While most people, even people who believe in God, will have sex before they are married and thus fall under the rules of the ladder, some people are so religious they will not have sex until they are married. This is of course a silly and anachronistic practice, but it does occur. In this case, the Ladder should me modified as follows: change instances of 'would have sex with' to be 'would like to have sex with.' This works because while religious people have the same impulses, they choose to deny them as opposed to embracing them.

Discuss.

The thing about "religiosity" as the author puts it, is that it has a pretty wide span from "I'm not having sex because momma told me not to and I guess I believe in Jesus but really it's entirely superficial I just like to be able to say I'm a virgin but I'll probably give it up at the drop of a hat for someone with a big enough cock who got me drunk", to, "I'm not having sex because it's important to me for very deep reasons and convictions that I have and I don't think like the most of the world about sex the way they do, so honestly from the bottom of my heart I actually want to not have sex until I'm married." And there are people from every shade of gray between these on the spectrum.

For the ones on the lower end, it's superficial. Unfortunately, this is the bulk of the "religious", and like Wangster says, it's a matter of time before someone gives them the boning they secretly wish they had. If you're so desperate to defile them, keep pressing and you'll break them I'm sure. :roll:

But on the higher end, you're talking a whole other ball game. On the upper end, you have people who have deep convictions against sex because they see it in a different light, and it's not a "panic" thing or a fear of it, it's that sex is unimportant to them in light of greater things to them. Like love. For some people, love does not require sex, it means something entirely different. Most people here aren't going to fathom that, and instead write it off as "stupid" or "non-existent." My personal feeling is that these people think that way because they've never actually cared for/loved anyone, or been cared for/loved :roll: and they're giving it the sour grapes reaction. Despite that though, some of these people still really want a relationship, they still have a need inside for bonding, and they'll be so desperate to have it sometimes that they will get into a relationship with someone who they shouldn't be with. The relationship eventually escalates to the other person "needing" sex, and the religious person finds themself in a bind. This is the situation that typically raises the Hidden Variable flag, this is the sort of person this section was added about, is my guess. Because to those who need sex so badly, or are staunch LT adherents, this situation is "completely unexplainable" except to leave it up to the "mystery" of the religion hidden variable. That's why it's called a "hidden" variable. But the LT still applies to them, and the normal mechanics work, there just isn't actually sex or there's a difficulty with sex. For those people, replacing "would have sex with" with "would like to have sex with" or "a relationship with" does work, and all the mechanics apply as usual.

Finally at the very peak of this spectrum, you have the people who not only think that sex is unimportant in contrast to love, and that love is what they truly seek and they realize that it's not hiding within sex, (it's that sex is hiding in love, actually) but if these people are confident, then they will find themselves without need to satiate it.

What LT really all boils down to is people having a deep-seeded need that they feel they must satiate, and that this need can only be found in another person. But a truly confident, truly loving person, will find it in them to be able to love without being needy, and they simply will not have this "need" for a relationship OR sex. These people are VERY rare, but they exist. I'm becoming one myself, and I've met several in the last year who I can tell are of this persuasion.

But these people are probably going to strike you as such a rarity and/or absurd ideology that you'll write it off and call it a dream. But these are the only people, I would say, who actually transcend LT and it doesn't apply to them. Because their lives are not based on a subconscious, driving NEED for another, or something in or from another; a need that would eventually overtake them.

please don’t take this as an attack on your faith, this is just my opinion and who knows I could even be wrong

Sex are two separate and distinct things. For example you can love someone and not sleep with them. You love your family, and don’t sleep with them, so we all know that love does exist without sex.

Wangster’s theory on why God wants you to have sex

OK just for the sake of argument lets assume a few things, first off god does indeed exist, and lets not question that. Lets also assume that God created the whole universe and everything in it. Now lets us also assume that evolution is part of God’s plan and he coded that plan into our DNA.

So basically what I’m trying to get at is that by following what my DNA tells me to do I’m following God’s plan. My DNA is telling me to bang that girl so that I can share my genetic material and ensure the continuation of the human race.

please don’t take this as an attack on your faith, this is just my opinion and who knows I could even be wrong

Sex are two separate and distinct things. For example you can love someone and not sleep with them. You love your family, and don’t sleep with them, so we all know that love does exist without sex.

