Sexual history doesn't matter? Who would marry a porn star?

Originally Posted by marichiko

I was really trying to stay out of this, but, oh well.

I'm a million years old, and I still have plenty of opportunities. In my age bracket about the only people who don't have a sexual past are nuns or priests or someone who has something deeply emotionally wrong with them.

Any man who expects me to have sat around waiting for him for forty years, singing "Someday my prince will come" has a screw loose.

You seem to believe that sex is inherently immoral unless its between a man and wife. Period. Most of us disagree with that. Why do you keep belaboring the same point over and over again? Much as you might wish it, we are not going back to the age when women wore chastity belts.

No, I probably wouldn't marry some aging porn star, but I seriously doubt if I'd marry you either.

Why don't you go and find yourself some nice girl who thinks like you do, marry her, and move on to the next topic? This one was getting old three threads ago.

I see the contradiction in your statements and I hope you do to.

I never implied that sex was immoral unless people where married. However, sex for sex sake is intemperate. It’s irresponsible. It cheapens the intimacy that is supposedly the purpose of sex.
It isn't about adult choice its about honesty. Would you engage in sexual intercourse if it was stated right up front that the episode was pure recreational and the pairing will dissolve immediately afterwards?

I think nobody would honestly say yes given those terms because you cannot abstract sex. The risk of pregnancy and the responsibility that comes with it, no matter how slight, plays in the background of your thoughts. I never met a person that engaged in sex without SOME emotional component, unless they where buying a hooker.

Its that emotional component that seeds the moral question.

Originally Posted by bmwmcaw

I see the contradiction in your statements and I hope you do to.

I never implied that sex was immoral unless people where married. However, sex for sex sake is intemperate. It’s irresponsible. It cheapens the intimacy that is supposedly the purpose of sex.
It isn't about adult choice its about honesty. Would you engage in sexual intercourse if it was stated right up front that the episode was pure recreational and the pairing will dissolve immediately afterwards?

I think nobody would honestly say yes given those terms because you cannot abstract sex. The risk of pregnancy and the responsibility that comes with it, no matter how slight, plays in the background of your thoughts. I never met a person that engaged in sex without SOME emotional component, unless they where buying a hooker.

Its that emotional component that seeds the moral question.

No, I don't see the contradiction in my statements, but its been an off day for me around the Cellar, today, so feel free to enlighten me.

I don't have to worry about pregnancy, anymore, but I still don't say "yes" to a man whom I've just met. In my younger days I had a couple of one night stands out of curiosity as much as anything else, and I decided the experience was not for me. When I get into a relationship with someone, it usually lasts for a while. I was married for 20 years, but before that I was engaged for two years, so I wasn't a virgin when I married.

If some people want to have sex just to have sex, and both parties know beforehand and agree, I have no problem with that as long as they are both consenting adults. Live and let live is my motto.