Thread: Postponing Sex Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025907

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 
OK, these obviously aren’t ideal strategies to keep kids from premarital sex.

But what are?

Presumably even atheists and liberal Christians would rather that their kids didn’t jump straight into sexual relationships as soon as their hormones kick in at twelve, even if they are not concerned about their waiting for marriage.

Sure, we need to teach kids about contraception, avoiding STDs, and resisting overt or covert coercion into having unwanted sex, just in case, because we can’t predict what they might choose to do.

Most of us, however, would rather they put it off as long as possible (in the case of traditional Christians, until marriage) in order for them to learn something about themselves and feelings and relationships first.

Any suggestions about how this might best be done – other than suggesting that they sublimate their energies into belching contests?

[ 22. June 2013, 10:50: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
As one who jumped right in there at age 12 when my hormones kicked in I am perhaps not best qualified to answer. However years later I was charged, as part of my job, with writing a policy document on the subject under a bit of the Guidance and Regulation for the UK Childrens Act 1980.

I firmly believe in education, in a broad sense, being a big part of the answer. Some groups, some people, want to keep kids in ignorance about sex and so on thinking that if they know about it then they'll want to do it all the more, even if the stats refute this completely.

Talk to kids, explain to kids, give them information at a level they can comprehend - talk about responsibility, talk about their rights over their own body, talk about safety, talk about STDs [sensibly, not with the sensationalism of the old army videos on the subject], talk about the importance of respecting their partner[s], talk [particularly to boys] about "no" meaning "NO".

Keep talking to kids, keep reinforcing the point, the information a kid needs at 14 or 15 is not the same as you would give to a 12 year old so don't assume that The Talk is a one off thing.

The kids I wrote the policy document for were a captive audience being kids in the care of the local authority but ALL kids need and deserve good information. Most parents seem to find discussing sexual practice with their kids embarrassing, but the alternative is far worse. Sex is a natural human function so talk about it!

Having said that I am aware that vast numbers of people don't even discuss their own sex lives, even some long term couples often don't talk about it to one another.

We cannot expect kids to act responsibly if they don't have the relevant information and it is ludicrous to have any such expectation.

WW climbs off soapbox and sits back to watch the fun.
 

---

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :
 
The article seems to imply they are trying to teach children that sex hurts. I suspect word of mouth by dedicated peer researchers is going to trump this approach.


 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
There is a large amount of specialist information written for intellectually disabled and vulnerable adults. Because they are adults, it includes material about how to identify safe situations and unsafe situations - what to do if you are propositioned by the bus driver etc.

In some ways I this material is a lot more helpful than the material we had about sex at school - which was more of the insert part a into slot b kind. I don't know what sex ed in school nowadays is like, but it needs to go beyond just mechanics and 'you don't have to give in to peer pressure, if someone really loves you they will wait'. For a start that assumes you a) don't want to sleep with the person asking you really, you'd just be doing it to please them and and b) you are only likely to want to sleep with someone you think loves you deeply. Whatever our aspirations, I don't think that is the reality of the situations most people are in when they make this kind of decision..
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Doubleposting to add:

It would also help if we had a clearer idea of what we do want teens to do with their sex drives.

We don't want them to use pornography. We don't want them to have sexual contact with each other (and even more definitely with anyone significantly younger or older) and a significant proportion of the population would prefer they didn't masturbate either.

(I doubt the latter is a realistic aspiration.)

Then, at 16, they are supposed to have developed good habits of sexual health and judgement, a mature and sensible attitude to their sexual identity and sexual feelings, and some level of sexual skill.

How exactly they are supposed to achieve this overnight transformation is unclear.
 

---

Posted by Haydee (# 14734) on :
 
OK, mother of 14 & 5 year old girls diving in here...

Listen more than talk.

Provide books relevant to her age, even if she declares them embarrassing and says she's not interested (but then you notice she's reading them when she's in her room on her own). Get books that put sex in the context of relationships, peer pressure, bullying, other teenage issues.

Ask her before the hormones kick in what characteristics she thinks make a good friend. What would be different about a good boy/girlfriend? (Do good friends try & get you to do things you don't want to, or support your choices even if they disagree with them?) Keep asking as she goes through teenage years.

Discuss (especially as a single mum with 2 daughters) what she sees as the difference between boys/girls and men/women. Try to give examples of people she knows that challenge stereotypical views.

Try and answer questions honestly. Use your own experiences but without details.

Discuss peer pressure, along with some stupid decisions/mistakes you made (there's usually an embarrassing hairstyle/clothing photo somewhere in your past).

Handle the mistakes she makes (small or big) as calmly as possible. Model how to deal with them in the way you react to your own mistakes (say sorry, put right what you can, learn from it, move on).

Recognise times she handles a difficult situation well, and give specific praise (it was really mature to do XYZ instead of ABC).

Try & see your job as a parent as helping your child work out their values, beliefs and interests and use that as a base for choice of school subjects, possible careers, friends she makes etc etc. Be open about your own values, beliefs, and interests without insisting she agrees with you.

My elder daughter has just got her first 'boyfriend' - a boy in her class. He is allowed to walk her home from school up to the gate, but not to come in (I get home a bit later). I've encouraged her to invite him round at the weekend while I'm here (he hasn't been yet, apparently he's scared to meet me!). I've said she can't visit his house until I've met him, and then it will be at the invitation of his mother while she's around. This is a new situation for her so I'm setting a lot of boundaries while she finds her feet, but being positive about this new step in her life.

One of her friends is pregnant at 14, which has given us lots of opportunities to talk about unsupervised parties, the effects of alcohol on judgement, contraception, how a baby affects your life etc I don't criticise her friend. I an open that I think she made some bad choices and that will have a big impact of her life and opportunities, but we also talk about why her friend may have made those choices.

In the end I can't make her postpone sex until the moment I think is appropriate. I can try to make sure that she has the information, support and self-confidence not to be pressured or tricked into having sex. I can provide a level of supervision that allows increasing freedom in small steps, so she can learn how to handle it. I can encourage (and try to model) my values and beliefs.
 

---

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
a significant proportion of the population would prefer they didn't masturbate either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I like this from the article:

"But we tell the full story too - there are emotional dangers in committing yourself to a sexual relationship and the best way to protect yourself medically and emotionally is abstinence."

Is virginity a greater gift to a partner in marriage than a 'level of sexual skill?' Learning together adds to the fun, doesn't it?

It's the attitude of both parents and society that will influence them the most. If they receive the message that they're expected to have sex with several partners before finding 'the right one' they are likely to do so as soon as the first attractive opportunity arises. If they receive the message that they're expected to wait until they're married, they are less likely to begin early.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually, that's just not true. The countries with the most open sex education, where it is not expected that people wait until marriage to have sex are the countries where people actually wait the longest to have sex, despite often having quite low ages of consent. Places with abstinence-only sex education have very high rates of underage sex. People should wait until marriage to have sex if they want to, not because they feel pressured into doing so from society. How is that any better than the pressure to have sex from the moment they hit 16?

Virginity is not something to 'gift' anyone, and that idea is dangerous in reducing personal agency over one's body, as if our bodies belong to others. This is particularly dangerous for young women, where purity culture can morph into rape culture very easily. Call me crazy, but I believe in equipping people to make the best and healthiest decisions for themselves, not others. That means sex with the person they want, when they are ready and not before, and not feeling pressured by their peers/society/the church etc to do things they feel uncomfortable with, whether that's having sex or being abstinent. Sex is supposed to be fun, not put on a pedestal.

As for sex education, let's not forget about teaching young people about non-penetrative and non-heterosexual sex. Mutual masturbation is fun and less risky than PIV (penis in vagina) sex.

---

• "having sex" can be a pretty sterile experience - don't do "it" just because you think you should
• older people may be wiser when they refer to "making love" because good sex involves and brings about emotions which you may not feel before or wish to have for that person
• first-time sex can be a pretty embarassing thing so you need to be comfortable with the other person seeing you naked, hearing squelches, etc; if you're too embarrassed at the thought of them seeing you naked you aren't ready for sex
• sex /making love is best when you are both relaxed - don't handicap yourself with the threat of parents returning home unexpected, etc
• the great outdoors is not necessarily the best place to consummate your love...
• the decision to have sex with someone is not one that should be made by your group of friends - after all, they won't be in the bed with you (or will they?)
• putting on a condom is difficult - try it on your own and then imagine trying to do it with an audience...
• whether or not your relationship includes sex is not something that should be shared with your mates or bragged about
• you may end up having sex and wishing you hadn't so if in doubt DON'T

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh look. Another thread on sex by Kaplan Corday. How unusual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Actually, that's just not true. The countries with the most open sex education, where it is not expected that people wait until marriage to have sex are the countries where people actually wait the longest to have sex, despite often having quite low ages of consent. Places with abstinence-only sex education have very high rates of underage sex. People should wait until marriage to have sex if they want to, not because they feel pressured into doing so from society. How is that any better than the pressure to have sex from the moment they hit 16?

Virginity is not something to 'gift' anyone, and that idea is dangerous in reducing personal agency over one's body, as if our bodies belong to others. This is particularly dangerous for young women, where purity culture can morph into rape culture very easily. Call me crazy, but I believe in equipping people to make the best and healthiest decisions for themselves, not others. That means sex with the person they want, when they are ready and not before, and not feeling pressured by their peers/society/the church etc to do things they feel uncomfortable with, whether that's having sex or being abstinent. Sex is supposed to be fun, not put on a pedestal.

As for sex education, let's not forget about teaching young people about non-penetrative and non-heterosexual sex. Mutual masturbation is fun and less risky than PIV (penis in vagina) sex.

---

There was no suggestion in my post that I was speaking only about female virginity, that I was advocating a lack of education, or that I was suggesting that people should be pressurised one way or another. Societal attitudes influence people. They particularly influence young people. An attitude of expectation that they will have sex, and it's a good thing to have sex so that they might learn techniques, before forging a stable relationship rather than afterwards, provides sufficient influence for young people to follow it whether they are ready or not.

Sex is supposed to be fun, but it is also something not to be taken lightly.

I agree with the comment above that marriage with financial or other enticements also might provide a harmful influence. I use the word 'marriage' loosely, not to imply a ceremony as much as a serious commitment to a long-term relationship on both sides.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Stable relationship is not the same as marriage - not all stable relationships are legally able to become marriage as we know from Dead Horses.

Do you honestly not think that there's a middle ground between waiting until marriage and having sex purely to 'improve technique'? Nobody I know has sex just to improve technique, they have sex because they love the person they're having sex with. They don't love the person any less just because it's not necessarily a long term relationship.

Also, you've just ignored my points about societal expectations and the age when people have sex. As I said, those places where it is expected that people will wait until marriage generally have high rates of underage sex. So how then does a societal expectation that people will wait until marriage actually work? In practice, it doesn't at all and just has the opposite effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nobody I know has sex just to improve technique, they have sex because they love the person they're having sex with. They don't love the person any less just because it's not necessarily a long term relationship.

---

quote:

---

Those places where it is expected that people will wait until marriage generally have high rates of underage sex. So how then does a societal expectation that people will wait until marriage actually work? In practice, it doesn't at all and just has the opposite effect.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Stable relationship is not the same as marriage - not all stable relationships are legally able to become marriage as we know from Dead Horses.

