Well, I am guessing that you have never been to a hooker then.  Use a rubber.  If you don't you will die.

Abrahamic religions are not the only ones that views abstinence as a good thing, so does Hinduism and Buddhism as well, and probably a few others (never bothered to research that much regarding this topic) however it can be a lifestyle choice as well, 2 of my friends have engaged in this lifestyle for fear of STD's or unwanted pregnancies, although yes they agree that condoms may reduce the possibility, abstinence makes sure it's 100 percent. This much I can respect. My partners kid (he's 18) told me (long trip to Windsor, Ontario for a job we were doing) that basically he doesn't like sex (then of course begged me not to tell his old man that he had sex....kids) basically he's asexual as far as I am concerned, which more of a genetic thing really. But there are various reasons for celibacy, my own was more of self control, as basically most of my friends viewed me as a ravenous sex machine with no appetite.....ok some truth to that but always loyal to my wife.....soon to be ex wife (hence how I did go for 1 year with no sex). But for me it was all about self control and being able to know that I can control myself, and not give in to sexual desires.

It's all about control. By getting into people's sex lives, religion can control the person.

But, one of the functions of religion has been birth control/STD control before humans had pills, abortion and prophylactics. Fundamentalism increased after AIDS came along. If we had totally effective birth control and STD prevention, I think fundamentalist religion would die off.

I think some people are just naturally monogamous. Either they don't want to experiment with sex outside marriage or they had their fill of promiscuity when they were young. Some people are asexual. Like homosexuality it's probably a combination of genetics and environment. I'm for respecting every one's way.

Unfortunately, what should be one's personal choice has been poisoned by religion. Religious fundamentalism has hijacked abstinence, so people who want monogamous marriage are pretty much coerced it accepting religion. Atheism is pretty much associated with promiscuity and homosexuality, thanks to the religious propaganda machine. I think the atheist movement needs to be accepting of people with 'family values'. Because the don't come from God, they are a natural phenomena.

Perhaps you are naturally monogamous LOC. But religion has poisoned our minds with irrational guilt and fear. You just got to figure out who you are now.

 

I am mostly an involuntary abstinent from a lack of opportunity. But today I go to the pub with former classmates from elementary school and I'll give the abstinence an annual alcoholic death blow.
Or is the topic about a sexual abstinence? Well, what's the difference. If the girl is not ugly, fat or dim-witted, one should consider doing his best and making her happy.
As for a proper age to start with sexual activity, this depends on many personal and cultural factors and is impossible to tell generally. I'd say rather earlier than later, because the development of humanity should aim towards diminishing a hard manual labour
Virginity may be special if it's voluntary and has some sufficient reason. For example, if someone has the sex associated with love and devotion, then it's unlikely to lose the virginity for an one night relationship. But a sexual abstinence from being fat or too intellectual (which turns girls off like a bucket of cold water) is nothing special.
There is something wrong with the concepts of pre-marital and marital sex. (not marTial, Loc ) The religional "morality" wants to confine the sex only to the institution of marriage, while controlling the marriage. If I love her, I shall fuck her or not, completely independently on whether or not we're married! In recent times, there's a phenomenon of couples who lives together for many years, have family, house, jobs and so on, but they're not married. And it works for them.
 
In my opinion, sexual abstinence (like a celibate of priests) causes an obsession with the lacking sex, eventually maybe a perversion.  A sexual moderation is an optimal way. (like having one girlfriend instead of three, I've seen that it does no good) In rare cases, some very enlightened and creative people directed all their sexual drive into their creativity, so they didn't need sex, but an average people should be aware that they're mammals.

Reminds of the joke about suicide bombers getting 72 virgins, 'Wouldn't you want a few that know what they're doing'.

It's a lot like dancing or any other activity. The more you do it the better you get at it.

LOL. I say to win the the War on Errorism, air drop Victoria's Secret calendars and pornos in the Middle East. Then promise them 99 nymphomaniacs in paradise if they don't kill anyone.

I abstain because I know that we are merely hard wired to sexual activity. It is based on emotion not logic. By being aware of it and knowing that it is just a scheme to get me to pass on my genes, I have yet to see an actual reason to engage in it.

 

 

Because it is very very healthy.

And also, it is GREAT!

 

 

I have to interject here that I'm always amused at the number of virgins who seem certain that sex isn't worth the trouble.  Would we listen to someone who'd never had Indian food, yet claimed it was not worth the trouble of eating?

 

 

So then in order to justify not wanting to sky diving, I have to sky dive?

