Is premartial sex Intelligent?
438207
the act of sex itself isnt smart or stupid, its how you handle it. i dont think that being young and promiscuous is a good idea, but sex before marriage isnt necessarily bad if you are safe and use protection, and are mentally and emotionally ready to be involved.
700338
I doubt it. There is a long tradition of Christian intellectualism (just ask the Jesuits). Read contemporary theological commentators like Spong and Borg and try to suggest that they're in possession of low IQs. Personally, I'm religious and hold a doctorate, something not generally awarded to idiots. Of course, I also know some very intelligent atheists...as well as a few prize-winning morons of that persusion. There are both bright and ignorant people from both camps, believing and non-believing.
451859
Depends on your definition of intelligence.They are most definatly able to problem solve and communicate but they cant nip down the shops for some fags and a newspaper.Although would you really say that a species that doesnt seem to have its own survival at its highest priority was intelligent?i think not.It depends on your definition!
577129
i think so...it's sexy/a turn on..intelligence is nice to have in a man.
87000
love before sex- definately
656713
The Sexual Revolution of the 1960s is coming to an abrupt halt and virginity is making a comeback on high school campuses. That's the report from the Princeton Religion Research Center, which recently announced that an increasing proportion of Americans consider premarital sex wrong. The statistics they discovered demonstrate the reversal of an 18-year trend: two years ago, 39 percent said premarital sex was wrong; today 46 percent say it is wrong. \n\n"A key factor in this trend reversal may be growing concern over the risk of disease," such as herpes and AIDS, the Center said in its report, although most respondents (83 percent) cited moral and religious reasons for their opinions. Among those from age 18 to 29, the proportion considering premarital sex wrong had climbed from 18 percent to 27 percent.\n\nThe war cry against the establishment in the 1960s was for sexual freedom, but the definition of this rallying cry has now been rewritten after two decades of suffering the disastrous consequences of increasing venereal diseases and the recent AIDS epidemic. Health professionals and educators are proclaiming a new solution: responsible "safe sex" with its virtues of contraceptive usage and sex education.\n\nSafe sex adherents are diligent about carrying their contraceptives and checking their partners' sexual history. Contraceptive manufacturers have painted routine usage as a virtue, like taking your vitamins. In all their advertising, however, they fail to share the startling statistics of increasing teen pregnancies that have resulted from the use of their products.\n\nAlthough using contraceptives and policing your partner's sexual activity is a laudable attempt at stopping the spread of a disease, one very important element missing from the safe sex solution is values. The real issue is not the clinical advantages of having a clean partner, or whether or not you are using contraceptives. At the bottom of the safe sex promotion is the idea that self-gratification is still OK, as long as it is performed within the confines of medical safety. And that idea, more and more social commentators are saying, is dangerous.\n\nSociologist George Gilder, in his book Men and Marraige, said that men who respond to short term sexual desires are apt to have significantly higher rates of suicide, drug and alcohol addiction, mental disease, accidental death, and arrest. There is a vital difference between"responding to a short term sexual desire" even with the endorsement of health professionals, and being willing to wait until marriage to gratify that desire in its proper context.\n\nThe danger of "safe sex theology" is that it is a fearful knee-jerk reaction to the terror of AIDS and other diseases, but not a warning about the dangers of sexual permissiveness. Safe sex, in essence, is the same permissive sex of the '60s with the 1980s' Good Housekeeping seal of medical approval.\n\nA Revolt Against Permissiveness\n\nThousands of high-school students in Northern California have discovered a solution which goes a step ahead of safe sex and effectively solves the problem: virginity. "Clean Teens," based in Modesto, California, and directed by 18-year-old Kirk McCall, is the nation's only teen-led group that seeks to advocate sexual abstinence before marriage. \n\nClean Teens organized a rally which drew 1,000 people last October. "There is a real desire for abstinence among youth," said McCall. "When they hear positive reasons for abstinence, they say, 'Now I know why to say no.'\n\n"Chastity is important because of the physical repercussions of promiscuity: AIDs, other sexually transmitted diseases, and the rising rate of teen pregnancies. Those who go along with sex before marriage for emotional reasons find emotional problems later in life - guilt, frustration, jealousy," McCall explained.\n\nVirginity, once considered a stigma fo
487296
Yes, and if it is an educated choice it is not a bad thing, IMO. \n\nQuestions like what is permissive in sex, are completely arbitrary. The proof is that attitudes and taboos with respect to sex vary enormously from one culture to another and have changed from one century to another. The Victorian taboos where a decent woman couldn´t even show an ankle, was followed by much looser rules at the beginning of the 20th century. Even today, kissing in the street in Paris is quite normal, but it will land you in prison in Ry-ad.  \n\nThe reason for the existence of sexual taboos is that there are two aspects to sex. In the past, making children was considered a positive and necessary thing in all societies to assure survival of the tribe. But sex for pleasure goes against this idea, as it increases births outside the clan, which is bad for the tribal survival. Also it grants more liberty for women and would therefore distract them from making and bringing up children. \n\nBut science and education progressed. The tribal nature of humanity disappeared, at least in the west, which created more room for sex without procreation.    \n\nWith the invention of anti-conception methods, sexual permissiveness does no longer have to result in unwanted pregnancies, which liberates women enormously. Education made women (and men!) realize that men and women are their equal.\n\nBut morals didn´t change as quickly as science did. Sex for pleasure is still something where one doesn´t talk about openly, a century old, primitive attitude that hasn´t yet.\n\nBut times are changing, society is changing, taboos disappear slowly. And permissiveness is on the rise.\n\nIt seems that we are finally growing up.
