The Pre-Marital Sex Debate

April 10, 2006

Sex is a biological need of the body. It is as basic as eating, drinking or even breathing. It is certainly not unique to the human kingdom but extends well into the domain of every living object. The need to propagate our seed is a prerequisite for the survival of any species.

However, like most other things we attach a lot of tamashaa to the whole act. Humans have evolved from their hunting and gathering days to their modern day "buy and store stock up" avtaar.

But it's painfully obvious that we are embarassed about our animal origins. We try and break away from any ritual or habit that may highlight our animal instincts.

ALAS! This is always going to be futile, since the basic needs are always going to be the same. So somewhere, our embarassed ancestors devised a plan to carve a distinct identity for our race.

Just look at something as basic as food, for instance. The purpose of food remains to provide energy and nourishment to the body for its functions. It is simply a fuel. Again we share this trait with the rest of the animal kingdom. So guess what? We made cuisines, seven course meals, appetisers, desserts, a la carte and what not! And it has only begun; you have a dozen types of forks, knives, spoons, spatulas, just to shove food down your throat.

What we have done is to mask our common traits with the animals under layers of sophistication in a vain pursuit to prove our uniqueness and superiority.

Coming back to the orignal topic, in all honesty, we are embarassed about our sexuality. It has always been taboo, an animal trait. A closer look shows that just like other things, marriage was invented so cover up our discomfort over an animal instict and prove our 'pedigree'.

What happens when you see a beautiful member of the opposite sex? Hmmm.... if nothing happens, see a doctor! The fact is, the moment we lay our eyes on them, subconsciously we size them up as potential mates. This is not something we make an effort for, it's just that our brains are wired that way. Since times immemorial, the male has been the provider and the female reared his children. Then the men used to seek big breasts and broad hips considering the female's child-bearing capacities. He used to provide for the woman simply because she was having his baby. From her end, the female used to seek the healthiest/strongest mate who could provide her with food and security and whose offspring would have greatest chance of survival.

Prospective mates fought and killed each other over her (since the Spelling Bee hadn't been invented yet) and the winner got her (womb) to propagate his seed! (We still see this behaviour amongst higher apes.)

Even today, this mating ritual presents itself in the form of courtship, serenading, wooing, whatever you call it.

It just so happens that one doesn't need to be big and strong to survive in today's world; a healthy bank balance would do, which euphemistically put translates into well-settled.

As for the males, they still check out cleavage and the rear of anything moving in a skirt. As crude as it may sound, you cannot argue with biology there.

Now let us consider the fact that men can sire dozens of babies simultaneously but females can have only one man's child at any given time. So men have a great incentive for promicusity (the purpose was to spread ones seed all over). Women were in a disadvantageous postion since there would be no guarantee that the male would take care of her once he impregnated other women (no wonder why women are so susceptible to jealousy and suspicion, can't argue with biology here either).

So MARRIAGE was invented (I guess by women only as an insurance policy).

Times have changed. Humans are not fighting to survive. So men are content with one female (hopefully) in our overpopulated times. Women have become financially independent and they don't need men to provide for them anymore, but just someone they can nag and pester.

It just so happens that sexual intercourse bathes the brain in a heady cocktail of hormones and other chemicals creating pleasureable sensations (humans and dolphins are the only creatures who have sex for pleasure). In females it gives rise to strong maternal instincts (well, the original purpose was to become a mommy only) so they feel so much attachment after doing it.

As for love, it is not connected with sex in any manner. Come one! Love is a different road altogether. MAKING LOVE is a politically correct way of calling an indulgence in pleasure (hormones baby!).

To put it simply, you are having a burger and you let your friend have a bite. You won't think twice about it. But imagine giving a bite to a stranger. It doesn't matter that both would drip their saliva on to it, but you won't let the stranger have it. It's the same with sex. You are vulnerable and share those moments of vulnerability and intimacy with someone whom youu trust and care for, even though the tools involved and the end result is going to be the same with the stranger. It's just that you would be more comfortable that way.

(People who quote the Bible against premarital sex - that premarital sex is to be indulged in only to make babies - if you had your share of children, STOP or else Thou shall burn in Hell.)

