Indian Judge says premarital sex is immoral in all religions.

I never understood why people claim premarital sex is immoral.

Me personally, I believe that premarital sex can be irresponsible, and probably even selfish, depending on the situation.

It can be irresponsible if you fail to use protect and receive an STD, or do not use protection and become pregnant. Unless you are actually wanting a child, then that is a whole different story.

And it can be selfish if you convince a man/woman to have sex with you, and they want to be married first but you don't, or you simply only want them for sex and nothing else. So you basically just take advantage of them. Which is not really something good to do.

People should understand that sex is not really a game. One act of sex can alter the rest of your life. It doesn't mean that it should be some kind of taboo.

In my opinion, people can go out and have sex whenever they want. The only time I will not condone it, is if someone cheats on their wife/husband (since you made a promise to be with only them until death, which is a rather ugly thing to do.) If you are irresponsible and do not know safe sex, you take advantage of said person only for sex (usually when that person is actually looking for a relationship.) If you have sex with someone against their will, or you have sex in order to spite someone else.

Other than that, I feel there isn't really anything wrong with it. All you have to do is consider what it is the other person wants. And if your wants/needs are not up to par with theirs, it looks like your going to have to compromise, or just part ways.

Lingweenie
I never understood why people claim premarital sex is immoral.

Me personally, I believe that premarital sex can be irresponsible, and probably even selfish, depending on the situation.

Well, not going to claim this is "the answer", just something to ponder. What if because of all the negative outcomes that are associated with pre-marital sex God stated you can't do it. Thus, the immoral part is not the act of sex itself, but the disobedience to God.

The woman must (also) "understand she is engaging in an act which not only is immoral but also against the tenets of every religion," .

The WOMAN must understand??? What about the man??? Gawd ....

reply to post by FlyersFan


Completely agree. I can only hope that the judge meant while the man was clearly wrong, the woman was too. Men get off way too easy, the double standard is sickening.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

According to the fundamentalist church I once attended, for a straight person the first person they had sex with is actually their spouse in God's eyes.

God can apparently forgive that and move forward with that person if they repent and ask for blessings on their new marriage, but God will not condone multiple extra-marital affairs, or serial monogamy.

But how many straight people still obey this?

I can think of people who haven't married, but have been in such relationships for up to 20 years.
Yet, there's very little judgement or social comment on such relationships.

In some cases the women don't want children and allow their biological clock to run out.
I don't really mind, but I know it hurts parents and surviving grandparents deeply.

In other cases there are children from one or maybe two fathers, but there has never been a marriage.

Why is there so little attention paid to such couples?

Strange to think that the heterosexual couple - even in marriage - was once the focus of constant social control.

OccamsRazor04

Lingweenie
I never understood why people claim premarital sex is immoral.

Me personally, I believe that premarital sex can be irresponsible, and probably even selfish, depending on the situation.

Well, not going to claim this is "the answer", just something to ponder. What if because of all the negative outcomes that are associated with pre-marital sex God stated you can't do it. Thus, the immoral part is not the act of sex itself, but the disobedience to God.

Premarital sex, or just flat out sex in general isn't bad, as you said. In fact it's actually needed. Since you kinda need to have sex in order to reproduce. And if that does not happen, a species will go extinct.

However, even though sex is something that needs to happen, certain people may use it in the wrong ways. Much like basically anything else, such as drugs, guns, food, etc, etc.

That doesn't automatically mean that it is some sort of divine affront.

Think of it this way, let's say I go out one night, in search of sex. and let's say I find some girl, that wants to be married first before marriage. Well, this obviously is not something I wanted to hear. So, I can either do one of two things.
1. Let this girl be, and just find someone else who thinks like I do.
2. Try and convince her to do it anyway, in order to fulfill my own selfish desire.

Now, If I choose #1, and I did end up finding someone else who only wanted sex, what exactly wrong did I do? We both wanted the same thing, we simply carried out an act we both wanted, nobody was hurt, and we did it mutually.