Do you honestly not think that there's a middle ground between waiting until marriage and having sex purely to 'improve technique'? Nobody I know has sex just to improve technique, they have sex because they love the person they're having sex with. They don't love the person any less just because it's not necessarily a long term relationship.

Also, you've just ignored my points about societal expectations and the age when people have sex. As I said, those places where it is expected that people will wait until marriage generally have high rates of underage sex. So how then does a societal expectation that people will wait until marriage actually work? In practice, it doesn't at all and just has the opposite effect.

---

I would argue that there was not a high rate of underage sex in the generation who are now older people in the UK, despite the fact that sex education was abysmal or absent. This flies in the face of your idea that sex education equates to later sex, and that an expectation of abstinence equates to earlier sex. There may be more factors at play in the statistics you are drawing from.

I disagree that people only have sex with people they love. Some will have sex with anyone willing. Self respect as well as respect for others is something to be fostered and encouraged, by society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh look. Another thread on sex by Kaplan Corday. How unusual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nobody I know has sex just to improve technique, they have sex because they love the person they're having sex with. They don't love the person any less just because it's not necessarily a long term relationship.

---

I wonder if love can be quantified in a linear fashion? If so, then loving someone for 6 months and then splitting up must by definition involve less love than loving someone for 10 years and then splitting up.

quote:

---

Those places where it is expected that people will wait until marriage generally have high rates of underage sex. So how then does a societal expectation that people will wait until marriage actually work? In practice, it doesn't at all and just has the opposite effect.

---

I believe quite strongly in pre-marital abstinence, but I also accept that in current Western (and many non-Western societies) societies, it can never be the cultural norm. Messages of sexual license reach children from almost every angle, and it must be impossible for a few awkward chats with parents or teachers to overturn all of that. The decision to remain chaste must now be mostly down to personal inclination and quite specific personal and social circumstances.

I read somewhere that in some American schools it's been shown that abstinence clubs are more successful at preventing teenaged sex when they remain part of a school subculture, rather than when the whole school jumps on the bandwagon. That's a very interesting finding.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
People split up for all sorts of reasons, and plenty of those reasons are not due to the volume of love within the relationship.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Unusual and informative re the link in OP. I didn't know burping led to orgasm.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nobody I know has sex just to improve technique...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nobody I know has sex just to improve technique...

---

Sure you do. But, clearly they are not going to tell you about it.

The facts remain: some very gratifying acts take practice to get right. And, you know what they say about practice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Nobody I know has sex just to improve technique...

---

Sure you do. But, clearly they are not going to tell you about it.

---

quote:

---

Not sure but if they asked me a direct question it would be dishonest to deny it.

---

Research shows honesty about one's foibles is the worst form of prevention.

*appeal to a moral code is problematic as even your children may not share yours.
**practice does not always make perfect. Dancing every day dies not guarantee you will make the cut at the Bolshoi.

Oh, and lest you think I am a complete tramp, much of my observation is gathered listening to people talk about their sex lives. Oh gods, why do they have to talk? Make it Stop!
Here is a thought, you want your children to wait on sex? Make a porno of your sex life. Make them watch the whole thing.
Be ready to fund monasteries and convents to handle the influx, though.
 

---

Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on :
 
I waited until I was married because my parents had been very open with me in discussing the emotional side of sex and I therefore decided that I wanted to have only one sexual partner, and that would be someone completely committed to relationship with me.

I love the specialness of tthis thing that is only between the two of us. As for "perfecting technique ", that has been a lot of fun too and after nearly 13 years, he's getting pretty good at it.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 
Of course, even when one is ready to have sex, that's no guarantee that others are ready to have sex with you, which also postpones sex.
 

---

Posted by The Silent Acolyte (# 1158) on :
 
mousethief, don't forget the shower.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
mousethief, don't forget the shower.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Of course, even when one is ready to have sex, that's no guarantee that others are ready to have sex with you, which also postpones sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
I waited until I was married because my parents had been very open with me in discussing the emotional side of sex and I therefore decided that I wanted to have only one sexual partner, and that would be someone completely committed to relationship with me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a myth that sex is better in a relationship. Any individual sex act is best with a skilled partner.**

---

quote:

---

Sex with within a relationship has the potential to be terrific and to be horrible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
And, IME, simply loving or caring about the other person isn't always enough. In many western cultures there is the fairy tale expectation.

---

quote:

---

In a wham, bam, thank you ma'am situation the expectations are typically lower.

---

quote:

---

So, to me, the best would be a loving, caring relationship in which the participants took the effort. But experience tells me this is the case far less than many would like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I would argue that there was not a high rate of underage sex in the generation who are now older people in the UK, despite the fact that sex education was abysmal or absent. This flies in the face of your idea that sex education equates to later sex, and that an expectation of abstinence equates to earlier sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
I waited until I was married because my parents had been very open with me in discussing the emotional side of sex and I therefore decided that I wanted to have only one sexual partner, and that would be someone completely committed to relationship with me.

---

For a good part of the world, this is aspirational. Those who've been sexually abused. Those who needed the comfort of something, which maybe isn't ideally sex, but sex is part of.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
I waited until I was married because my parents had been very open with me in discussing the emotional side of sex and I therefore decided that I wanted to have only one sexual partner, and that would be someone completely committed to relationship with me.

---

For a good part of the world, this is aspirational. Those who've been sexually abused. Those who needed the comfort of something, which maybe isn't ideally sex, but sex is part of.

---

Yeah, but the OP is about how we encourage our children to postpone sex. This is how my parents encouraged me to do that and i did. I can't stop child abuse and I can't help everyone who feels lonely, but I can give my children enough information about what sex does to your mind and emotions that they will realise its power and hopefully make good decisions around it. Also, make sure they don't have those emotional gaps that sex rushes in to fill. I think it is John Eldredge who says that often young people having multiple partners are asking the question "am I beautiful?" or "am I worthwhile?". We need to open our children to the heart of God, to help them know how beautiful and worthwhile they are so that they don't need to ask those questions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


And what about young people with multiple partners who just enjoy having sex? Yes, sex shouldn't be used to fill an emotional gap but believe it or not, some people just enjoy having sex for the sake of it without emotions having to get in the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I would argue that there was not a high rate of underage sex in the generation who are now older people in the UK, despite the fact that sex education was abysmal or absent. This flies in the face of your idea that sex education equates to later sex, and that an expectation of abstinence equates to earlier sex.

---

No. Contraception was less easily available.

A room to go to was less freely available.

Teenage pregnancy statistics are easily available that show the correlation between good and early sex education and the delay of first sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


And what about young people with multiple partners who just enjoy having sex? Yes, sex shouldn't be used to fill an emotional gap but believe it or not, some people just enjoy having sex for the sake of it without emotions having to get in the way.

---

You might find it difficult to get Christian parents to encourage their children to enjoy emotion-free sex. I can't see the theological justification for it at all, but then I'm not a theologian.

Parents should advise their children to be aware of the difference between love and lust, to respect other people's emotional stability, to look after their sexual health and to avoid creating unwanted children. But this isn't the same as telling your kids to go ahead and have a grand old time with multiple partners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
I would argue that there was not a high rate of underage sex in the generation who are now older people in the UK, despite the fact that sex education was abysmal or absent. This flies in the face of your idea that sex education equates to later sex, and that an expectation of abstinence equates to earlier sex.

---

No. Contraception was less easily available.

A room to go to was less freely available.

Teenage pregnancy statistics are easily available that show the correlation between good and early sex education and the delay of first sex.

---

Statistics don't always tell it like it is, as people can make direct connections which may require separate links. There may have been a fear of pregnancy, for example, and a lack of opportunity, as you have suggested. There may also have been a conviction that it was the wrong thing to do. They say that girls who had sex were thought of as inferior and called names, another factor.

On the other hand, sex education in Britain has done nothing to delay early sex, quite the opposite going by young pregnancy rates. Perhaps the societal attitudes in the countries from which the statistics are taken feed into the results too.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Speaking as a Christian, I would have no problem with a child of mine having safe, enjoyable sex with multiple partners if that's what they wanted. It's their body, not mine.

---

Yes, but you're a theologian. Anglican theologians and liberal clerics can be laid-back about this sort of thing, but ordinary churchgoers who want to retain the respect of fellow church members probably have to be more circumspect!!

And we're talking about minors here, not adults.

[ 22. June 2013, 21:16: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

Speaking as a Christian, I would have no problem with a child of mine having safe, enjoyable sex with multiple partners if that's what they wanted. It's their body, not mine.

---

Yes, but you're a theologian. Anglican theologians and liberal clerics can be laid-back about this sort of thing, but ordinary churchgoers who want to retain the respect of fellow church members probably have to be more circumspect!!

And we're talking about minors here, not adults.

---

Sorry? I'm not a theologian, or a liberal cleric. Since when did a Christian have to be a theologian or liberal cleric to not be conservative regarding sex? Also, what does it matter if fellow church members disapprove? It's none of their business what somebody else does with their sex life - that goes for anyone, church family is not excluded from this. Edited to ask how the other churchgoers would even know about my hypothetical child's sex life? Do some churches grill people about what they do with their genitals? How very strange. I have no idea what the other people in my church do with their sex life and I really don't need to know.

Naturally, I would only be OK with a child of mine who was the age of consent or over having fun, safe, fully-consenting sex with multiple partners. For children under the age of consent, obviously the legal trouble them and/or their partner could get into would hopefully be enough of a deterrent - and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities (assuming these aren't illegal?). Keeping them fully informed of safe sex and not presuming their partner is of a different gender to them, of course. This is all theoretical of course, and the person who is really ready to have sex while under the age of (UK) consent is quite rare but they do exist.

[ 22. June 2013, 21:27: Message edited by: Jade Constable ]
 

---

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Oh look. Another thread on sex by Kaplan Corday. How unusual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the giant cheeseburger:
based on a beatup in a Murdoch rag at that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not a theologian, or a liberal cleric. Since when did a Christian have to be a theologian or liberal cleric to not be conservative regarding sex? Also, what does it matter if fellow church members disapprove? It's none of their business what somebody else does with their sex life - that goes for anyone, church family is not excluded from this. Edited to ask how the other churchgoers would even know about my hypothetical child's sex life? Do some churches grill people about what they do with their genitals? How very strange. I have no idea what the other people in my church do with their sex life and I really don't need to know.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I'm not a theologian, or a liberal cleric. Since when did a Christian have to be a theologian or liberal cleric to not be conservative regarding sex? Also, what does it matter if fellow church members disapprove? It's none of their business what somebody else does with their sex life - that goes for anyone, church family is not excluded from this. Edited to ask how the other churchgoers would even know about my hypothetical child's sex life? Do some churches grill people about what they do with their genitals? How very strange. I have no idea what the other people in my church do with their sex life and I really don't need to know.

---

I thought you were training or thinking of training for the ministry? I admit, I don't know how that works in your denomination. In the tradition I know, you need to have some theological training before you begin.

It's often said that in the mainstream churches the clergy and the theologians are more liberal than the laity. Despite the fact that anyone can be challenged by their children's behaviour I think that probably holds true for issues of sexual behaviour as with others. Maybe that's partly to do with age, since churchgoers can often be quite a bit older than their clergy these days.