 

 

 Or, to put it in terms of Indian food, you must try Saag before you can say whether you like it or not.  Anyone who's never tried saag, and tells others they shouldn't try it because it's disgusting... probably shouldn't be trusted as much as someone who's had it and says it's great.

 

Hey man, where do you live, so I can start packing my suitcase? Or Proper Gander?
But seriously, girls who can sit down and just discuss some new scientific discoveries, philosophy, metaphysics, global politics, events and crises are nowhere to be found here, only with rare exceptions. Even at science and language philosophy classes, (university) I was the only one to show some activity, even objections if the teacher was saying baloney.
Women are generally more down-to-earth, protectors of material security, while men are more idealistic and abstract. But here I see things like no philosophy, acting, music or literature groups at middle schools. These I know only from American hi-school serials. Everyone's either unsocialized, or socialized in pubs. (guys have Counter-Strike tournaments besides that)  Thus the more intellectual individuals are selected out of local gene pool and later they go abroad, because they know English language.  Of course, I'm generalizing. It's probably better at grammar schools in richer regions.

 

lol. Don't get too excited, I can't actually support abstinence. Sex is too much fun, for one thing. I'm just going to do the best job that can be done for them.

Well this is the only place I could think of that was the least bit assailable. Goes to show we like to cut through the bs faster than theists.

Don't forget parasites.
Still, since you asked what step two could be, the only answer I can think of would be:
1) Sexual intercourse carries the risk of disease transmission.
2) I don't want an std.
3) Therefore I should not have sex.
Though I would then change 3) to:
3) Therefore I should not have sex with random people en masse without checking them and myself out with a doctor.
For my own personal version. However, as I'm sure you will point out, these are not scientific responses. 

Wow. I had no idea the numbers were that high. Though I would imagine that most of those are relatively benign compared to the lethal stds.

True, but some diseases are enough to scare the pants off of people. Warts are one thing, AIDS is something else.
Others are distinctly embarassed at receiving an std, and view a trip to the doctor in the same light as a trip to the dentist.
Granted, these are emotional arguments, but they are compelling for some individuals. Especially since sex is such an emotionally focussed activity.

We are power hungry dictators. Or religious zealots. Or something along those lines.

Taxpayers? I think you lost me somewhere. Where is abstinence a taxpayers concern? I'm speaking of it as an individual choice. I am completely and totally against government involvement in peoples lives on such a level. I can't even pretend to support that side in a debate.

I have to agree.

I don't think we should be <i>telling</i> people to do much of anything given the circumstances we exist within. An education to allow people to choose for themselves is the only real option.

I really have nothing to add or subtract from this.

While there are people out there that conceal std's, there aren't all that many of them, and it is not impossible nor even particularly difficult to find out there is a potential danger if one is truly worried about such things. So I left it alone.

I can't support forcing people to not have sex, or even an education system that simply propogates the idea. They're nothing but counter-productive in practice. China is the most glaring example of this today.

And adoption, for what it's worth.

I know that nothing is 100%, but if you're really not wanting a kid, and you're responsible enough to take steps to not have one, the chances of one popping out are near to nothing. It happens, but it's so rare that when it does it can actually make news headlines.

No. But you can't be anti-skydiving unless you have tried it and even then you would need to have scientific evidence to be against it, not just your personal experience. The problem is just like with sex, people have irrational fears about it. The risks can be successful managed through rational understanding of the activity. There is ample evidence that sex, exercise and extreme sports are beneficial physically, mentally, emotionally and they increase longevity.

If someone doesn't enjoy eating or is a very picky eater, medical science recommends they see a medical doctor and perhaps a psychiatrist for help. There is no medical reason to treat sexual disorders differently than eating disorders. It's not healthy to be that way.

I think if schools are going to promote music, art, physical education, etc... They should also promote extreme sports.

 

It seems like I have a semantic problem with just about everything, doesn't it?  I guess it should come as no surprise that our words get in the way when we talk about sexual behavior.  Let's drop the Christian cultural baggage for a few minutes and just talk about humans as social animals.  Let's pretent like the cultural institution of marriage doesn't exist.  Also, let's drop the dichotomy of sex as being only intercourse.  If we look at other primates (and a lot of birds) we can see that humans are not alone in practicing non-intercourse sex.  So, from now on, when I say sex, I mean pretty much any contact that involves sexual gratification between two people.  (Yes, we can also self-sex, but that's not really important for this discussion.)