As far as number 2 goes, if I decided to keep pestering this nice young girl to have sex with me, and perhaps try and give her more alcohol in order to change her mind, would that be something bad to do? Well, yes, since I am trying to be greedy, and I am just trying to get my own way without any regard to her.

Sex itself is not something bad. Nor is premarital sex. But, As I said, you should at least consider other peoples desires first, and be respectful of them.

Something is usually immoral whenever you do something to negatively effect someone. And I don't understand why religious folks point at religious texts as if they are the champions of morality. It's pretty self evident that a society that goes around raping, pillaging, taking advantage of, murdering, lying, and so on, is a society that will not function properly. Nothing would ever get built, or be accomplished. It would be pure chaos. Wouldn't take much imagination to figure it out. And to me, it would be rather sad if someone had to find that out through some book.

reply to post by halfoldman


Being born and raised in the west I am unusual for not believing in premarital sex.

The day I saw my husband for the first time in person, was the day I married him. We knew one another because of talking online, but had never met in person until the day we got married.

We didn't try it out, we just got married. Sex for the first time was after we got married. We have now been married over a year, and are still happy as can be.

My belief is that people who make the choice to have sex before they get married, can pay the price for their choice. Its an adult choice... adults are the ones making it... cant cry about what happens when it doesn't all pan out the way you thought.

3NL1GHT3N3D1
Marriage is a man-made tradition, sex is a natural act. Why should something man-made come before something natural? Oh wait, we live in a world where men want to tell us what to do and who want us answer to them first.

Sex before marriage isn't immoral, no one is hurt in the process. Morals are based on "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", so if causing someone pleasure is wrong I don't want to be right. We should be free to do what we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone in the process, that ideology doesn't fit the status quo though.

Reminds me of this

reply to post by halfoldman

I think the judge, Virender Bhat, made the correct decision, but his further statements bordered on religious misogyny:

But it seems he also gave the woman quite a tongue-lashing about the evils of premarital sex.
I felt that was quite unnecessary, because I think she was already deeply hurt, and besides that it sounds more like a religious tirade.

The judge brought up religion to drive a point home... not because he was being preachy or because the court operated within a religious procedure.

Religion or no religion, in India the virginity of the female bride is of supreme importance to any potential suitor in marraige, at least in middle class circles.

It may seem unfair, but in conservative places, the male isn't usually questioned on his sexual "purity"... rather the woman is. I guess the purity of the woman is top priority because its the woman who carries the child in the womb and is instrumental in furthering the lineage of the family.

For those interested, I think this is the reason why the word for the innermost part of hindu temple is "garbhagriha"... a word derived directly from the Sanskrit word for womb - "garbha".

If this thread is intended to point fingers at other cultures for not being as you are, then I'm not going to bother. I'll just leave my 2 cents here and just stay out of this one as I see this could turn ugly.

reply to post by halfoldman

How would Western religion...

Wait, what "Western religion"?
Could you give me examples of a living western religion? To the best of my knowledge, every major religion... even those practised in the West, has its origins in either :

- The Middle East (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Zoroastranism)
- The Indian subcontinent (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism)
- The far east (Shintoism, Taoism etc)

reply to post by halfoldman


It's called breach of promise and you can sue someone for it. Of course these days it probably won't go any further than an indictment but back in the day if you "ruined" a lady you could get jail time for it. Wish I had sued the bastard who ruined me. I hate him to this day for lying to me and he didn't even give me an orgasm . He thought women couldn't have them. That's what he told me. He's divorced now so he apparently never cought up.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Marriage is a man-made tradition, sex is a natural act. Why should something man-made come before something natural? Oh wait, we live in a world where men want to tell us what to do and who want us answer to them first.

Killing the weak is also a natural act. (See:Cheeta killing gazelle)
And laws that punish killers are a man-made tradition.

As far as the natural act of predatory behaviour is concerned... are you sure you would rather have the "natural" come before something "manmade"?

reply to post by OpinionatedB

OK "adult choice" people say.
That's fair enough, because society must allow people their independence at some stage.