1166947
Sounds like you have already made up your mind on this one.  How about educating yourself on the subject first.  JPII was a brilliant man and many times there are very good reasons behind things we do not understand.  Try reading Christopher West's "Theology of the Body" which is a work that discussed JPII's Wednesday audiences where he spoke of the beauty of human sexuality.  (BTW, why would WOMEN need access to condoms, they do not have a penis!)
510957
Yes- parenting or at least some kind of child development or child psych... combined with a sex ed- at least the part about efectiveness of various kinds of birth control and info about STD's.... like "Abstinance is the only sure way to avoid all STD's, including pregnancy..." or "A 5-yr-old is egocentric. She thinks that her behavior and actions are the cause of everything else happening..." and so on...\n\nAnother answer mentioned homosexuals lack of need for this type of education- if they choose to adopt, aren't they still parents? Aren't they still responsible to love and teach those children?\n\nMany people are placed in a parental role, not always by choice. I don't think anyone can get through life without contact with children- their own offspring, nieces/nephews, grandchildren, the neighbor kids, babysitting, etc. Understanding how kids at different ages think is vital for these relationships.\n\nI am not a parent, but my church has asked that I care for and supervise the little ones while their parents are in their classes. These children are between 18 months and 3 yrs old. I am grateful for what I know about children. Because of my college human development classes, I know what to expect from these kids- behavior, attention span, etc.\n\nNo, the public school system is not very well equiped to, nor should they teach ethics, but they can teach statistics, trends, and the typical development of infants, children and teens.
187345
Mr. Galt, apparently, does not understand rational thought.\n\nPardon me, while I pontificate-\n\nI am not scared by it. I am paying attention to it. \n\nI am not currently doing anything about it. Yet. I am still in the 'observer' stage. For me, it requires more thought based on the most complete information. I will take action when and if I feel qualified and motivated enough to do so.\n\nI responded to this question mainly because I had a thought to add to the following:\n\n'Partially due to increase in babies - partially due to people living longer'\n\nPartially due to intolerance of one another. Mankind, if so motivated, could make gigantic strides toward sharing instead of acquiring, in general. Truly helping instead of indebting, punishing, or injuring. This is the most efficient way to utilize the space we DO have left. \n\nGranted, this is ideal, and not realistic.\n\nSo, if observed from the opposite direction, how far away from this ideal standard are we? I would say, in general, pretty far. (Nowhere to go but up, eh?)\n\nMeanwhile, back in reality.......\n\nPopulation control. \n\nChina has a very efficient and effective method, as of which I will assume for sake of discussion you are aware. 'Efficient' and 'Effective' are key parameters in a company's bottom line, especially in regard to operations. Buisness birth control model - works.\n\nFree will birth control does not work efficiently or effectively. No set of governing controls, no real way to produce reliable results. This, however, is EXCELLENT if your agenda is to propogate. Reflect, if you will, the demographic you consider yourself to take pride in. If you do the math, and this demographic is given the choice to carry on that demographic, as opposed to a demographic that restricts or limits the number of children people may have, the first demographic will mathematically, at some point, overtake the second demographic. \n\nTake a look at the state of the world. As demographics, we can see that certain methods produce specific results. In my opinion, in terms of responsible management of population growth, and using the demographic of country, we could compare China and the U.S. In terms of propogating, the U.S. is utilizing the best model. In terms of responsible management of population growth, however, it obviously isn't. China is the same concept, only in reverse.\n\nWell, look at the time. Hope to yak at ya later!
1107523
None, really, unless the man or woman is malnourished.\n\nFor information on the subject, try reading _Fertility, Cycles, and Nutrition_ by Marilyn Shannon.  I haven't read the book, but I have seen it recommended.