Wangster’s theory on why God wants you to have sex

OK just for the sake of argument lets assume a few things, first off god does indeed exist, and lets not question that. Lets also assume that God created the whole universe and everything in it. Now lets us also assume that evolution is part of God’s plan and he coded that plan into our DNA.

So basically what I’m trying to get at is that by following what my DNA tells me to do I’m following God’s plan. My DNA is telling me to bang that girl so that I can share my genetic material and ensure the continuation of the human race.
Mmm, good start, but then what of contraception? You're not exactly sharing the genetic material if you're heading it off, and if that was part of God's plan, then you'd be opposing that part just as much.

PS thanks for the pre-amble there. ;) Mine's in the same spirit.

Well ok God tells us to have sex with hot babes, but he doesn't tell us how to do it. I mean shit why do people pay guys like mystery and style to tell them how to pickup girls? It's because men aren't born with that knowledge we have to learn how to pickup girls. So how do we learn, well that takes practice, and rubbers are something that enables us to practice without breaking eggs.

Also we all know that women are more attracted to men that have experience. The reason for this is that women's DNA is coded to look for this. It's why women love the OB type. It's because that OB has learned how to deal with women and give them what they are looking for. So if a woman has a kid and his father is an OB chances are the kid will also be OB. This is how a woman ensures that her offspring will be success full.

Rubbers also allow us to plan when we have a child. By planning it you have a greater chance of success because you can better protect/support the child.

Well ok God tells us to have sex with hot babes,
HAHAHA...! :lol: A brilliant opening for the defense, hahaha...!

Anyway, "it's practice mode for our betterment, and then eventual procreation of our better selves", is a clever justification for it, but I don't buy it for myself.

My own reasons (and what I'm assuming the devoutest of the devout's are too) are much more theological in nature about what it means to unite two bodies, and it should only be done with one other person ever for your life, and it's symbolic of the tying of their whole lives and personalities together (through love and marriage for life), and if this symbol is a wrong symbol, or the proper symbol but symbolizing something that isn't there or isn't true (such as extra- or pre-marital sex), then it's a sin of sacrilege.

It's like someone who isn't an ordained priest saying he's consecrating a host, or some God-hating atheist using a rosary as jewelry or as part of a joke. Or on a more secular level, impersonating a police officer to get a free meal or to fuck with your friends and "arrest" somebody. Impersonating a police officer is illegal by state/federal law, because it's abuse of a status you don't have, it's using powers you are not worthy of. On a theological level, sex outside of marriage is like pretending to be a married couple when you're not, since sex is the physical sign of what should already be a spiritual truth: complete and total union of the two people in mind and heart, before the union of their bodies. And marriage, remember, is a sacrament. That's something very special and important, a sacrament is a physical action that is a sign of a spiritual truth. So if you're symbolizing a truth that isn't a truth, then it's a lie. In a religious context, sex is a celebration of a sacrament.

In this way, sex outside of marriage is horrible, because going through all of these explanations, I've just proved (using theology, of course, which non-religious won't buy, this is outside of their system entirely) but I proved that it's not just a sin of lust, but it's also a lie, idolatry, adultery, coveting, sacrilege, and heck, most of the time it's greed too, technically.

But that's my/"our" stance. Again, when "salvation" and all that is a fairy tale to someone, I can see why they couldn't justify not having sex ... well, at all (not being able to justify celebacy for life either).

Well ok God tells us to have sex with hot babes,
HAHAHA...! :lol: A brilliant opening for the defense, hahaha...!

Anyway, "it's practice mode for our betterment, and then eventual procreation of our better selves", is a clever justification for it, but I don't buy it for myself.


It's not a justification, it just that I don't think God views sex whether in a marriage or not as a sin.

Basically when I start talking about DNA and the gene pool you could take the next step and assume that the meaning of “life” is the continuation of the human species. Now assuming that is true than what is the best way to do that? Well one way is to create a healthy family environment, and by making people believe what you (Red) believe in most cases it creates a stable family environment capable of raising healthy successful children.

The no sex before marriage rule is like the Muslims no pork rule. At one point in time it wasn’t safe to eat pork because of all the bacteria in it. Today that isn’t the case, and there is no reason they shouldn’t be eating pork. It’s the same with sex, this rule was made not to save your soul, but to ensure the continuation of the human race.

What about me Red? I have lost total faith in the sanctity of marriage, and yet I would love to have more children one day. I am in a loving relationship, but can't see myself ever getting married again, and if I do decide to get married again it won't be for years. By then it'll be too late for me to have anymore children.

Adoption? Freeze your eggs?

Adoption? Freeze your eggs?why would I adopt when I want to have a child with someone I love. And freezing my eggs doesn't seem very logical. I don't want to have a child when I'm 40.

I'm not taking it upon me to judge anyone on their actions, so let's get back to the heart of the matter in this thread:

The point is, for the hidden variable of religion, there are some people who simply for real convictions - not fears or pressure, but for inner personal beliefs that they hold high and fast to - they simply will not be having sex outside of marriage, and for these people, the LT either applies in a very strange way, or may not apply at all, if they have the confidence/feeling that they don't even need someone in a relationship/bonding sense.

Furthermore, there's a great many people for whom religion is simply superficial, in which case this hidden variable really only serves to bolster LMR, but it can be broken, and often is.

As an aside, I think the only people qualified for celebate lives (priesthood, brotherhood, convents, etc.) are these people such that they actually don't feel the need for a relationship or sex, and thus transcend LT. They're rare, but again, I know they're out there and I've met some.

Even if someone decides that they aren't going to have sex that doesn't mean they are not attracted to any one. The ladder theory is about attraction between men and woman. attraction just doesn't disappeared just because you decide to not have sex. So it still applies.

Even if someone decides that they aren't going to have sex that doesn't mean they are not attracted to any one. The ladder theory is about attraction between men and woman. attraction just doesn't disappeared just because you decide to not have sex. So it still applies.
Ok, this is a wonderful point, and this actually harkens back to the point we agreed on earlier, Wangster. Like you said, "picking up girls is still picking up girls," when we were discussing how my endeavors aren't pointed toward immediate sex.

I do, fully agree, that attraction is still there and this does not throw out the whole ladder when religion is in play (even though I guess I was leading to that conclusion in my earlier posts), but you're right on this one. Afterall, that's why stuff like this is referred to as a "hidden variable", and not a new theory.

Like the original says,
The Ladder Theory is assumed to be correct for all classical phenomena. There do seem to be some "hidden" variables that modify the Ladder to some extent. These variables do not affect the rating system, nor do they affect the fundamental theorems of the Ladder. They do, however, modify how we act with regard to the Ladder.
...
So I don't feel that these change the core theory, but explain times when the theory is not able to be applied because your perception is wrong.
And we're back to square one.... !

I agree with the LT.

Religion and all it’s rules are man made. Human nature and desires resulting from evolution are hard wired into us and operate on a far lower level of consciousness (think machine code for you comp sci geeks).

Even a very religious person will still have the same basic desires to fuck a hot girl as the rest of us, since all the conditioning/beliefs from religion are conscious and come 'above' these basic human desires. In this case it is self imposed restraint operating. If a child is born and not taught the rules religion imposes he will want to fuck like a rabbit once he gets through puberty.

My parents were never religious people.... but my mother did try and be good and goto church on Christmas eve a few times as I rememeber. She also sent my brother and I to "Sunday School" a few times when we were young... even back then I totally rolled my eyes at everything they were trying to teach me. Are certain people pre-disposed to NOT believeing?

You know what's funny about religiosity in general is that seriously, 90% of people I know raised in religious contexts fell away. Now, you know who the most of my deeply faithful friends are?

Converts. People raised with no religious leadership whatsoever, or parents who slacked. They come back with full force - strangely and counter-intuitively enough to most of you - they come back after having thought about it for a while in their mature thinking years, and decided it was right.

What's funny about that is how many times I hear the opposite being said, "My parents tried to raise me with religion, but then I grew up and thought about it, and clearly it was wrong." Makes me contemplate not giving my kids any direction at all and hoping they come into it for themselves later... :( :angel:

Makes me contemplate not giving my kids any direction at all and hoping they come into it for themselves later... :( :angel:

This is what I do with my daughter. I don't try to fill her head with anything like that at all. However, my sister recently ruined my attempts by preaching to her. I was forced to tell her that some people believe and some don't. I really don't want to influence her on this matter.