But how "adult" are people at 18 or 21?

In some cults and religions people that age were expected to make vows to become renounced monks for life.

It didn't really turn out so good for such movements, because a lot of the good people left, and eventually they were run by crazy people, or people that were driven crazy by the religious practices.

I don't think one can make people take vows of celibacy or life-long monogamous marriage at that age.
Mostly it is doomed to failure, and very deluded.

Maybe in the past people endured it (with prostitution or Valium) because the whole culture encouraged it.
Nowadays in Western culture most people (especially women) expect more from life.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

What if because of all the negative outcomes that are associated with pre-marital sex

What are all of the negative outcomes?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

I'm not pointing the finger at any religion, but merely raising the issue of premarital sex.

By "Western religion" I mean the broad religions in countries like Europe, Britain, North America or Australia and New Zealand.
While religious teachings here may be as strict in some sects as in non-Western countries, I do think the secular laws of the countries allow a way out, and forced marriage is far more unlikely than in Pakistan, for example.
Perhaps here I should rather say "communities" than "countries", because while we have great laws on protecting women and children in South Africa (for example) the law doesn't reach every community, and some rural communities have actually said that the age of consent is a Western import, and it's simply not their African tribal culture.
Also on reality TV we see British and American gypsies who make little secret of the fact that they marry underage couples.
But we also do see reports on girls from Pakistan and other Muslim majority countries being sent to those countries to be forcefully married in arranged weddings, and also here there is no help from the law.

That may be my assumption, but I do think people of any religion have more rights to choose marriage in Western countries, and hence it is not quite the same debate as countries where young people get told whom to marry, and then there's nothing they can do about it.

Part of my question hinges on freedom to choose, and why people make choices.
Not all cultures give the equal right to choose, especially not to young women.

reply to post by halfoldman


Hey, I am short on time this morning, but I will give you a proper response when I get home from work...you raise some points that make for interesting discussion.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


Is it natural for a man to kill a human baby for food? No, so I'm not sure why you used that analogy. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it is nice to look at. The cheetah kills the gazelle for survival so unless marriage is needed for survival the analogy doesn't really make any sense and a comparison cannot be made between the two.

As far as man made laws go, nature always has a way of balancing itself out and people know right from wrong whether there are laws or not. Has a man-made law ever kept someone who really wanted to kill someone from killing them? Does the law keep a person from stealing?

The vast majority of the time people do what's right not because of some law but because they know that it's the right thing to do. 100% of the time someone is murdered regardless of laws against murder. Our legal systems are screwed anyways, look at the OJ Simpson trial for an example of why.

Yes, I would much rather have something natural come before something man-made 100% of the time because I know nature does not do anything without a reason. Legal marriage is not necessary for survival in any way, sex is.

reply to post by halfoldman


1. This is India, not the US. Things are very different culturally over there. Don't expect there mores to adhere to our own.

2. There is an old saying from my mother's and grandmother's days and older that covers this: Why buy the cow when you can get the milk?

And yes, even though it is not taught like it should be, premarital sex is still a sin. Part of it is that anytime you engage in sex, there is the chance of a child (even with modern birth control it's still true), and children who are not born into strong two parent homes have a worse time of it in life. Why should an innocent child suffer for your indiscretions? And part of it is that sex really isn't something to be done lightly or just because you are drunk and bored on Friday night.

That being said, it's something most of us fail miserably at - the no premarital sex standard.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Cannibalism is in fact very common in nature making it natural. It is, in fact, our laws against cannibalism that would be man-made taboos against nature.

reply to post by ketsuko


So it is, my mistake.

As I said, not all natural things are pretty to look at, but they do serve a purpose no matter what. Did human laws prevent Jeffrey Dahmer from eating those people? Nope. If someone really wants to cannibalize, no human law will prevent them from doing so.

Marriage serves absolutely no purpose except for man-made ones, there is nothing like a marriage contract anywhere else in nature meaning it is an unnatural human tradition. It only exists to hide the true union in my opinion.