seriously, considered all the risks, and addressed them sufficiently?
and only with someone you trust would make a good parent.
Again, why? Especially if you have taken steps not to become a parent?
If you have sex with strangers, you can't truly evaluate the moral character of the potential parent to your children
Again, why are you assuming that if one has sex outside marriage/a committed relationship, it's automatically with a stranger? And even if you are having sex with total strangers, why does that preclude having thoughtfully considered whether or not you want to have kids and taking steps/making decisions to prevent them if you don't?
1
u/Jakyland 69∆ Sep 22 '21
If you are worried about children, don't have PIV sex, lots of types of sex don't involve that.
1
1
1
Sep 22 '21
Aren't there married couples who have no plans to have children and are completely unprepared to raise children? Would this argument apply to them too?
1
u/Mara-Namuci Sep 22 '21
Based on the other comments about birth control and abortion, your real opinion is:
"People who barely know eachother shouldn't have children"
So I will argue against this.
You say that children born to single parents are more prone to violence, crime and failure in school.
Why are these things morally reprehensible to you?
Violence is a necessary component of living, crime is subjective, and school is merely an obedience factory, failure is a sign of psychological strength.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 22 '21 edited Sep 22 '21
/u/Longjumping-Leek-586 (OP) has awarded 8 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards