Is sex bad?

I want to get your opinion on this. Is sex "bad", meaning should it be withheld for as long as possible? Should it be used for reproductive purposes only? Should we hold off telling our children about sex until they're 18, 21, or even older (I read that some people say you should tell your kids about sex at age 8 )? And, (I hate to bring this up), should sex be forbidden if its done between non-married couples?

My opinion? Sex is a natural activity, and people shouldn't be ashamed of it. I think America is too protective against it. Do you agree, or disagree?

No.

Shorter answer:

No.

Unprotected sex can have bad consequences, but sex itself is not bad.sonicare

I agree. As long as you're safe with it, I don't see how it can be bad.

People have sex when they think they are ready. Sometimes they are wrong but there is no specific time when it is or isn't ok to have sex.Nifty_Shark

What about age?

Anyone who says sex is bad has obviously never had good sex in a loving relationship.

It can have dire consequences if practiced irresponsibly, but it can also be one of the best things in the world under the right circumstances.

It's not sex that's bad... but rather the circumstances that surround the situation.Curlyfrii87

But what warrants a bad circumstance? That's where many people differ. Take age of consent for example. In America, it's usually 18. In some other countries, however, it can be as young as 12.

People should be fully and completely educated about the ways to have safe sex, cautioned that abstinence is the only way to be 100% sure nothing bad happens, and then they should be left alone. Abstinence-only education where everyone's like "ok guys never have sex k?" is naive BS.

There's also the absurdity in that a guy having sex with a woman would get a film an NC-17 rating, whereas a guy killing a woman might only get it a PG-13 rating. What a weird world we live in...

i beleive sex isnt bad but to some extent where its under age or unproted it could be bad and it may have consequencesleonard88

Sex is **** great and I don't see how in anyway it can be seen as bad. People lovign each other and **** for pleasure is normal all animals do it. So no I think it's retarded that it's censored so much and I would kill any parent that tried to not tell their parent about sex until they were 18/21. That can mentally **** up a kid and that's not right. What happens when hes about to have sex for the first time and has never seen a vagina Thats pathetic. I'm not saying he should watch porn, but he should atleast know whats ex is and why it occurs and that it's very pleasurable. The end.bigblunt537

Sex is **** great and I don't see how in anyway it can be seen as bad. People lovign each other and **** for pleasure is normal all animals do it. So no I think it's retarded that it's censored so much and I would kill any parent that tried to not tell their parent about sex until they were 18/21. That can mentally **** up a kid and that's not right. What happens when hes about to have sex for the first time and has never seen a vagina Thats pathetic. I'm not saying he should watch porn, but he should atleast know whats ex is and why it occurs and that it's very pleasurable. The end.bigblunt537

[QUOTE="bigblunt537"]Sex is **** great and I don't see how in anyway it can be seen as bad. People lovign each other and **** for pleasure is normal all animals do it. So no I think it's retarded that it's censored so much and I would kill any parent that tried to not tell their parent about sex until they were 18/21. That can mentally **** up a kid and that's not right. What happens when hes about to have sex for the first time and has never seen a vagina Thats pathetic. I'm not saying he should watch porn, but he should atleast know whats ex is and why it occurs and that it's very pleasurable. The end.Vaasman

People should be fully and completely educated about the ways to have safe sex, cautioned that abstinence is the only way to be 100% sure nothing bad happens, and then they should be left alone. Abstinence-only education where everyone's like "ok guys never have sex k?" is naive BS.

There's also the absurdity in that a guy having sex with a woman would get a film an NC-17 rating, whereas a guy killing a woman might only get it a PG-13 rating. What a weird world we live in...

GabuEx

I believe as far as movies go, the rules are the opposite over in Europe. Over here, there's a concern as to how graphic it needs to be for it to be considered pornography. :Pviewtiful26

Yeah, I know. And that system, I feel, makes so much more sense that I cannot understand why we haven't followed suit.

There's also the absurdity in that a guy having sex with a woman would get a film an NC-17 rating, whereas a guy killing a woman might only get it a PG-13 rating. What a weird world we live in...

GabuEx

I think it depends on how graphic it is. A movie with graphic sex would get an R or NC-17 rating, and a movie with graphic violence (blood, gore, ect) would also get an R rating. So, just because a movie has sex or killings in it doesn't automatically give it an R rating. But I somtimes believe its hard for the rating board to decide.

I think it depends on how graphic it is. A movie with graphic sex would get an R or NC-17 rating, and a movie with graphic violence (blood, gore, ect) would also get an R rating. So, just because a movie has sex or killings in it doesn't automatically give it an R rating. But I somtimes believe its hard for the rating board to decide. dog64

It does depend on how graphic it is, but there's no denying that the raters treat sex much more harshly than violence.

[QUOTE="dog64"]I think it depends on how graphic it is. A movie with graphic sex would get an R or NC-17 rating, and a movie with graphic violence (blood, gore, ect) would also get an R rating. So, just because a movie has sex or killings in it doesn't automatically give it an R rating. But I somtimes believe its hard for the rating board to decide. GabuEx

It does depend on how graphic it is, but there's no denying that the raters treat sex much more harshly than violence.