The writer is a irreverent sort of chap .A frustated copywriter with a computer engineering degree presently into Training and Performance Enhancement (not of the type you get spam in your mailbox for ). Generally a congenial soul with unpredictable bouts of megalomania and altruism ! Deeply into what if's of History and why not's of Future. His impressions can be further read on http://saintlucifer.blogspot.com/
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

The Pre-Marital Sex Debate


Author: Kapil


Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

April 10, 2006
09:12 AM

well here we go again .....men never say no to sex pre-marital,pre-nupital,post-nupital,
pre/post-anything..lol..well forget about fogeys crying foul.......if u and ur partner are thumps up for it....."JUST DO IT".....if u want to SAVE it for the BIG day....its ur call........either way its perfectly normal.........

April 10, 2006
09:15 AM

thtz my point...people say they are savin it for the one ..well sure ..u aint bestowin the noble prize on him/her..

Rohan Venkat
April 10, 2006
09:23 AM

I'm not against pre-marital sex, in the least, but i do notice the fact that we, as a specie and as a scoiety have always evolved according to what is most beneficial to procreation (never mind the facade that we create around this evolution, including religion),therefore eventually, we will change accordingly and automatically, if necessary and benefical.

Course I can also recognise that this article is part of that evolution. Possibly.

April 10, 2006
09:29 AM

Man is one creature that does not adapt itself to the environment but adapts the environment to suit itself...Rohan dwell on this a bit ..thn read my article again

Rohan Venkat
April 10, 2006
10:08 AM

I don't agree. Man attempts to do that, knowingly or unknowingly, but it doesn't work out. Dynamic Equilibrium is extremely hard to accomplish with so many, many variables. What man does accomplish is changing the environment to a certain extent that then causes an unexpected change in the environment which man then tries to adapt to (including attempting to change the environment).

Huxley's Brave New World situation, which gets rid of the idea of marriage at all is a definite possibility, if eventually it results in better chnaces of procreation and surviving offspring. Human society itself changes, and assumes (flatters itself) with the idea that this change is self propogated (i.e advancement), but is actually essential inherent darwinistic factors trying to give us the best chance to procreate and have our offspring survive. Refer the fairly widespread acceptance of non/pre-marital sex in some so called "advanced" cultures today.

We're making the same points, just arriving there differently.

April 10, 2006
11:55 AM

pre-marital sex is ok. post-nupital, out-of-marriage sex is ok too, if both the parties agree to it, hoping that it happens in moderation. otherwise, can you even imagine the state of the affairs if everybody agrees to this formula and starts having sex with anyone and everyone who is fit for the job? i mean, what about the relationships? :))
or is it going to be "sex is free but the pregnancies are planned" kind of a setup? my head is spinning if i try to apply the food analogy to having sex, as suggested by the article.

April 10, 2006
12:54 PM

Osho's commune model is the best.
But, everyone must sign a pre-coital agreement.

Meera Kaura
April 10, 2006
02:28 PM

Well the problem is not premarital sex...but the "love" argument. "As for love, it is not connected with sex in any manner." I don't think they are really disconnected. Love finds expression in various ways, like hugs, kisses, words, sex and so on. Now can you express this to anyone and everyone? Well if you're sure that "she's the one" or "he's the one", doesn't matter, please go ahead. But if you're not sure, how long would you go on expressing a false expression, and you may land up losing value for this expression.

sameer momaya
April 11, 2006
12:31 AM

Even though at times your article seems to make sense....i finally dont agree on the concept of pre-marital sex.....I strongly disagree that sex is as important as eating & breathing....No doubt sex is a biological activity to propogate one's seed and also it is a fact that humans find pleasure in having sex......But if that is your argument, then we should start having sex on the streets like dogs....As long as a man and a woman are having consent, why not 'make love' in broad daylight on the street.....My dear friend, the very fact that we dont do such things is because we are humans and that we have evolved over ages from the early barbarians to today's civilised world....If pre-marital sex is freely allowed, we will all slowly go back to the uncivilised world...become promiscuous...stop having trust in everybody and so on.....think about it.....