As for churchgoers being expected to mind their own business, that must be an Anglican thing! Still, I'm not saying that people shouldn't have family secrets, but rather that they probably wouldn't choose to share their particular sexual theology with the rest of the church - especially not if they have a lay role in the church that does require a degree of mutual trust and respect.

I realise I'm talking out of the cultural and religious traditions I'm familiar with, which may be different from yours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No prophet said sexual abuse, not child abuse. Plenty of adults are sexually abused.

And what about young people with multiple partners who just enjoy having sex? Yes, sex shouldn't be used to fill an emotional gap but believe it or not, some people just enjoy having sex for the sake of it without emotions having to get in the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

And so we come down to the semantic argument of what constitutes sex - where is Bill Clinton when you need him?

Is mutual masturbation sex?

Is oral sex, sex?

Or is only penetrative sex, sex?

If only PIV [Penis in Vagina] sex is 'real' sex then I am a virgin - I'm not sure how I feel about that, I surely don't feel deprived.

I didn't experience penetrative sex until I was 27 so did this mean I postponed sex? Does this mean all the other "sex" I experienced in the previous 15 years was not really sex?

I have at least one friend who has never had [and never wants] any sort of penetrative sex and I don't think he feels deprived either.

Presumably somewhere in British case law there is a definition but I'm not at all sure it would be helpful. Perhaps [hopefully?] there are different definitions for different circumstances.

Some years ago we had a friend stay and he brought with him the young daughter of a friend of his, she was early twenties and her take on virginity was that "most" of her contemporaries felt virginity was a burden that they were anxious to lose as soon as possible.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
No prophet said sexual abuse, not child abuse. Plenty of adults are sexually abused.

And what about young people with multiple partners who just enjoy having sex? Yes, sex shouldn't be used to fill an emotional gap but believe it or not, some people just enjoy having sex for the sake of it without emotions having to get in the way.

---

Well, I can't do anything about adult sex abuse either. Nonconsensual sex is irrelevant to the OP.

I said "often" not "always" with regard to emotional gap-filling. I think it is clear from context that I was dealing with the particular set of circumstances under discussion, not all possible sexual encounters for all time. However, thanks for laying out more reasons people have sex. As a person who has only had one loving partner, I clearly am naive and totally oblivious to all of this and need to be patronisingly educated.

---

quote:

---

Really, you should wait until you're in a committed relationship to have sex. It's the best decision all around. But, if for some reason you choose not to do this, please use a condom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

Not certain I would. IMO, this would merely increase the desire for regular sex. BTW, masturbation is sex by any meaningful definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
BTW, masturbation is sex by any meaningful definition.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
...and if they were really emotionally ready for sex but just underage, I'd steer them towards mutual masturbation and similar activities...

---

And so we come down to the semantic argument of what constitutes sex - where is Bill Clinton when you need him?

Is mutual masturbation sex?

Is oral sex, sex?

Or is only penetrative sex, sex?

If only PIV [Penis in Vagina] sex is 'real' sex then I am a virgin - I'm not sure how I feel about that, I surely don't feel deprived.

I didn't experience penetrative sex until I was 27 so did this mean I postponed sex? Does this mean all the other "sex" I experienced in the previous 15 years was not really sex?

I have at least one friend who has never had [and never wants] any sort of penetrative sex and I don't think he feels deprived either.

Presumably somewhere in British case law there is a definition but I'm not at all sure it would be helpful. Perhaps [hopefully?] there are different definitions for different circumstances.

Some years ago we had a friend stay and he brought with him the young daughter of a friend of his, she was early twenties and her take on virginity was that "most" of her contemporaries felt virginity was a burden that they were anxious to lose as soon as possible.

---

Oh I totally count non-PIV sex as sex, but AFAIK penetrative sex is what counts regarding the age of consent. The legal aspect is what I was talking about, sorry for the lack of clarity there.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


As for church members not knowing (or wanting to know!) about the sex life of other church members, I'd think that was a British (English?) thing rather than a strictly Anglican thing - I can't imagine anything else from a British WASP* mainline Protestant church! Large evangelical/charismatic churches that adopt American-style purity rings for their teenagers, perhaps, but certainly not Methodists or Baptists or URC-ers. I'd be VERY surprised if it happened in the average RC parish church in the UK outside of confession, to be honest.

*WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How is non-consensual sex irrelevant to the OP? Certainly regarding sex education, it is VERY relevant - education on consent is very important but dangerously overlooked. Nobody has asked you to prevent all sexual abuse, just acknowledge that even from a Christian perspective, waiting until marriage to have sex is not possible or desirable for everyone - not even for all Christians.

The purity culture industry - and yes it is an industry, and why do all the worst things in the church have to be so beneficial to capitalism? - is just utter horseshit and not even Biblical horseshit, sorry. Dressing up the enjoyment of pre-marital sex in faux-psychological language isn't that much better than 'don't have sex or God will love you less'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
A strong sense of self worth is essential combined with some real information about sex AND a sense of being trusted to make the right decision - this latter being strongly linked to the sense of self worth, of course.

---

quote:

---

Welease Woderwick: A strong sense of self worth is essential combined with some real information about sex AND a sense of being trusted to make the right decision - this latter being strongly linked to the sense of self worth, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:

So is a person better to pretend they are virginal after sexual abuse or to learn to be positively sexually active? Stopping the pretence?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
A strong sense of self worth is essential combined with some real information about sex AND a sense of being trusted to make the right decision - this latter being strongly linked to the sense of self worth, of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
And so we come down to the semantic argument of what constitutes sex

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
I think I see what you are saying, No Prophet. Whether a person steals my life savings, or I give them to him freely, the end result is that I have no money.

However, I still don't see how this gets us anywhere in our discussion about how to discourage people from choosing sexual activity at a young age.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
I didn't invent the idea or the problem. We have churches and others telling people that sex before marriage means they are "used goods" and damaged, without regard to those who feel this way because of sexual abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Concentrating on virginity as this prized object is, as I see it, focusing on sexual sin in a rather negative and unhealthy way, and reenforces a completely false virgin/slut dichotomy. Sexual ethics do not begin and end with the first act of intercourse. It is no less important to have sex the 1,000th time for the right reasons than it is the first.

---

 

---

Posted by Badger Lady (# 13453) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:


Presumably somewhere in British case law there is a definition but I'm not at all sure it would be helpful. Perhaps [hopefully?] there are different definitions for different circumstances.
[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Badger Lady:

For rape unlawful intercourse with a minor and related offences what is required is 'penetration' of the victims mouth/vagina/anus with a penis. Penetration doesn't have to be full penetration.

---

quote:

---

However, for consummation of a marriage full vaginal intercourse is required. The (mainly Victorian) case law specifies that the complete act (i.e. up to and including male ejaculation) is needed. As consummation cases rarely come before the courts these days there isn't a common law precedent on whether anal or oral intercourse would be sufficient.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Welease Woderwick:
And so we come down to the semantic argument of what constitutes sex

---

Does it have to be the same answer for everyone? I personally don't think (for example) that what counts is having an orgasm and how one gets there is mere detail. Now that I'm married, I think that sex in the full, PinV sense has a specialness, emotionally speaking, that other acts lack.

But other people disagree with me. That's fine. They can calibrate their intimacy scales accordingly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


As for church members not knowing (or wanting to know!) about the sex life of other church members, I'd think that was a British (English?) thing rather than a strictly Anglican thing - I can't imagine anything else from a British WASP* mainline Protestant church! Large evangelical/charismatic churches that adopt American-style purity rings for their teenagers, perhaps, but certainly not Methodists or Baptists or URC-ers. I'd be VERY surprised if it happened in the average RC parish church in the UK outside of confession, to be honest.

*WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

---

I wasn't thinking about purity rings, or any particular obsession with sex, but simply about church members getting to know one another, offering each other mutual support and advice. This kind of togetherness will probably mean that at some point, your relationship status will become known to someone in the church.

In my last Methodist church, I was aware (I can't remember how) that one of my fellow church stewards was in a long-term stable relationship that wasn't a marriage. Her marital status didn't prevent her from doing her job, and the people who knew about it weren't judgemental. But the point is, some people did know, simply because it was a church where people communicated with each other.

In my experience the mainstream churches tend to be okay with long-term stable relationships, but less keen on serial, unemotional sexual relationships. You're obviously rather radical in this respect. Moreover, although I can see the positives in the 'mind your own business' Anglican approach, I think it comes with a certain weakness. People simply won't join those churches if they're looking for community and friendship.

---

People will know others' relationship statuses in most churches, including mine, but that doesn't mean they know others' sex lives unless they're told about them. That's what I was talking about, not knowing who's married and who's not. That's a very strange angle to get from my comment. You can have a church with community and friendship without knowing about other members' sex lives. Since when was knowing the state of someone's vagina a pre-requisite for community and friendship? If it is, that's not a church I want to be part of.

As for me being radical in my view re sex, it just boils down to other people's intimate lives not being my business. End of. I neither approve nor disapprove of any particular relationship status (unless there's abuse or something happening), because the couple's reasons are their own. It's just that I don't think it matters to God what someone does or doesn't do with their genitalia, as if it affects them as people. The secular world has known this for a while, maybe it's time for the church to catch up. Oh and there's a big middle area between a long-term but not married relationship and a series of unemotional sexual encounters! Most people I know are in between those two. Doesn't mean they're somehow lesser people if they're nearer the latter.

Also, my view really isn't the view of the Anglican church as a whole - surely you don't think I can speak for the whole church? You must have realised the diversity of the church by now!
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
How is non-consensual sex irrelevant to the OP? Certainly regarding sex education, it is VERY relevant - education on consent is very important but dangerously overlooked. Nobody has asked you to prevent all sexual abuse, just acknowledge that even from a Christian perspective, waiting until marriage to have sex is not possible or desirable for everyone - not even for all Christians.

The purity culture industry - and yes it is an industry, and why do all the worst things in the church have to be so beneficial to capitalism? - is just utter horseshit and not even Biblical horseshit, sorry. Dressing up the enjoyment of pre-marital sex in faux-psychological language isn't that much better than 'don't have sex or God will love you less'.

---

Non-consensual sex is irrelevant because the OP asks how we can persuade young people to postpone sex until they are older or married. This implies a level of choice on the part of the young person. How we can avoid them being coerced or forced into it is a different subject entirely.

Do you really think that all young people choosing to have sex are doing so because they enjoy it? That nobody seeks sex for reassurance that they are acceptable? That giving our young people a strong sense of self worth is not going to help equip them to make good decisions about what they do with their bodies and with whom?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Being me seemed to be adequate to postpone it indefinitely throughout my teenage years.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Being me seemed to be adequate to postpone it indefinitely throughout my teenage years.

---

Well yes, same here. Not assuming anything about a teenager's sex life would be helpful, I think - teenagers are not all raging sacks of hormones, they're just people.

---

I was a raging sack of hormones. I just couldn't find another raging sack of hormones that wanted any truck with mine
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's their body, they have the right to use it in ways that are enjoyable to them, without pressure from parents/society/God getting in the way.

---

Bolding mine. I'm not surprised that secular, liberal culture has that attitude. I would be pretty astonished to find it among Christians.

