"@slyguy that makes sense, actually, well, not counting the waiting part :)"

Not saying it's easy, but I do think it's the right thing to do. My parents raised me with the teaching that sex was meant for marriage, and it's a stance I wholly agree with. I want to be able to say that my wife and I have never been with anyone else but each other; it's just more special that way. Sex is a beautiful part of marriage and I don't want to trivialize it through premarital relations. There's more to love than just sex anyway. I want to choose my partner based on who she is on the inside; not just based on her appearance, (though looks are always a nice bonus). If I focused just on the possibility of sleeping with a girl, I'd have a hard time seeing what kind of person she really was.

Maybe I'm just naive, but that's my viewpoint at the moment.

YJ - "You are married with kids... I assume you don't ask your wife for verbal consent each and every time you are intimate. Are YOU comfortable with the label that the law puts on you for your failure?"

I'm in the UK so sexual assault is defined as...

Sexual assault

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally touches another person (B),

(b)the touching is sexual,

(c)B does not consent to the touching, and

(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

So first of all consent does not have to be verbal, a nod and a wink is good enough and provided that I act reasonably in my belief about current consent level of my souse, I'm fine. Therefore on a daily basis we touch one another, but If I try to touch her when I should reasonably know that the approach would be unwelcome, then its sexual assault.

Maniac, I *DID* ANSWER THE QUESTION. Perhaps you should read better. Just because I rejected your idiotic options doesn't mean I didn't answer the question, fool.

You *totally* make my point. I *thought* I lived in a country of THE PEOPLE...not of the Authoritarian Government. Idiot.

Ogion has the right of it, mostly, but one would have to trust the organizations responsible for overseeing investigations of these assaults to be fair. Put simply, they aren't - and it's not one-sided unfairness, either. I think someone linked the Harvard story, all too common, where a very serious allegation was laughed off for no good reason. I've heard it go the other way, too; at least one university dean somewhere (will find link later) has openly said that she doesn't believe that any such allegation can be false. The ultimate issue with "common sense" proposals like the one in the OP is that the organizations responsible for investigating these cases are designed such that the people most likely to earn the greatest discretion in pursuing these cases are selected for ideological agendas and thus the organizations explicitly DON'T select for the common sense needed to make common sense proposals work.

And, for that mater, JURIES interpret the laws and convict or don't convict kids, if you want to get right down to the heart of the matter. Convince enough juries that common sense should rule the day, and that bimbo sucking on a guy's neck deserves to get her tit squeezed, and end of problem.

er, slyguy... deprivation for the sake of making the good being consumed "more special" isn't really a good idea. would you starve yourself to make the consumption of food "more special"? sex is a similar biological need. not that people can't or don't wait, but I'd urge you to think through the implication of your position more, because that logic could lead to rather unhealthy conclusions, imo.

But Maniac - to address you point, I DID tell you how I, as a parent, would teach my kids - to use common sense. I would teach my daughter to knee your fucking make child in the nutts. As for my male child, I'd teach him to respect women and not grab their tits, REGARDLESS OF THE LAW.

You are the person that would, apparently, advise your child to do whatever they want as long as it's within the law. *I* am the guy that would advise my male child to treat women with respect, period, regardless of the law.

Sex is a similar biological impulse; not a biological need. If I don't eat then I die, but I won't die from a starved sex drive. I'd urge you to think through the implications of your position on pre-marital sex more, because your logic could lead to rather unhealthy baggage, imo.

@maniac OK, well I prefer the UK definition also, and I do agree with the rest of your points. You should of course instruct your kids within the context of the law, if for no other reason than they should be aware of it!

Can I just point out that a campus newsletter has absolutely no standing to defining a law? The reason the newsletter is saying that is probably due to how common sexual assault/rape is in colleges, and may even be due to the personal beliefs of the writer/editor of the newsletter. I'd think you'd all be better off looking at the actual law.

"because your logic could lead to rather unhealthy baggage, imo."

As opposed to slyguy, where it's the baggage leading to the logic :P

@Chaqa we did, and it was my mistake. The newsletter was correct, to our collective dismay. So are you a sexual assault victim like YJ?

"If I don't eat then I die, but I won't die from a starved sex drive."

Surely you recognize that "I won't die" is, on its own, an unsatisfactory criterion for determining whether something is healthy... Provided that I'm not dumb, I won't die from eating nothing but fast food and never exercising, but such a regimen is obviously unhealthy as well.

@Yellowjacket
lol, I can think of several different ways to take that, and I have no idea which way is the right one... :P

A somewhat concealed pun perhaps?

@PE
You've suggested multiple times that a policy of sexual abstinence till marriage is unhealthy, but have yet to give me any reasons as to why it is. Care to explain your opinion?

haha slyguy it's not even that subtle, I"m just considering the likely source of an "abstinence-until-marriage" mentality.

YJ, the law says something fitting with that? How absurd. You shouldn't need verbal consent every single time.

...my point :)

You have commited sex crimes, Chaqa. How does that make you feel you old rapist you?

:p

Is that a national statute or only in your state?

Ah, gotcha. Except if it's "baggage", then it's a baggage full of gold. Sometimes it's heavy to carry, but it'll completely be worth it when I finally get to the bank. :)

@chaqa I think that's federal. Ask Maniac he looked it up.

@slyguy touche :)

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sex-and-health
Ok let's see here...

1. Helps Keep Your Immune System Humming

Well I work out daily, eat well, take vitamins, and even have a freaking cup of freshly-juiced organic carrots every morning. I think I'll be fine without the negligible boost thank you very much. I don't even remember the last time I took a sick day...

2. Boosts your libido

If I'm not sexually active, I don't really need to increase my sex drive, do I?

3. Improves Women's Bladder Control

Well I suppose that's good for them, eh?

4. Lowers Your Blood Pressure

I'm pretty dang young still and I take care of myself. Once again, I think I can do without the negligible benefit.

5. Counts as Exercise

Did I mention I work out???

6. Lowers Heart Attack Risk

*See response 4. I'm not writing it out again...

So let me get this straight. If I were sexually active I *might* have a slightly increased immune system, be less likely to die from heart-related issues, and I'd have a craving for more sex... Do those "benefits" really justify me risking a potential unwanted pregnancy, STD, and/or a lifetime of repercussions? What I see here is people that, just because they find sex enjoyable and fun, won't admit that waiting till marriage is the smart choice to make. Instead, they'll go searching for all kinds of excuses as to why sex before marriage is a good thing; not realizing how stupid their "logic" is...

Yes that was a rant...

I see. I could continue finding other examples of studies conducted that drive home the point that sex is healthy, but it's overwhelmingly clear that you're not interested in any conclusion besides the one you've decided on before entering the conversation, in which case there's no reason for either of us to waste each other's time.

I agree that sex is healthy and I think it that it should be enjoyed as much as possible, inside of marriage. But I believe that the harmful effects of sex outside marriage far outway any minor health benefits received from it.

What specific harms come from sex outside of marriage that don't come from sex inside of marriage?

AIDS.

ADULTERY

MAURY POVICH