April 11, 2006
01:40 AM

Pre marital sex is also looked down because usually the guy and girl doing it dont take enough precautions and the lady/girl gets pregnant and since both of them are not equipped emotionally or financially to take care of a baby, all end up suffering.
So wouldnt u agree, prevention is better tahn cure, and u shouldnt put a childs life in trouble for just a few moments of sex.

April 11, 2006
02:00 AM


Have Sex, Use Condoms, Prevent AIDS

(not in the same order)

April 11, 2006
02:54 AM

"What happens when you see a beautiful member of the opposite sex?"

Why just the opposite sex?

April 11, 2006
03:18 AM

sooeydo: i have correlated an intercourse from a premise of conception an propagation of the human race ..i don't think this is possible with the same sex

SidDes: It may or may not be because of the pregnancy part.But its more of a socio -cultural thing.It still may be frowned on ,but an accepatable part of western society .In India with all the stories bout sati savitri n sita and saat janmon ka sath,the situation becomes bit awkward.Here u still with ur parents often all ur life so you can see how complicated the situation is.

April 11, 2006
03:29 AM

Vamsi :Yup maintain the order

Sameer: I am not advocating pms .My point is that we have a lot of pretentions as far as it goes .Most of these pretentions are the resultant of years of moral dictums as given by the society .At some time we were not different from animals that we so look down upon.I remember the instance of a european emperoe who used to crap in public but have his meals in private..Till 19th century in China ,you would be forgiven for looking at a married woman naked,but if u saw her bare feet,you would be killed by her husband.Imagine if such customs were prevalent even today.
Friends whatever morality or ethics or culture we have inherited today is because at some time a socially dominant force decided that this was the way.Previously pagan religions were prevalent but they were destroyed by invading armiies who came with their own idea of gods....we are just exerccising one of the many available choices that have been made available to us.Its a different thing that we are not aware of their existence .

April 11, 2006
03:38 AM

Meera: Sex and love are different entities.Perhaps you may think that it is an expression of love but alas that is something we do for consoling ourselves..its just a just a play of hormones in ur head .Love ahem has been shown to last for 7 yrz ...lust has an even lower shelf life of 2 yrz..n thtz a fact..love what people presume is somewhat a cocktail of affection ,attraction ,affiliation ,and lust..
Love actually is nothing but an acceptance of what a person is and what a person is not.Nothing less and nothing more

April 11, 2006
03:49 AM

gosami:I m not advocating u do it with any1 and evry1 ...i've remarked that in the caveman years it was based on strength and survial capabilities of the man.purely physical... now u don't have 2 b tht...the tools of survival are different now.

April 11, 2006
03:52 AM

Rohan :I would say that watch 'gods must be crazy'..That sums up the contrast.

July 19, 2006
01:08 AM

i'll fuck y'all if it was for pre-marital sex.
anything that walks or talks.

you have quintillion ways to fuck up a rubik's cube, and only one way to get it ryte.

love, marriage, sex is the same way..

July 19, 2006
02:04 AM

The Pre-Marital Sex --Dear writer uncle?

what is the realtion between Sex vs Marriage status?

This is nothing but dadagari that if you want to have sex, but must be married, as a result the Rape law( Mutual sex before marrage is a rape), sexual assult law..etc made with the assumption that all the 600 Millions men are rapist and all the 600 women are sati sabtri and they does not need sex before marriage..right?

As per my knowledge for a normal sex both a men and women required, but when the dispute comes the Men only goes to jail as the same termed as Crime ,
"The Pre-Marital Sex" - is Rape for men and rewarding option for Women in front of LAW of this Land.

July 19, 2006
11:31 AM

there are interesting choices. and often they are in one's own hands.

have you considered that?

the freedom? from jails?

hence no sati, no savitri and no jail?

bird in hand is better than two in the bush (pun intended).

July 19, 2006
11:36 AM

and gary, if one cd arrive to the 'ryte' solution to the rubik's cube, one wd love it.

unfortunately, i guess one has to try so many 'near-rytes' before the 'real-ryte' ;)

thank heavens, gary, i drive - rarely walk, and often keep the mobile and mouth in silent mode!

and thanks for warning ;)

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/1351)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.

Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!