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies." 1 Corinthians 6:18-20

I'm not defending purity culture, which I've read about extensively and which obviously has myriad problems, not least hypocrisy and sexism. I'm all for candid discussions about sexuality. I'm also conservative on sexual matters (although I don't regard masturbation as a big deal, especially as the Bible never actually mentions it - that reference to Onan does NOT count! As I'm sure all Shipmates realise. )

But obedience in the Christian life actually matters. That includes surrendering our sexuality to the Lord.

If I'd had kids, their lives and decisions would have been their own once they became adults. The idea of rejecting a child for being gay, or getting pregnant outside wedlock, is inconceivable to me. But before my non-existent kids reached adulthood, they would have heard from me (and their hypothetical father) the Christian understanding of the covenant of marriage.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
But obedience in the Christian life actually matters. That includes surrendering our sexuality to the Lord.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It's their body, they have the right to use it in ways that are enjoyable to them, without pressure from parents/society/God getting in the way.

---

Bolding mine. I'm not surprised that secular, liberal culture has that attitude. I would be pretty astonished to find it among Christians.

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honour God with your bodies." 1 Corinthians 6:18-20

I'm not defending purity culture, which I've read about extensively and which obviously has myriad problems, not least hypocrisy and sexism. I'm all for candid discussions about sexuality. I'm also conservative on sexual matters (although I don't regard masturbation as a big deal, especially as the Bible never actually mentions it - that reference to Onan does NOT count! As I'm sure all Shipmates realise. )

But obedience in the Christian life actually matters. That includes surrendering our sexuality to the Lord.

If I'd had kids, their lives and decisions would have been their own once they became adults. The idea of rejecting a child for being gay, or getting pregnant outside wedlock, is inconceivable to me. But before my non-existent kids reached adulthood, they would have heard from me (and their hypothetical father) the Christian understanding of the covenant of marriage.

---

I should have put God in scare quotes, sorry - I didn't mean actual God, but rather what people imagine God thinks about sex, which more often than not is not actually Biblical. You talk about 'the Christian understanding of the covenant of marriage' - according to which Christians? I'm a Christian, but I bet we would have different ideas about what the marriage covenant means. There is no single Christian view of sex and marriage. There is no Bible verse condemning sex before marriage - it wouldn't make much sense, seeing as until pretty recently it was having sex that made you married, so most sex was pre-marital. There are verses some people interpret as being for saving sex for marriage, but that is just an interpretation.

Also, you can be a Christian and disagree with Paul Teaching young people that their bodies are not their own is an incredibly dangerous thing to do, and makes abuse and manipulation (to say nothing of guilt) so much easier. Teaching young people that their bodies ARE their own, that others do not own their bodies and cannot claim use of them without permission, is very important.

We also need to know here what Paul means by sexual sin - what churches teach as 'sexual sin' and what actually is sexual sin are often totally different things. IMO sexual sin is when we use sex to hurt and abuse others, not mutually-enjoyed consensual sex before marriage. Yes, we should obey God but first we need to work out what God is actually saying - we need to obey God, not the church's assumptions about what God wants.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which is fine as far as it goes, but traditionally Christians have spent a great deal of time and effort to force other people to surrender their sexuality to the Christian God as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I should have put God in scare quotes, sorry - I didn't mean actual God, but rather what people imagine God thinks about sex, which more often than not is not actually Biblical.

---

Ah, OK, fair enough.

quote:

---

You talk about 'the Christian understanding of the covenant of marriage' - according to which Christians?

---

quote:

---

I'm a Christian, but I bet we would have different ideas about what the marriage covenant means.

---

We would? If you insist. OK then ... to me the marriage covenant is about mutual respect, mutual submission and heck yes, the covenantal importance of reserving your body exclusively for your future partner. It's all there in Paul. We know what the relevant passages are.

Sleeping around is not the unforgivable sin, it doesn't 'ruin' people forever, as the silly and unforgiving purity culture would have it, but it's not something people who take the Bible seriously will be promoting either, for themselves or for their children.

quote:

---

There are verses some people interpret as being for saving sex for marriage, but that is just an interpretation.

---

quote:

---

Also, you can be a Christian and disagree with Paul

---

Paul's teaching is not always easy, to say the least but I'm not down with ignoring him either.

quote:

---

Teaching young people that their bodies are not their own is an incredibly dangerous thing to do, and makes abuse and manipulation (to say nothing of guilt) so much easier.

---

Obviously there is a huge great bloody Everest-sized difference between an individual Christian's volitional surrender to the God we love, and sexual abuse and manipulation by another human being.

quote:

---

Teaching young people that their bodies ARE their own, that others do not own their bodies and cannot claim use of them without permission, is very important.

---

quote:

---

We also need to know here what Paul means by sexual sin - what churches teach as 'sexual sin' and what actually is sexual sin are often totally different things.

---

quote:

---

IMO sexual sin is when we use sex to hurt and abuse others, not mutually-enjoyed consensual sex before marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not convinced that the secular world, with its myriad of social problems, has all the answers when it comes to sexual behaviour. Neither does the American Bible Belt. These are not the only options available for a Christian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is no Bible verse condemning sex before marriage - it wouldn't make much sense, seeing as until pretty recently it was having sex that made you married, so most sex was pre-marital.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is no Bible verse condemning sex before marriage - it wouldn't make much sense, seeing as until pretty recently it was having sex that made you married, so most sex was pre-marital.

---

You have a logic error here. If sex makes you married, then the first occasion of sex could be described as pre-marital (probably really peri-marital), and all other sexual contact would be post-marital (or adultery if it was with someone else).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not convinced that the secular world, with its myriad of social problems, has all the answers when it comes to sexual behaviour. Neither does the American Bible Belt. These are not the only options available for a Christian.

---

Agreed! I do think the Bible has answers, I just think that the answers that are actually there are different to the answers people think are there - and there isn't a great deal in the Bible about sex, full stop. I know that it's mentioned a lot when talking about Dead Horses, but there is barely more mentioned about heterosexual sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
I'm not convinced that the secular world, with its myriad of social problems, has all the answers when it comes to sexual behaviour. Neither does the American Bible Belt. These are not the only options available for a Christian.

---

Agreed! I do think the Bible has answers, I just think that the answers that are actually there are different to the answers people think are there - and there isn't a great deal in the Bible about sex, full stop. I know that it's mentioned a lot when talking about Dead Horses, but there is barely more mentioned about heterosexual sex.

---

You said in your response to me above that the church needs to catch up with the secular world on these issues, which is what I took exception to. I don't think that the secular world, which by definition has little interest in what God might want, inevitably provides the model that Christians should follow.

As for what the Bible says, we should probably assume that the Christians on this message board have read the Bible! The issue is that Christians read it and take different things from it. This is partly to do with personal experience and family background, cultural heritage, social status, etc. I don't believe that anyone comes to the Bible with a wholly neutral, objective, outlook.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Uh Laurelin, I take the Bible seriously (and I think it's incredibly rude to suggest that I don't) -

---

I didn't suggest that you didn't.

quote:

---

but I still know that Christ and St Paul say nothing on the subject of staying a virgin until marriage.

---

quote:

---

It's what you *think* the Bible says, not what the Bible actually says.

---

quote:

---

We've just inherited traditions written almost exclusively by straight, celibate men and are about as relevant to the modern church as a cockatrice. These are traditions of men (literally), not Scripture.

---

quote:

---

To me the covenant of marriage is publicly declaring your commitment to one person for life. The Bible doesn't even say that much on the subject, it's just inference. Not charging interest on loans is more important in the Bible.

---

You are probably right (on the money issue). But the Bible's view of marriage is not gender-neutral. Hence Paul's analogy of marriage between a man and woman reflecting the cosmic union of Christ and the Church, God and Israel. It's an erotic analogy, not in some crudely literal sense, but certainly a profound one.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Jade Constable

Ah, so you are a theologian after all! It sounds as though you're ready to teach us where we've gone wrong, as far as the Bible's concerned!
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm just curious where Paul says don't have sex before marriage. I'm curious rather than concerned, since I'm quite happy to disagree with him in any case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
But it really is what the Bible teaches, hence the incredibly strict pro-virginity laws in the Old Testament that are vastly tempered by the mercy and grace of the New Covenant, i.e. one should still aim for sexual purity but nobody in their right mind will stone you if you haven't managed that (and thank God for that).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Uh Laurelin, I take the Bible seriously (and I think it's incredibly rude to suggest that I don't) -

---

I didn't suggest that you didn't.

quote:

---

but I still know that Christ and St Paul say nothing on the subject of staying a virgin until marriage.

---

The thing is, they didn't have to. It was an accepted part of their Jewish culture. Obviously this needs unpacking for any contemporary reader of the Bible.

quote:

---

It's what you *think* the Bible says, not what the Bible actually says.

---

But it really is what the Bible teaches, hence the incredibly strict pro-virginity laws in the Old Testament that are vastly tempered by the mercy and grace of the New Covenant, i.e. one should still aim for sexual purity but nobody in their right mind will stone you if you haven't managed that (and thank God for that). No, there isn't any one verse in the NT that trumpets 'Thou shalt be a virgin' but the general direction of NT teaching encourages sexual purity and faithfulness. Keeping chaste until marriage, as far as one is able, kind of supports that whole foundation. If Christians undermine the biblical view of sex, they start selling out to our society's view of sex. That is my honest opinion.

quote:

---

We've just inherited traditions written almost exclusively by straight, celibate men and are about as relevant to the modern church as a cockatrice. These are traditions of men (literally), not Scripture.

---

Maybe so, but certainly most of the Bible was NOT written by celibate men, it would have been highly irregular for any Jewish rabbi to be celibate (our Lord is a very rare exception, surely) ... and being 'straight' is not some kind of moral, mental or spiritual handicap.

quote:

---

To me the covenant of marriage is publicly declaring your commitment to one person for life. The Bible doesn't even say that much on the subject, it's just inference. Not charging interest on loans is more important in the Bible.

---

You are probably right (on the money issue). But the Bible's view of marriage is not gender-neutral. Hence Paul's analogy of marriage between a man and woman reflecting the cosmic union of Christ and the Church, God and Israel. It's an erotic analogy, not in some crudely literal sense, but certainly a profound one.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Jade Constable

Ah, so you are a theologian after all! It sounds as though you're ready to teach us where we've gone wrong, as far as the Bible's concerned!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Croesus- short answer, because Christians regard Jesus as the fulfilment of the Torah, the Jewish Law, and He shows grace, not condemnation, to people who break the Law. He showed grace, not condemnation, to prostitutes, for example. That doesn't mean He would, um, recommend prostitution as a profession ...

There is some scholarly thought that in Mary and Joseph's day, a non-virginal woman might not have faced the death penalty, so the Law in that regard was perhaps being exercised with a lot more mercy. One hopes so ... Although the woman caught in adultery was certainly in danger from a horrible death by stoning, before Jesus came to her rescue ... Still, it might be that Mary, the mother of Jesus, wasn't in actual physical danger because she was unmarried and pregnant. But she certainly faced social disgrace and censure. (Poor girl.). And it was expected that the marriage would not be consummated until the period of betrothal was complete.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Croesus- short answer, because Christians regard Jesus as the fulfilment of the Torah, the Jewish Law, and He shows grace, not condemnation, to people who break the Law. He showed grace, not condemnation, to prostitutes, for example.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
We're not waving bedsheets out of windows any more - we don't need virginity as a guarantee of paternity. This means that the idea of a state change from virgin to sexually active is pretty much nonsense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"Damaged goods" and the idea of virginity as property are relics of the age when women were chattels (note how nobody ever calls men "damaged goods").