I'm curious if either of you saw the film "This Film is Not Yet Rated." It was a pretty interesting documentary that gives insight and examples as to how the MPAA works. Plus, you hear different directors, etc. like Kevin Smith and Trey Parker give their personal experiences about how they had to deal with the film system.

It's pretty obscure, but I think I saw it on google video the other day. Appropriately, the film is rated NC-17.:P

[QUOTE="dog64"]I think it depends on how graphic it is. A movie with graphic sex would get an R or NC-17 rating, and a movie with graphic violence (blood, gore, ect) would also get an R rating. So, just because a movie has sex or killings in it doesn't automatically give it an R rating. But I somtimes believe its hard for the rating board to decide. GabuEx

It does depend on how graphic it is, but there's no denying that the raters treat sex much more harshly than violence.

Maybe sometimes, but other times maybe not. The movie "Titanic" has nudity and a scene of Rose and Jack having intercourse (it's not very graphic, but you know what they're doing). In comparison, I'll name two movies that I have in my head. The movies "Speed" and "Executive Decision" both have R ratings, and have no sex at all, and neither are extremely violent. Just some scenes where people are shot and there's a little blood. There are many PG-13 movies with gunplay, so I don't know why these two films got an R rating.

Anyway, I think it depends on the people rating the film. Some may have find sex more offensive, and others may find killings more offensive.

Is sex "bad", meaning should it be withheld for as long as possible?
No, the earlier you tell the kids the better. And the earlier you teach safe sex, is even better to prevent pregnancies. Look at Bristol Palin. That family probably doesn't teach safe sex, nor do they want their kids having sex before marriage. Look how that turned out.

Should it be used for reproductive purposes only?
No.

Should we hold off telling our children about sex until they're 18, 21, or even older (I read that some people say you should tell your kids about sex at age 8)?
No. Imagine being 18, and not knowing what's going on with your body. Girls grow breasts at around age 10, and males start to develop at around age 11. With all those hormones raging around in the body, it would be wrong to not tell them.

And, (I hate to bring this up), should sex be forbidden if its done between non-married couples?
Nope. I think both the male and female in the relationship needs to know what they're getting into bed with. (Yes, that was a pun.) Would you want to end up marrying someone who was "bad in bed."?

dog64

Is sex "bad", meaning should it be withheld for as long as possible?
No, the earlier you tell the kids the better. And the earlier you teach safe sex, is even better to prevent pregnancies. Look at Bristol Palin. That family probably doesn't teach safe sex, nor do they want their kids having sex before marriage. Look how that turned out.

Should it be used for reproductive purposes only?
No.

Should we hold off telling our children about sex until they're 18, 21, or even older (I read that some people say you should tell your kids about sex at age 8)?
No. Imagine being 18, and not knowing what's going on with your body. Girls grow breasts at around age 10, and males start to develop at around age 11. With all those hormones raging around in the body, it would be wrong to not tell them.

And, (I hate to bring this up), should sex be forbidden if its done between non-married couples?
Nope. I think both the male and female in the relationship needs to know what they're getting into bed with. (Yes, that was a pun.) Would you want to end up marrying someone who was "bad in bed."?

remmbermytitans

I agree with much of what you say. Although some may argue that marriage isn't about how good someone is in bed. Are you saying that sex should be "test driven"?

[QUOTE="remmbermytitans"]

Is sex "bad", meaning should it be withheld for as long as possible?
No, the earlier you tell the kids the better. And the earlier you teach safe sex, is even better to prevent pregnancies. Look at Bristol Palin. That family probably doesn't teach safe sex, nor do they want their kids having sex before marriage. Look how that turned out.

Should it be used for reproductive purposes only?
No.

Should we hold off telling our children about sex until they're 18, 21, or even older (I read that some people say you should tell your kids about sex at age 8)?
No. Imagine being 18, and not knowing what's going on with your body. Girls grow breasts at around age 10, and males start to develop at around age 11. With all those hormones raging around in the body, it would be wrong to not tell them.

And, (I hate to bring this up), should sex be forbidden if its done between non-married couples?
Nope. I think both the male and female in the relationship needs to know what they're getting into bed with. (Yes, that was a pun.) Would you want to end up marrying someone who was "bad in bed."?

dog64

I agree with much of what you say. Although some may argue that marriage isn't about how good someone is in bed. Are you saying that sex should be "test driven"?

People should be fully and completely educated about the ways to have safe sexGabuEx

Sex is only for married couples to Christians at least.Revinh

Unprotected sex can have bad consequences, but sex itself is not bad.sonicare

:P

[QUOTE="Revinh"]Sex is only for married couples to Christians at least.Stevo_the_gamer

[QUOTE="Stevo_the_gamer"][QUOTE="Revinh"]Sex is only for married couples to Christians at least.Revinh