Sex in humans is actually very much like every other social activity.  That is, it's a matter of degree.  As we walk down the busy street, we pretty much avoid physical contact with everyon who's a total stranger.  On the bus, we get a little freaked out if the person next to us touches their knee to ours unless it is obvious that there is no choice in the matter because of crowding.  At work, we routinely pat our compatriots on the back, or gently hold their shoulder as we speak.  We shake hands with nearly everybody.  However, pats on the butt are right out.  Once we've become friends with someone, we hug.  When we become good friends, depending on which culture we're a part of, we probably kiss socially.  Likewise, with sex, when we move from complete strangers to bonded lovers (or mutual instant gratifiers), we go through stages, from hand holding to "lover kisses" to touching "other" erogenous zones, to manual genital stimulation to intercourse.

(Remember that sex in this post means all degrees of sexual contact.)  The reality is that virtually nobody practices abstinence.  Nearly everybody on the planet engages in sex with other people -- lots of them -- during their teen and young adult years.  The question is not whether someone will abstain from sex, but how far through the spectrum of sexual intimacy they will go with their sexual partners.

Obviously, there is a real line to be drawn at sexual intercourse because of pregnancy and STDs, but it's not as clear a line as most people seem to think, and sex does not just serve a reproductive function in humans.  STDs can be passed from non-intercourse activities, but you don't see a lot of people swearing off kissing or oral sex.  Most of the young couples I've known who were waiting for marriage found ways to give each other sexual pleasure without vaginal intercourse.  If nothing else, there aren't a lot of guys around who will stay in a dating relationship for too long without getting something they can't do themselves.

So let's backtrack a little and remember that marriage doesn't exist for this conversation.  (In other words, we're discarding waiting for sex until marriage because it's just a religious convention.)  People have sex outside of long term bonded relationships all the time, and almost nobody thinks there's anything wrong with it.  (Again... sex means everything sexual.)  In fact, from a purely psychological point of view, sex is one of the most important contributors to the development of a long  term bonded relationship!  Though it can work, it's really quite abnormal for two people to develop a strong long term sexual bond without any sex.  Sex is the best way to release the chemicals that bond us to each other.

In behavioral terms, when we say someone is abstaining from sex, what we really mean is that they are delaying vaginal intercourse.  (I'm talking about straight sex because I notice there aren't any strong movements for abstinence among gays.  At least they don't have that to worry about, eh?)  Some people delay it until they believe they are with someone they want to reproduce with, while others wait until they feel sufficiently "in love" such that their desire to have sex is greater than their desire not to.

Think about that last sentence for a little bit.  Most women who "abstain" for non-religious reasons are waiting until they are with someone they "are in love with."  I've talked enough about love that everyone reading this ought to know that it is a highly subjective term that literally means something slightly different for everybody.  Even given "in love" as a prerequisite for vaginal intercourse, people's standards are going to vary quite a bit.  Many women are waiting for a symbolic gesture of monogamy.  Again, this varies between individuals.  Some people are comfortable pledging fidelity after a week.  Others can take years to feel ready to commit.  When some people pledge fidelity, they mean, "I won't have sex with anyone else as long as I'm having fun with you."  Others mean "I intend for you to be the last bonded partner I will ever have."  Not everybody is looking for someone to be a parent with, or to be a life partner.  

So, most people who are abstaining for non-religious reasons are actually saying they are avoiding vaginal sex with someone who hasn't demonstrated a compatible relationship goal and given a symbolic gesture of a compact.  Of course... sexual bonds come in many shapes... There are summer flings, high school sweethearts, two year relationships, six month relationships, twenty year relationships, relationships with kids, without... 

I'm speculating a bit here, but it's educated speculation.  The culture of marriage has given us a false sense of how sexual human relationships really work.  We are designed to be at least serially polygamous -- that is, have more than one sexual bonded relationship in our lifetimes.  It is undeniably healthy for humans to have sex.  It's more healthy than not having sex, both physically and psychologically.  Because of our complex society, we are actually "ready to be parents" for a very short period in our adult lives.  Yet, we still ought to -- if we want to be healthier, psychologically and physically -- engage in sex.  

Oh, and one side note... By the way, Pineapple, I mean this almost scientifically... you need to get laid.

Again... remembering that marriage doesn't exist... we should expect that we will have multiple sexual partners for different lengths of time, and we should expect that they will serve different purposes.  When we take the cult of marriage out of it, we can realize that summer flings are good for the ego, good for general health, and good for our psychological fitness.  If we know going in that it's ok for us to have bonded sexual relationships that are not directed towards marriage and kids, we can start thinking about sexual intercourse in terms of weighted risks.  We can ask if the risk of STDs, pregnancy, and so forth is low enough with this person that it's worth the reward of getting the kind of sexual relationship we are looking for.