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
There's a lot of talk in evangelical purity ring type movements about virginity being a gift to a husband or wife on your wedding day. I don't find that a helpful way to think - it's treating "virginity" as a valuable object that you're protecting, and leads to all the kinds of silly mental gymnastics around inventing "secondary virginity" and the like.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Concentrating on virginity as this prized object is, as I see it, focusing on sexual sin in a rather negative and unhealthy way, and reenforces a completely false virgin/slut dichotomy. Sexual ethics do not begin and end with the first act of intercourse. It is no less important to have sex the 1,000th time for the right reasons than it is the first.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm just curious where Paul says don't have sex before marriage. I'm curious rather than concerned, since I'm quite happy to disagree with him in any case.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
"Damaged goods" and the idea of virginity as property are relics of the age when women were chattels (note how nobody ever calls men "damaged goods").

---

It is all too easy to condemn the "mercantile" attitude to relationships, sex and procreation that ruled much of the past.

<snip>

But virginity necessarily has value, since it is a real behavioural threshold one can cross only once. The only thing we get to decide is how this value is cashed out.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
But virginity necessarily has value, since it is a real behavioural threshold one can cross only once.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

And while it is true that one always should do everything for the right reasons, your last sentence hints at a false romantic ideal that I'm sure has killed as many relationships as any concern about virginity ever has. There is nothing a human can do 1,000 times without developing some habits and routines.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The fact that church teachings have almost exclusively been from straight, celibate men should surely set off alarm bells, and said teachings should be read through that filter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So is getting your first haircut or eating your first Twinkie. "You can only do it once for the first time" does not intrinsically give value to an action.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
The purpose of the premium placed on virginity is that it guarantees a man isn't raising someone else's children. It was very important in primitive societies, but meaningless in our own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The fact that church teachings have almost exclusively been from straight, celibate men should surely set off alarm bells, and said teachings should be read through that filter.

---

Being celibate myself, I can't hold really that against Paul or anyone else. I quite like Paul. As for being straight, well, there are probably question marks there, in quite a few cases. I certainly agree that theology has its biases, but I would argue that the dominant mode in world Christianity today is marriage, not celibacy. Even the world's Catholics can't convince themselves in sufficient numbers that becoming a celibate priest is a good career choice!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Sorry, I think the Bible's view of marriage IS gender-neutral, or can at least become gender-neutral - the Centurion's pais, for instance.

---

[DH tangent]I am not impressed with the current trendy interpretation which has Jesus being all fine about a powerful man buying a younger man as a sex slave, especially as the same people interpret Ruth as being 'in love' with her mother-in-law. [/DH tangent]

quote:

---

But certainly, the Hebrew used for 'male and female He created them' doesn't mean that ONLY male and female were created,

---

quote:

---

and I see Adam and Eve representing human need for companionship (not even necessarily sexual, as asexual people know) and not the checklist of what genders need to be involved in a marriage.

---

quote:

---

I took '[sleeping around is not] something people who take the Bible seriously will be promoting either, for themselves or for their children' as being aimed at me, sorry if it wasn't.

---

quote:

---

I take the Bible seriously, but consensual non-monogamous sex that doesn't involve anyone cheating on each other is just not a big deal - I wouldn't promote it but I would never forbid it, because why would I? It doesn't harm anyone.

---

Harms no-one? People's hearts can get broken. I watched some Channel 4 docs about swingers once. It was very educational, but not everybody emerged from all that daring, kinky sex emotionally unscathed. Harms no-one? Sure, until somebody gets pregnant and important, life-changing decisions have to be made. I personally don't believe that using contraception is wrong, but the Catholics have a point about the 'contraceptive mentality' that emerged from the sexual revolution. Sex has the potential to create new life. That is a burden and also a privilege. Of course I'm not against sex as recreation within a loving marriage, I think that two people in a marriage can please each other in practically any way they like, but the bigger narrative about sex, which I believe the Bible teaches, is that it's not separate from emotional intimacy and indeed spiritual significance. Hence Paul's teaching about our bodies being temples of the Holy Spirit.

But, hey. A Christianity which gives me permission to shag whoever I like, consequence-free. Who wouldn't be up for a Christianity like this? Didn't the Corinthian Christians have similar notions?

quote:

---

Forgive me for not taking sex advice from St Paul, but it's not like he knew what he was talking about.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos: Which doesn't answer the question of why stoning was God's go-to position in the first place. According to Christians, God (who is Jesus) thought stoning non-virgins was a pretty good thing to do from the Creation of the Universe to the first century. Then He switches. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to get it right the first time through, not to mention a lot less fatal to a whole bunch of women?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But the Jewish law is not only fulfilled, it is also abrogated, isn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
Now that I'm married, I think that sex in the full, PinV sense has a specialness, emotionally speaking, that other acts lack.

But other people disagree with me. That's fine. They can calibrate their intimacy scales accordingly.

---

Not everyone can have PIV sex. Does that make it more special for you, or less?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
]There is of course nothing wrong with celibacy - but I just wouldn't expect a celibate person to instruct others on sexuality! I agree that the dominant mode in the church today is marriage, which is even more reason to look askance at church tradition written by people whose lives are totally alien to ours.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
So is getting your first haircut or eating your first Twinkie. "You can only do it once for the first time" does not intrinsically give value to an action.

---

Yes, but having sex is a hell of a lot more significant than eating Twinkies to the vast majority of people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
But, hey. A Christianity which gives me permission to shag whoever I like, consequence-free. Who wouldn't be up for a Christianity like this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Which doesn't answer the question of why stoning was God's go-to position in the first place. According to Christians, God (who is Jesus) thought stoning non-virgins was a pretty good thing to do from the Creation of the Universe to the first century. Then He switches. Wouldn't it have been a lot easier to get it right the first time through, not to mention a lot less fatal to a whole bunch of women?

---

I'll readily admit I can't find it in myself to defend the seemingly indefensible. Some of those laws are downright horrific. I'll freely admit I have a very hard time seeing how some of that could have come from a supposedly loving God. But that doesn't mean I regard OT Judaism as a load of old rubbish either. Jewish and Christian theologians alike know that interpreting this material is ... challenging. I was using the OT laws to make the point that the Bible takes a serious view of sexual morality in general.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Laurelin - gender identity and sexuality (there ARE more than two genders, and even biological sex doesn't work in a neat little binary) are not modern inventions. LGBTQ people are in the Bible, because we have always existed. Intersex people have always existed. Why do you have the right to erase us from our religious history?

---

quote:

---

Most pre-marital (non-marital?) sexual relationships are not like swinging in the slightest.

---

quote:

---

If nothing else, the secrecy involved in swinging would be more damaging than slot A into tab B.

---

quote:

---

How on Earth is a boyfriend and girlfriend living together and having sex outside of marriage anything like a particularly kinky sex life?

---

quote:

---

Genuine question: do you know anyone who has had sex before marriage in real life who isn't bothered by it?

---

quote:

---

This is precisely why St Paul doesn't know what he's talking about - it's either pure virginity or orgies, when most people aren't either.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I find it much preferable to a Christianity that inflicts consequences on people for shagging wrong. The whole stoning thing comes to mind.

---

You have a point.

Being serious now, I did say I find some of the OT laws horrific.

quote:

---

If the Old Testament command to stone to death any woman who isn't a virgin on her wedding night is what it means to "take[] a serious view of sexual morality", doesn't that imply that abandoning that punishment means you're not taking a serious view of sexual morality anymore?

---

Nope.

Jesus gives us all a far, far better way than stoning people for .... anything.

Believing that stoning people is horrific and wrong does NOT cancel out a position of: 'I still believe the New Testament has something important to say about the beauty of marriage and sexual purity'.

[ 24. June 2013, 23:02: Message edited by: Laurelin ]
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
But, hey. A Christianity which gives me permission to shag whoever I like, consequence-free. Who wouldn't be up for a Christianity like this? Didn't the Corinthian Christians have similar notions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
I find it much preferable to a Christianity that inflicts consequences on people for shagging wrong. The whole stoning thing comes to mind.

---

You have a point.

Being serious now, I did say I find some of the OT laws horrific.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
Croesus - what I 'recommend' is that people who want to follow Jesus and remain faithful to biblical teaching on sexuality ... get on with it and do just that. What I 'recommend', or at least what I desire, is people who will help ME stay faithful to Christ in all areas of my life, including my sexuality.

Why do you think I have any desire to punish anyone for any particular sexual transgression? I'd have to include myself in that, since 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' etc.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
But, hey. A Christianity which gives me permission to shag whoever I like, consequence-free. Who wouldn't be up for a Christianity like this?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
I take the Bible seriously, but consensual non-monogamous sex that doesn't involve anyone cheating on each other is just not a big deal - I wouldn't promote it but I would never forbid it, because why would I? It doesn't harm anyone.

---

Harms no-one? People's hearts can get broken.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
If that's part of your argument, it probably should be stated as part of your argument. As it stood your argument was, "the first time you do something is perforce an important threshold." Which as a general rule is nonsense. Your second point just reiterates your first. Virginity is important because, well, because it's a threshold, and by golly, thresholds are important. None of this explains why virginity is so important to preserve, or why it has religious significance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:


Remembering that this thread was originally about young people/teenagers and delaying sex until marriage

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
If you express horror at the idea of people shagging without permission and not having some consequence inflicted on them by Christianity, I naturally have to wonder what you consider to be an appropriate consequence.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
Well, I think that valuing sex (which is not the same as valuing virginity) and valuing the sanctity of my body and other people's bodies (again, not the same as valuing virginity) is why I abstained until I was 23 and married.

---

quote:

---

This discussion has become awfully polarised. The shaggers think it's their way or deep south purity rings, guilt and condemnation with stoning; The abstainers think it's their way or swinging and dogging.

---

quote:

---

How about teaching love, respect for self and others, showing the value of sex as a uniquely unifying and strengthening bond between a committed couple. That is what was modelled to me, and I am glad that I took it on board ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:


My whole problem with your argument though, is that you assume that not having sex before marriage is the default Christian viewpoint - it's not the case. I am a Christian, but I see no need to save sex for marriage -

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:

How about teaching love, respect for self and others, showing the value of sex as a uniquely unifying and strengthening bond between a committed couple. That is what was modelled to me, and I am glad that I took it on board, and therefore will model the same to my children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Laurelin - apologies for my rather harsh language.

---

No worries, and thanks. I was being rather offensive.

quote:

---

My whole problem with your argument though, is that you assume that not having sex before marriage is the default Christian viewpoint - it's not the case.

---

quote:

---

I am a Christian, but I see no need to save sex for marriage - does that make me not a Christian?

---

quote:

---

Lots of Christians have pre-marital sex and aren't bothered by it. So why the emphasis on not having sex before marriage being the only valid Christian perspective?

---

Because I sincerely believe that's what the Bible teaches, and I am very reluctant to do my own thing, as appealing as that often is, rather than obey God. Should we not be different from the way the world thinks about these things?

quote:

---

Edited to add that of course, not everyone can legally get married at the moment. What about non-heterosexual couples? Do they have to wait until a civil partnership?

