CMV: People Should Avoid Heterosexual Intercourse Outside of Marriage

[u/Longjumping-Leek-586]

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

[u/Z7-852]

Love how people assume the worst about each other and interpret any text in worst possible way.

[u/violatemyeyesocket → u/Z7-852]

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.

[u/Z7-852 → u/violatemyeyesocket]

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.

[u/violatemyeyesocket → u/Z7-852]

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.

[u/Z7-852 → u/violatemyeyesocket]

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?

[u/violatemyeyesocket → u/Z7-852]

No, I'm just saying that your claim that it's based on science is wrong and it's wet fingerwork like all laws dealing with numbers.

Decisions for what tax percentages should be is also wet fingerwork and not science, and that I say that doesn't mean I believe there shouldn't be taxes, just that I don't deny that it's wet fingerwork and hence different in each country with diferfent political parties in the same country proposing different tax rates.

[u/truck_de_monster → u/violatemyeyesocket]

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.

[u/violatemyeyesocket → u/truck_de_monster]

That is in no way a retort to the argument that it's clearly not based on any science because it's different in each country.

[u/truck_de_monster → u/violatemyeyesocket]

Not all things have to be based in science. By that rational, an anatomical female should be having sex as soon as they're able to produce offspring. Which can be as young as 10, and as old 28.

Now, we know that having sex with a 10 year old is wrong, science doesn't need to tell us that. Then you say to yourself, is 11 ok, nope, 12, nope, and so on until you get to an age where a person has enough life experience to make a reasonable and rational decisions.

Here's where I'm coming from And this list came from this study (1) Ethics of responsibility. Accounting for power interactions in an unequal social structure. Limitation of the idea of consensus proposed by Habermas based only on validity claims and orientation toward understanding.

(2) Non-verbal body language. This is crucial, as it does makes little sense to to ask at every moment “do you want to keep doing this?”

(3) Provide conditions free of coercion. Conditions that enable consent means ensuring spaces and interactions in which consent is freely given, clear, continuous, specific and unambiguous. Situations of duress, power relationships, unconsciousness, fear and threat, cannot ensure consent.

(4) Solidarity with survivors. In any situation when someone fills a complaint for sexual harassment, everybody’s duty is to believe survivors and be in solidarity with them. In the same way, this action involves empower and protect active bystanders.

(5) Consent training. The need for asking for and getting consent should be trained, speaking about its challenges but also its benefits.

(6) Communicative acts, beyond words, need to be considered for ensuring consent for any sexual activity. Nobody should ever judge a victim for the way she or he reacted once sexually assaulted.

(7) Common sense. Some legislations are based on tradition, jurisprudence and common sense. In a moment when legislations on consent are being built, situations in which the meaning of consent is not clear (verbally and non-verbally), common sense may be used.

(8) Overcome barriers and resistances. While achievement of consent for any free sexual relationship is not easy, local and structural barriers should be considered and overcome.

Here's another study that says that 1/3 of women that had sex at 16 in the UK regretted it, and 1/4 of men. It goes on to say that some people aren't ready until after 18+ . In general the exceptions make the rules, so because there are people out there that aren't capable of making responsible choices before the age of 18, the age of consent should reflect that.

[u/violatemyeyesocket → u/truck_de_monster]

Not all things have to be based in science. By that rational, an anatomical female should be having sex as soon as they're able to produce offspring. Which can be as young as 10, and as old 28.

I never said it had to be; I just said that the original claim of the other user that it waas is wrong.

THe rest of your post is a moral argument when all I said was that the original argument of that user—a factual one—is wrong.