The kicker to this approach is that we discover that we have obliterated the distinction between "casual sex" and "committed sex."  In other words, some relationships are designed to be short term, like the high school sweethearts who know they're going to different colleges in different states, or the teenagers at summer camp, or whatever.  There's a whole spectrum from a couple of years down to a few hours, and it's all the same thing.  Essentially, we're looking for someone to be a sexual partner, and based on our projected investment in the relationship, our threshold for sex changes.  If we're just going to be petting in the corner at a party, I just need to be sexually attracted to you (and vice versa) and we need to chat for anywhere from a few minutes to an hour or so.  If we're going to be monogamous partners for the summer, it would probably be best if we spend time together for a week or so such that we can investigate our initial assessments of each other a few times.  If we're going to have children together, we should probably wait several years (before attempting to become pregnant... not to have sexual intercourse)  to make sure we haven't missed anything major that would cause severe relationship problems in the long term.  In each of these situations, as we are examining both the relationship goal and the desired level of sexual intimacy, we are asking ourself whether this or that sexual activity is worth the risk for the reward we're getting.

 

 

 

I think it's safe to assume you don't have much sex...

I think that's a BS statistics. You can buy condoms that have been electronically tested. If you use proper lubrication and use the proper size, the failure probability can be made nearly 0%. If the failure rate really is 3% this is due to ignorance and sexual taboos causing people to not buy or use them properly. Just like any mechanical process, the failure rate can be made to be near zero when done properly and consistently. The failure rate on your car's brakes is much less than 3%, yet this is far more mechanically complicated.

I'd like to chime in here with a question for all those abstinent atheists. Do you masturbate? If not then why? Are you concerned about carpal tunnel syndrome? That's the only secular reason I could come up with.

Don't forget the use of latex condoms with petroleum based lubes.

As an atheist who has practiced abstinence, I must interject my reason:

 

It's always about appreciating what one has by not having it for a while.

 

Seriously. I do the same thing with treat foods and other favorite activities. I find it really helps with perspective.

I think what the science is telling us is that sex is more like a normal biological function that should be done on a regular basis rather than a 'special treat' that can be done on a rare basis. Sex is not a chocolate moose desert, it is more like eating fruits and vegetables or like regular exercise. 

It feels good to urinate when I haven't done it for a while, but it's not healthy for your bladder/kidney to avoid urinating until your bladder is ready to burst.

Just like any activity, if you don't do it, you become rusty. People that like to dance don't say "I'll only do it rarely". When they do dance, they are going to be rusty and not very good at it. People that like to dance do it a few times a month and get better at it every time they do it.

One of the problems especially with women is that there is a stigma with looking for sex. I'm not saying people should go out and have sex with someone they're not attracted to. But there should be no shame about looking for sex, engaging in safe sex with strangers or masturbating. Instead, people with your attitude about sex should be considered to be living an unhealthy lifestyle.

I suppose that's one way of interpreting it, but I think it's going a shade too far to call it equal to proper nutrition. Also, if you can't see sex as having something in common with chocolate mousse, pally, you're doing it wrong.

Heh. Not even close to what I'm suggesting.

Chrimeny. Just how long do you think a period of abstinence has to be? "Long enough to forget how it's done" isn't even in the same ballpark as what I mean, and rather totally misses the point.

My attitude? What? You don't know what my attitude is, sweetie. All you know is I've used abstinence before.

And I've used it to enhance my sex life.

See, there are no absolutes, right? It's not unhealthy to abstain from sex for a week or so, or even a month. Just like it's not unhealthy to abstain form eating one or two meals in a row. There is a range of healthy criteria for any given biological function - not one simple set of criteria.

Curiously, I feel the same way about sushi. 

Thinking back over the past decade or so, I don't think I've gone involuntarily more than six months, and I honestly can't understand how people make it years.  I was about to climb the walls.  I feel genuinely sorry for young people who voluntarily go years because of religious condemnation.  They're missing out on great sex when their bodies are not creaking and popping and muscles aren't getting strained and all that other shit that seems to accumulate exponentially after you hit 30.

 

Well, I don't think you should call it 'abstinence' then, and we don't don't really have a difference of opinion. This is normal and healthy.

Ok, I'm happy to adjust a definition to fit. What you describe I'd usually call "celibacy", or at least "voluntary abstinence gone amok".

A rose by any other name...