---

Well ... I've waited. I can say no more than that, really.

I have plenty of non-Christian friends in stable, committed cohabiting relationships and I don't give it a second thought. I don't expect them to share my views and also I haven't lived my life under a rock - many marriages, including Christian ones, are dreadful and many non-married relationships are respectful and loving.

It's just that, as Christians, I do honestly think we should be aiming ... higher.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It's just rather irritating when someone states that the Christian view is that sex before marriage is wrong. That's not correct.

I see many different Christian positions on sexuality, and I would hate to think that my own position was the correct one, and everybody else is wrong.

There is a conversation about sexuality, not a monologue.
 

---

Posted by Reuben (# 11361) on :
 
quetzalcoatl said:

quote:

---

It's just rather irritating when someone states that the Christian view is that sex before marriage is wrong. That's not correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:

How about teaching love, respect for self and others, showing the value of sex as a uniquely unifying and strengthening bond between a committed couple. That is what was modelled to me, and I am glad that I took it on board, and therefore will model the same to my children.

---

Exactly right. This was also modelled to me and by me to my children.

But there is no need for marriage for any of this - commitment to each other, yes certainly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
But I'm not talking here about Christianity inflicting frightful consequences/punishments on sexual transgressors. I don't harbour any secret sadistic desires to 'punish' people who merrily engage in premarital sex and quite understandably couldn't give a **** about my opinion. Neither am I necessarily horrified by people 'shagging without permission'.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
What I am saying is that the Christian faith offers a different take on all of this, one that is diametrically opposed to the surrounding culture and which seems to be very austere, i.e. no sex before marriage and remaining forever faithful to one's spouse once married. When a person decides to follow Christ, and is filled with the Holy Spirit, their hearts are changed. No matter what their past has been, or whatever temptations assail them in the present.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
However, I have a strong suspicion that measured in terms of individuals, you would get a different result.

I can't find any stats on this actually.

---

quote:

---

The vast majority of Americans have sex before marriage, including those who abstained from sex during their teenage years, according to “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003,” by Lawrence B. Finer, published in the January/February 2007 issue of Public Health Reports. Further, contrary to the public perception that premarital sex is much more common now than in the past, the study shows that even among women who were born in the 1940s, nearly nine in 10 had sex before marriage.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Laurelin - do you not know any Christians in real life who decided not to wait until marriage?

---

quote:

---

Surely you must have realised even before this that there's a variety of views on the matter?

---

quote:

---

Even individual members of churches who officially teach celibacy before marriage may disagree with the official teaching.

---

quote:

---

And yes, of course Christians are called to be different, but since our sex lives are nobody's business anyway, why is this area of importance?

---

quote:

---

It's our public lives that are supposed to be different, mostly our economic and political lives.

---

quote:

---

Most of my Christian friends I know either through church or through SCM things, with a few CU friends - so most of them I know because of their stance on Christianity and politics/social justice, which seems to lead naturally into not considering sex before marriage to be a huge deal. Campaigning against drone strikes would put other people's bedroom activities on the back-burner.[/QB]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, liberals will now become all postmodern and dispute that there is a single correct interpretation, true for all times and places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, liberals will now become all postmodern and dispute that there is a single correct interpretation, true for all times and places.

---

My understanding is that liberals started that way, not that they have any need to become so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Well, there are doubts about whether all of the Pauline letters ARE written by Paul, so I think using 'his' writings is always going to be difficult.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Of course, liberals will now become all postmodern and dispute that there is a single correct interpretation, true for all times and places.

---

My understanding is that liberals started that way, not that they have any need to become so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, liberal Christians have often said that they disagree with some elements in 'Paul'. Nothing new here, is there?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Can one really have transparent and unmediated access to what the Bible teaches?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Can one really have transparent and unmediated access to what the Bible teaches?

---

Of course not. This is the prime idiocy of some brands of Christian fundamentalism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Can one really have transparent and unmediated access to what the Bible teaches?

---

Of course not. This is the prime idiocy of some brands of Christian fundamentalism.

---

Well, that's why it's expressed as a rhetorical question.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:
I'm thankful that my 19 year old son's avoided the three letter word so far - as far as I know. But at the same time I'm a little concerned that he's never been close to a girl.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:
contained far more single blokes than girls, as did all six of the churches I attended in the cities I lived in.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by OddJob:
contained far more single blokes than girls, as did all six of the churches I attended in the cities I lived in.

---

Wow, that's completely the opposite to all the churches I have ever known, in which there have invariably been more single females than males.

---

Same here. Or rather certainly more women than men - how many are single I wouldn't always know. Lots of them have husbands or boyfriends who don't go to church.

Universities and further education colleges in Britain mostly now have slightly more women than men.
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
I think a question to ask is why virginity was such an important issue for Paul et al. Scripture doesn't exist in a vacuum; it has historical and cultural contexts.

Of course, there's the patriarchal concern about women as chattel who become "spoiled goods" in those systems if they engage in sexual activity with anyone other than their arranged spouses, and the concurrent concern with children's paternity issues. Another concern in those times was maternal mortality, which was significant (a few contemporary authors compared childbirth to warfare in terms of peril, and at least grudgingly noted that it was one opportunity for women to exhibit the same bravery and self-sacrifice as soldiers on the battlefield). Another concern was STDs, which in those pre-antibiotics days were also life-threatening things.

All those concerns probably played into questions of sexual morality in the early Christian community.

Fast-forward to our time and culture. Unless you're into that sort of thing , claiming male dominion over a woman and her reproductive system isn't an issue. Pregnancy can be an issue; I think it's fair to ponder the ethics of engaging in behavior that has the potential to bring new life into the world without pre-planning and without a stable support system in place to bring it up. STDs are still an issue.

To me, it all comes down to cases. There's a difference between pre-marital sex involving two impulsive teenagers and between widowed older adults on meager retirement incomes who are not able to marry because if they do the female partner will lose her first husband's benefits. (At least in my denomination, most pastors wouldn't give a whit about the latter couple "doing it" sans benefit of marriage.) There's a difference between a couple [trying to veer away from the Dead Horse borderline] postponing marriage in order to earn enough money to throw some spectacular quasi-royal wedding extravaganza and a couple who has to postpone marriage until it becomes legal for them. And there's a difference between love-em-and-leave-em sexual hedonism as a lifestyle and a situation where a committed/faithful couple, for a variety of reasons that are important to them, may delay a public commitment.

I'm not a slave to Pauline social pronouncements, and I also don't tend to be comfortable with blanket "always," "never," "must," "mustn't" pronouncements.

And...who is the designated enforcer of sexual mores in a faith community? I mean, I can't imagine my pastor or our church council birddogging the adults of the congregation monitoring their sex lives. In Lutheran theology we leave a lot of room for the informed Christian conscience, as well as for the fact that we are all simul iustus et peccator, in a world where "the next right thing" is not always clear.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
I think we should also bear in mind the issue of setting an example.

It's quite possible that you and your well-educated, well-adjusted friends are perfectly able to engage in serial monogamy without any problems. But that might not be the case for everyone in your church, or for everyone in other churches. In the cultural background I come from serial sexual relationships have caused problems, and they also bear the taint of historical injustice. For the churches that exist as part of that culture it's a reality they have to understand and live with rather than ruthlessly condemn, yet it would be unwise of them to dismiss it as a harmless way of life and something to be utterly laid-back about.

So at the very least, Christians should consider 1 Corinthians 8*. Don't lead astray other Christians who aren't as tough, self-confident and self-assured as yourself. Perhaps you can justify sexual licence from your knowledge of theology; what about those Christians who can't? You have the wherewithal to avoid pregnancy, or have the means to raise a happy, motivated child single-handedly - and do so in a Christian environment, training that child in the way s/he should go. What about those Christians who would find it much harder to succeed?

I'm not convinced that sexual licence generally serves the cause of Christianity, and many educated commentators say that it undermines it, on the whole. It would be interesting to be proved wrong.

* http://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/8.htm
 

---

Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on :
 
Svitlana: Are you addressing me personally? I don't see where I was suggesting "sexual license" anywhere in my post. What I was suggesting is that sexual ethics are by nature situational.

I'd also point out that entering into a faithful committed relationship with another person is on a level different from, saying, choosing to wear one style of clothing over another. Do you think it's fair for, say, two lonely elderly people to be denied the abllity to live as a committed couple in the context of a faith community because it might send the wrong message to horny 14-year-olds? We had just such a situation in our church, for a couple of decades; I doubt that our teenagers (most of whom I'm sure were aware of the family dynamics anyway) were looking to this couple as a role model, except perhaps as a positive role model of faithfulness through old age and infirmity. (They were a couple obviously very much in love with one another, in a cultural milieu where married couples tend to barely look at one another during worship, let alone hold hands!)

In the interest of full disclosure, my partner of six-plus years and I are not legally married because we CAN'T be in our state. I don't think our presence as active members of our parish is giving people license to engage in serial affairs, orgies or whatever you might imagine that it does. My pastor told us that we're one of the most mature and well-adjusted couples in the congregation; I'd hope THAT was the image we're projecting to others.
 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
LutheranChik

No, I wasn't responding to your post and I wasn't thinking of gay relationships.

[ 28. June 2013, 15:50: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
 

---

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :
 
LutheranChik wrote:

quote:

---

Of course, there's the patriarchal concern about women as chattel who become "spoiled goods" in those systems if they engage in sexual activity with anyone other than their arranged spouses

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Whilst the idea of chattel was probably where the idea of the mohar came from, it had long been replaced by the ketubah - whereby payment was delayed and was made to the wife directly in the event of divorce or death of the husband.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think a question to ask is why virginity was such an important issue for Paul et al.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Given the typical fine parsing of technicalities the typical teen will engage in to get around inconvenient rules, I'd guess it's a pretty significant number.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Could I venture to suggest that if you're playing the rules lawyer with God, you're doing it wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, that begs the question, doesn't it? What is 'the Christian view'?

If you define this organizationally, then yes, most churches do see sex before marriage as immoral.

However, I have a strong suspicion that measured in terms of individuals, you would get a different result.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Could I venture to suggest that if you're playing the rules lawyer with God, you're doing it wrong.

---

I guess. Though the difference between "rules lawyering" and "following the rules" is largely subjective. For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex or (heterosexual) anal sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex

---

quote:

---

For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against [...] (heterosexual) anal sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex

---

If its mentioned at all, and it might not be, it is highly allusively in the Song of Songs where it seems to be approved of. All that stuff abotu sweetness dripping down and opening the door. But then so is the young man who may or may not be a king or prince of some sort having it off with all sorts of even younger girls who may or may not be in the harem of another king. It really is a very, very, heavily coded and metaphorical book.

quote:

---

For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against [...] (heterosexual) anal sex?

---

I have a vague feeling there is one verse that seems to disapprove of it somewhere. Not sure where though.

I don't think it makes much difference really. I mean there is no Biblical injunction against adults who aren't married to anyone at all having sex. Its nowhere in the Bible at all, never mind in Paul. But I don't think we can use that to imagine that Paul or wouldn't have thought it was a Bad Thing. It probably went without saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It really is a very, very, heavily coded and metaphorical book.