1075172
Although your questions deals more with race than with sexuality, a brief observation is in order: heterosexual intercourse being exclusively the ordinary route to natural human procreation, lifelong homosexuality is understandably rare among persons.\n\nPerhaps as a consequence of this, most cultures seem to have adopted a 2-person form for romantic relationships -- and in some instances, homosexual relationships are sanctioned by the State.\n\nHaving so stated, and in answer to the particulars of your question, this is what I recall from my college studies:\n\nThe following sociological stereotypes were derived by scientists from years of observation, and apply only when the entire earth population of each group is considered: caucasoid males and negroid females tend to be assertive, caucasoid females and negroid males tend to be submissive.\n\nBecause race is a function of evolution, were it not for advances in travel, there would be virtually no interracial couples.  The ancient aphorism is "birds of a feather flock together."\n\nAssertive persons tend to affiliate themselves with others on the basis of ideological compatibility; submissive persons tend to affiliate themselves with others on aesthetic grounds.\n\nNote: ideological compatibility does not preclude selfish motives; in fact, hope to realize one or more selfish aims may be for each party in a couple a driving influence (or even the sole influence).\n\nBeauty is subjective, but within cultural groups exist parameters common to the definition of a standard.  When this observation is applied on a global basis, caucasian women are generally more attractive than negroid women.\n\nThat doesn't mean there aren't stunning "Nubian" women, anymore than it means that there aren't any buggly "white" women.  Rather, it simply acknowledges a general trend that is always going to be locally rebuttable.\n\nOrdinarily, opposites attract (think of the poles of a magnet): assertive men desire as domestic companions submissive women, and vice-versa; however, the value of the aesthetic cannot be simply dismissed.\n\nAesthetic appeal is not limited to the beauty of physical form -- shape, color, tone, vocalization, etc. -- but includes personality.\n\nWith the exacerbation of competitive demands throughout both the global economy and local economies, psychoemotional pressures will continue to increase against effective assertive personalities -- (thus making them increasingly likely to be jerks).\n\nBy contrast, submissive personalities tend either to regard fate as cyclical or inevitable, and cope with the demands of life in a much more carefree manner.  This can't be lost on the "white women" that seem to crave "black men," and vice-versa.
516407
A virgin test tells whether or not a female has had prior sexual intercourse. No, its not applicable to men.
220722
Generally speaking it is a matter of statistics and genetics, and actually statistically speaking men are on average 5 points ahead of the fairer sex IQ wise. \n   In all actuallity boys and girls up to age 14 have no measurable difference statistically wise in IQ, however after that age there is a consistent widening in the IQ gap between men and women up to the age of 45, where IQ generally tend to stabalize.\n    A generally accepted biological explanation, after extensive simplification, is that males evoveled their mathamatical and spatial abillity becuase of the need of those skills for hunting, navigating, and competing for natural resources (think cave-man). Women's 'mental aptitude' on the other hand dealt with teaching, communicating, and raising and caring for offspring (think cave-woman). So wait, does this mean that women are better at communicating then men?\n The answer is not surprisingly an emphatic YES! In fact a majority of studies found that on average women are indeed better at commicating then men, and have consistently shown better verbal and writing skills in all of the basic aptiude tests (think SAT and ASVAB) used. So why do men have higher IQ's, well becuase most IQ tests stress memory and spatial development, most likely becuase it is extremely difficult to accurately measure anything related to imagination and creativity.\n   So what is the answer..well officially its men, but thats what just the book says. There are many other factors to take into consideration when determining how 'smart' someone is than just a test: drive, motivation, determination. Honestly it all comes down to the person...
233691
I belive that love before marriage is essential to enable a life long loving marriage. Apologies if I wrong, but are you actually asking about sex before marriage?\n\nThis is a totally different question - and the answer must be, as far as I can see, that it is totally up to the two people that are in the relationship.\n\nYou are correct that nowadays many youngsters (and, of course, some 'oldies') have casual sex - this is their own choice and as long as they protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases who are we to judge?\n\nUltimately, we all have our own cultural and personal morals and standards to live up to and as long as we are comfortable with our individual choices and do not cause intentional pain or suffering to others we should do as we see fit. \n\nLove and sex do not have to be entwined, but in my experience the latter without the former is never as satifying to the body or soul.\n\nGood luck in the choices youu make..
146134
lol no\n\nit's still sexually made in terms of combining sperm from a man and egg from a woman. it produces identicle looking baby but will have completely different mind\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky&q=wiki+cloning
812845
Goodness no.  I think that sometimes men DON'T WANT women to be as smart as they are - but I'm not going to act stupid for anybody.  I WILL acknowledge when my man does or says something smart - but I won't pretend to be less intelligent than I am.  That would be too hard.