---

quote:

---

I don't think it makes much difference really. I mean there is no Biblical injunction against adults who aren't married to anyone at all having sex. Its nowhere in the Bible at all, never mind in Paul. But I don't think we can use that to imagine that Paul or wouldn't have thought it was a Bad Thing. It probably went without saying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
As Bel Mooney found in making a documentary on the subject, you will never find a happy adulterer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex or (heterosexual) anal sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex or (heterosexual) anal sex?

---

American Calvinist Mark Driscoll is a high-profile and controversial proponent of both.

---

He's a high-profile and controversial proponent of both oral and anal sex?
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex or (heterosexual) anal sex?

---

American Calvinist Mark Driscoll is a high-profile and controversial proponent of both.

---

He's a high-profile and controversial proponent of both oral and anal sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is of course nothing wrong with celibacy - but I just wouldn't expect a celibate person to instruct others on sexuality!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
For instance, is there any Biblical instruction against (heterosexual) oral sex or (heterosexual) anal sex?

---

American Calvinist Mark Driscoll is a high-profile and controversial proponent of both.

---

He's a high-profile and controversial proponent of both oral and anal sex?

---

He really is!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by St Deird:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is of course nothing wrong with celibacy - but I just wouldn't expect a celibate person to instruct others on sexuality!

---

Being celibate doesn't mean your sex drive disappears. I'd say celibate people could have a lot to say on how to deal with your sexuality in a healthy way if you're not currently having sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
It's really not all that unusual a position (no pun intended). As we've seen, most anyone, evangelical or otherwise, who's done any study of Song of Solomon would (and has) come to a similar conclusion. Driscoll likes to think he's being edgy and cutting-edge, but actually he's not contributing anything more than an adolescent boy giggling because somebody said "boobies" in church.

---

You mean.........it wasn't referring to her navel?


 

---

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Driscoll likes to think he's being edgy and cutting-edge, but actually he's not contributing anything more than an adolescent boy giggling because somebody said "boobies" in church.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Driscoll likes to think he's being edgy and cutting-edge, but actually he's not contributing anything more than an adolescent boy giggling because somebody said "boobies" in church.

---

Maybe not to theological scholarship, but he might be contributing something to his congregation and to other congregations of a similar ilk.

In the age of the internet we forget that not every video is going to represent earth-shattering originality. And I suspect that very few 'churchy' videos are designed to impress viewers with advanced theological knowledge. I shouldn't think that's Driscoll's priority, but I could be wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:
My point is that instead of using that opportunity to proclaim a transformational message of grace or the radical gift of God's breaking into our lives, he using the platform to talk about tits and wieners with all the gravitas and social significance of a 13 year old boy. It's tragic that he chooses to use his considerable platform to do nothing more than spread misogynist prattle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
This is a discussion board, it helps if people attempt to use their words to communicate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Fornication sounds like a broad church.

Could it also mean anal sex within marriage?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
There is quite a lot of fornication within the OT!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
So... two gay guys getting married and having sex would be perfectly fine, but sex outside marriage isn't? [/QUOT

I think you may be taking the mick, you know as well as I do that sex between two men is forbidden according to scripture whether it is inside or outside a so called marriage. Lev.20:13

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
So... two gay guys getting married and having sex would be perfectly fine, but sex outside marriage isn't?

---

I think you may be taking the mick, you know as well as I do that sex between two men is forbidden according to scripture whether it is inside or outside a so called marriage. Lev.20:13

---

If we're still under Levitical law, we're all in trouble - unless you never wear mixed fibre clothing!

Homosexuality is a Dead Horse and should be discussed there not in Purgatory

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
What do you consider to be sex?

---

quote:

---

Doublethink: I suppose we are then in to the minefield of flirting -> petting -> heavy petting -> foreplay -> sex.

---

I don't consider that a particularly bad minefield to be in
 

---

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
I've noticed that men tend to have the strongest opinion about this when they enter middle or old age and sex is least likely to happen.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Conscience is nowt.
 

---

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
You can't say that universally.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Ooooooooooh, I reckon I can. I'm sure it'll break down at the edges, go fuzzy at the margins, that there will be exceptions that prove the rule, but not in this context.

Kids playing with fire get burnt.
 

---

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Again, there will people with very strong consciences.

It's patronising to suggest otherwise.
 

---

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Perhaps it would be better to advise couples to stick to anything_thing_you_can_do_in_front_of_your_mother_without_feeling_embarrassed ...

(Assuming you are aiming for traditional morality.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I've noticed that men tend to have the strongest opinion about this when they enter middle or old age and sex is least likely to happen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:

No, I think it really is when sex has aged and is something abstract.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
You're probably what... fifty? Sixty? In which case, your sexual peak is long, long behind you and you can probably scarcely remember how vital and urgent those feelings were. And that means that you are, with respect, the last person who should be preaching to young people on this subject.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Well, no, as you'll be dead and I'll be senile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Barrea - firstly, not all Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. The Scriptural argument alone is not convincing for me personally.

Also, could you please quote what Old Testament verses you are thinking of that condemn fornication (which is defined as sexual intercourse between two people who are not married to each other - certainly not including anal sex within marriage!)? There is quite a lot of fornication within the OT!

For the New Testament, there are two words used that deal with sexual immorality - moicheia (adultery) and porneia (commonly translated as fornication or more commonly just sexual immorality). 'Sexual immorality' is obviously quite a vague term and it's not possible to define it strictly as fornication - the Septuagint uses it in reference to male temple prostitution, for instance.

I have no issue with people who interpret the Bible as suggesting that pre-marital sex is sinful, my problem is with saying that it is clear-cut and obvious as to what the Bible says on the subject. As with much in the Bible, it isn't. The Bible really says very little on sex at all.

---

Jade as you do not believe in the in inerrancy of Scripture and do not take it as your final authority there is not much point in referring to the Bible in relation to ones attitude to sex before marriage.
It is much more a case of making up your own mind and letting your conscience decide what you feel is right.
 

---

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
I'll be eighty. Should I live that long. And family suggests that the chances of reaching that age with all my marbles is not high.
 

---

Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
And DTO, please let me know how you get on at 30, 40, 50. I could tell you stuff that would curdle your milk mate. Right up until this weekend. You haven't the faintest idea sonny. Not the faintest.

I'm 60 next year mate. And just because I can't shag everything on two legs three times a day (and mate, I've had to beat them off with a stick) doesn't have the slightest bit to do with what goes on behind my eyes, open or wide shut.

I could do an appalling parody of the apostle Paul. But I won't. You really, really know nothing boy.

And yes, I should be all growd up and not amusedly outraged and empathise with you in your paucity of experience in mishandling your raging hormones. The biggest sex organ is the brain mate. Mine's as priapic as ever and I'm certainly tired of it and looking forward to the transcendence of it.

I'm still shaking my head at what I can't tell you as this is not an appropriate forum for it. Me and everybody else here over 12. Stuff I've not told my shrinks.

You think my friend Jimmy Saville and Stuart Hall and the great American sexual sadist serial killers were kids? Were in their 20s? 30s? They'd hardly got in to their stride at 40.

As I said, take a multitude of counsel. Try reading.

And I am sorry for your pain. Especially all you've got coming.
 

---

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
The people you mention were prolific sex offenders. Hardly typical of people's experience generally.
 

---

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Barrea - firstly, not all Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. The Scriptural argument alone is not convincing for me personally.

Also, could you please quote what Old Testament verses you are thinking of that condemn fornication (which is defined as sexual intercourse between two people who are not married to each other - certainly not including anal sex within marriage!)? There is quite a lot of fornication within the OT!

For the New Testament, there are two words used that deal with sexual immorality - moicheia (adultery) and porneia (commonly translated as fornication or more commonly just sexual immorality). 'Sexual immorality' is obviously quite a vague term and it's not possible to define it strictly as fornication - the Septuagint uses it in reference to male temple prostitution, for instance.

I have no issue with people who interpret the Bible as suggesting that pre-marital sex is sinful, my problem is with saying that it is clear-cut and obvious as to what the Bible says on the subject. As with much in the Bible, it isn't. The Bible really says very little on sex at all.

---

Jade as you do not believe in the in inerrancy of Scripture and do not take it as your final authority there is not much point in referring to the Bible in relation to ones attitude to sex before marriage.
It is much more a case of making up your own mind and letting your conscience decide what you feel is right.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
You're probably what... fifty? Sixty? In which case, your sexual peak is long, long behind you and you can probably scarcely remember how vital and urgent those feelings were. And that means that you are, with respect, the last person who should be preaching to young people on this subject.

---

Reaching 50 within a few years. You are WRONG. This goes on the top ten list of stuff on the ship that has insulted me.

Although, Im also chuckling at the ignorance
 

---

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
You're probably what... fifty? Sixty? In which case, your sexual peak is long, long behind you and you can probably scarcely remember how vital and urgent those feelings were. And that means that you are, with respect, the last person who should be preaching to young people on this subject.

---

Reaching 50 within a few years. You are WRONG. This goes on the top ten list of stuff on the ship that has insulted me.

Although, Im also chuckling at the ignorance

---

I just smile indulgently and let them think we have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than fall asleep on the couch watching Matlock reruns...

 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, I'm nearly 70, and I had to chuckle at that. Vital and urgent it remains, sir/madam.
 

---

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
Well, I'm 36, and it feels a fair bit less vital and urgent than it did to me. If DTO is, as he says, 40 - perhaps there are some similarities. Two possibilities spring immediately to mind: One - there is a dip in these things in mid-life, when any number of other people/things/obligations have first to sixteenth claim on your time and attention; Two - the 'I'm sixty mate', 'I'm seventy and chuckling', representatives are remembering the supposed sexual peak to which DTO refers from a different vantage point, shall we say...
 

---

Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fool on the hill:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
You're probably what... fifty? Sixty? In which case, your sexual peak is long, long behind you and you can probably scarcely remember how vital and urgent those feelings were. And that means that you are, with respect, the last person who should be preaching to young people on this subject.

---

Reaching 50 within a few years. You are WRONG. This goes on the top ten list of stuff on the ship that has insulted me.

Although, Im also chuckling at the ignorance

---

I just smile indulgently and let them think we have nothing better to do on a Saturday night than fall asleep on the couch watching Matlock reruns...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
The point is, ladies and gents, that sex will never again be as pressing or as urgent to you as it was when you were younger. To suggest that someone who is, say, sixty or seventy is as aware of pressing sexual urges as they were when they were a teenager or a twentysomething flies in the face of what we know about human biology and physiology. It just isn't as pressing and the idea of people who are, by any reasonable metric, old, turning around and telling young people what they should and shouldn't do from a position of 50 years' hindsight is as laughable as the Catholic clergy teaching about sex. It isn't tenable.

---

I don't know about men, but for women, their sexual peak is in their 40's.

I'm not really into telling people what to do at all. But I feel perfectly capable of talking with young people about sex.
 

---

Posted by DouglasTheOtter (# 17681) on :
 
Men are past it by the time they're in their twenties. It's one of the cruel jokes that evolution has played on us. Men are most fertile when they're at their most immature and women are at their sexual peak when they're at their least fertile.
 

---

Posted by Welease Woderwick (# 10424) on :
 
quetzalcoatl's vital and urgent seems about right to me - I used to be a sex professional inasmuch as I was in the AIDS Industry for some years and the tales folks told me in the course of my work led me to believe that I am not alone in retaining my delight in the subject.

I am 64.

I freely admit that I no longer perform at quite the same rate as I did - but I do my best
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Men are past it by the time they're in their twenties.

---

quote:

---

It's one of the cruel jokes that evolution has played on us. Men are most fertile when they're at their most immature and women are at their sexual peak when they're at their least fertile.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Like everyone else, on the people I see around me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I think, in all honesty, that sex causes a lot of unhappiness and that it's an aspect of our 'design,' such as it is, that leaves a bit to be desired.

---

quote:

---

And for women, they're hugely and abundantly fertile in their teens, which tails off steeply to their forties, when they get more interested in sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Barrea - firstly, not all Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. The Scriptural argument alone is not convincing for me personally.

Also, could you please quote what Old Testament verses you are thinking of that condemn fornication (which is defined as sexual intercourse between two people who are not married to each other - certainly not including anal sex within marriage!)? There is quite a lot of fornication within the OT!

For the New Testament, there are two words used that deal with sexual immorality - moicheia (adultery) and porneia (commonly translated as fornication or more commonly just sexual immorality). 'Sexual immorality' is obviously quite a vague term and it's not possible to define it strictly as fornication - the Septuagint uses it in reference to male temple prostitution, for instance.

I have no issue with people who interpret the Bible as suggesting that pre-marital sex is sinful, my problem is with saying that it is clear-cut and obvious as to what the Bible says on the subject. As with much in the Bible, it isn't. The Bible really says very little on sex at all.

---

Jade as you do not believe in the in inerrancy of Scripture and do not take it as your final authority there is not much point in referring to the Bible in relation to ones attitude to sex before marriage.
It is much more a case of making up your own mind and letting your conscience decide what you feel is right.

---

Um, not being an inerrantist and believing in Scripture together with Tradition and Reason does NOT mean that I don't think the Bible is important, or that I just make things up myself. If I did, why would I quote the Koine Greek?

Why does me not being an inerrantist make you unable to provide reasons for your opinions?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by cliffdweller:


Perhaps older folks aren't any less interested in sex, they're just more discrete about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
You feel nothing like the intensity of your teenage feelings.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
You're saying that you can remember the intensity of teenage sexual desire?

Bollocks can you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Because teenagerdom is a time when hormones start to kick in and your body undergoes powerful physiological changes that turn you from a child into an adult. It'd be impossible to recapture the intensity of this time, if only from a biochemical point of view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Reading back over this thread makes me worry that I look like I'm trolling, which I'm genuinely not. I'm trying to articulate a point of view that I seem to be only sporadically successful in doing. Anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Sex is disappointing because life is disappointing.

As a kid, you look forward to Christmas very keenly, while not noticing that a central truth at the heart of it is that Christmas Day is a bit disappointing. When you get older, you know this and can recognise that the fun is in the anticipation and not in the day itself. It's the same, I think, with sex. A huge amount of excitement and anticipation and then, in the moments afterwards when the feelings have gone and dissipated like a breaking wave, you wonder what all of the fuss was about and go back to doing what you were doing before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Sex is disappointing because life is disappointing.

As a kid, you look forward to Christmas very keenly, while not noticing that a central truth at the heart of it is that Christmas Day is a bit disappointing. When you get older, you know this and can recognise that the fun is in the anticipation and not in the day itself. It's the same, I think, with sex. A huge amount of excitement and anticipation and then, in the moments afterwards when the feelings have gone and dissipated like a breaking wave, you wonder what all of the fuss was about and go back to doing what you were doing before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
But I think that biological machines, albeit very imperfect ones, is exactly what we are. We're built to reproduce and blindly pass on our genes. This is what we're hardwired to do, and, once we've done it, life has no further use for us. Everything else is after-the-fact justification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
I'm an individual insofar as I'm allowed to be by my biology.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
That's bollocks. You're having your cake and eating it. On the one hand, you say that you're a machine; on the other hand, you say that life is disappointing. How can it be for a machine

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
But I think that biological machines, albeit very imperfect ones, is exactly what we are. We're built to reproduce and blindly pass on our genes. This is what we're hardwired to do, and, once we've done it, life has no further use for us. Everything else is after-the-fact justification.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:

quote:

---

Originally posted by barrea:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Barrea - firstly, not all Christians believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. The Scriptural argument alone is not convincing for me personally.

Also, could you please quote what Old Testament verses you are thinking of that condemn fornication (which is defined as sexual intercourse between two people who are not married to each other - certainly not including anal sex within marriage!)? There is quite a lot of fornication within the OT!

For the New Testament, there are two words used that deal with sexual immorality - moicheia (adultery) and porneia (commonly translated as fornication or more commonly just sexual immorality). 'Sexual immorality' is obviously quite a vague term and it's not possible to define it strictly as fornication - the Septuagint uses it in reference to male temple prostitution, for instance.

I have no issue with people who interpret the Bible as suggesting that pre-marital sex is sinful, my problem is with saying that it is clear-cut and obvious as to what the Bible says on the subject. As with much in the Bible, it isn't. The Bible really says very little on sex at all.

---

Jade as you do not believe in the in inerrancy of Scripture and do not take it as your final authority there is not much point in referring to the Bible in relation to ones attitude to sex before marriage.
It is much more a case of making up your own mind and letting your conscience decide what you feel is right.

---

Um, not being an inerrantist and believing in Scripture together with Tradition and Reason does NOT mean that I don't think the Bible is important, or that I just make things up myself. If I did, why would I quote the Koine Greek?

Why does me not being an inerrantist make you unable to provide reasons for your opinions?

---

Jade I am able to provide reasons for my opinions on sex before marriage. They are based on the new testament that has many verses condemning fornication, I can't find a verse in the OT that actually says the words that fornication is sin but it is implied in Deuteronomy 22 and in other places.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
To be totally honest, and I'm aware that this sounds rather harsh, people who don't have children are irrelevant to the species. It rolls on without them. People have enough children to replenish the herd and, whatever reasons they cite, nature is indifferent to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
To be totally honest, and I'm aware that this sounds rather harsh, people who don't have children are irrelevant to the species. It rolls on without them. People have enough children to replenish the herd and, whatever reasons they cite, nature is indifferent to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:
What Jade said.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
To be totally honest, and I'm aware that this sounds rather harsh, people who don't have children are irrelevant to the species. It rolls on without them. People have enough children to replenish the herd and, whatever reasons they cite, nature is indifferent to them.

---

And this is why I could never be a biological determinist. It's one thing to deny basic biology, quite another to believe that's all we exist for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Human beings do more than reproduce. There are countless examples of people who have had a huge impact on the species across history who didn't reproduce. So if all that matters are the number of naked apes on the rock, then yes, non-breeders are irrelevant. But that's not all that matters, even outside the context of religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Reading back over this thread makes me worry that I look like I'm trolling, which I'm genuinely not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
This is all rather thin retrospective justification. We exist so that we can reproduce and pass on our DNA. That is the whole point of the human species - to breed and die off so that we're not competing for resources with the people we bred.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
The best people for advice tend to be the people closest to the original mindset through which people are battling. At 40, I believe I'm too old, so anyone older than that might, in general, thought to be even less in touch with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
To be honest DTO, i am really unimpressed by your argument. You seem to think nobody has a memory. I can't feel the feelings I felt twenty years ago, but I can remember feeling them and I can remeber how I dealt with them and how that turned out for me. So as far as I am concerned I am in a great position to advise somebody experiencing similar feelins now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, 'we exist, so ...' is surely impermissible for any atheist. Evolution has no direction. There is no reason why we exist, if you are an atheist. Is just is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, 'we exist, so ...' is surely impermissible for any atheist. Evolution has no direction. There is no reason why we exist, if you are an atheist. Is just is.

---

(Tentatively...) This is what I was trying to say. The whole idea of a "reason" for a species to exist is teleological. If you are a theist, reproduction is not the reason. If you are an atheist, there is no reason.

Also it is a moving of the goalposts. As has already been established, there's more to being relevant to the species than having offspring, because there's more to the species than reproduction, even on a non-theistic reading. Bringing in the "point" of the species is an attempt to shift the argument onto other grounds, but as those grounds completely undermine the Otter's point, it didn't work.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
No, nature doesn't care. It's indifferent.

I find it bizarre that anyone, Christian or atheist, expects it would.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Sorry, the term 'indifferent' seems to be causing problems.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alisdair:
DouglasTheOtter -- doesn't your argument rather confuse functionality with meaning, e.g. a sonnet is required to have fourteen lines in iambic pentameter with the rhyme scheme: a-b-a-b, c-d-c-d, e-f-e-f, g-g. That describes the functionality/structure of a 'sonnet' as a particular kind of poetic device, BUT tells us nothing at all about the content, its purpose, or meaning.

Likewise, given the space time constraints of this existence, successful reproduction is a basic functional requirement for any living thing, but that doesn't necessarily tell us anything at all, or very little, about the actual purpose or meaning of that creature's existence.

Rather like Eustace in 'The Voyage of the Dawn Treader' declaring that he knows exactly what a star is---a huge ball of flaming gas---only to be reminded that he has merely offered an description of what a star is made of, not an explanation of what a star actually is. All depends on one's point of view of course.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
My position is that we exist by accident because conditions were favourable to us doing so. Had they not, we'd have gone the way of dinosaurs and lumbered off into the twilight of evolutionary history. As it is, we've flourished, but the fact we have opposable thumbs, wear suits and eat Pot Noodle shouldn't blind us to the fact that we are still animals, underneath the thin veneer of civilisation and there is one law all animals must observe if their species is to survive - reproduce. And there really isn't much else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Reduced to its barest essentials, that account of it is accurate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
My position is that we exist by accident because conditions were favourable to us doing so. Had they not, we'd have gone the way of dinosaurs and lumbered off into the twilight of evolutionary history. As it is, we've flourished, but the fact we have opposable thumbs, wear suits and eat Pot Noodle shouldn't blind us to the fact that we are still animals, underneath the thin veneer of civilisation and there is one law all animals must observe if their species is to survive - reproduce. And there really isn't much else.

---

There isn't much else, if all you care about is survival. But we humans have evolved the ability to care about more than survival. You are treating human wants, desires, values, as if they don't exist. YOU are making a value judgment that all that matters is the survival of the species. NATURE doesn't make that value judgement. YOU do. Nature doesn't impose reductionism. Reductionist humans do. But not all humans are reductionists. Nobody put you in charge of deciding what is important for the species. Good thing, too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Reduced to its barest essentials, that account of it is accurate.

---

But why should it be reduced to its barest essentials? Again there is a value judgment going on here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Human wants and desires are the gilding on the piece of sculpture, Scraped away, there's still the same reality underneath.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Human wants and desires are the gilding on the piece of sculpture, Scraped away, there's still the same reality underneath.

---

So fucking what? WHY SHOULD THEY BE SCRAPED AWAY?

You're saying the same thing over and over again, but not giving any justification for your reductionism.

---

quote:

---

DouglasTheOtter: So that we know what really lies underneath.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

DouglasTheOtter: So that we know what really lies underneath.

---

In my case: raw aggression, perverse desires, a pit of unspeakable thoughts.

Do you mean those?

---

quote:

---

DouglasTheOtter: Yup. That's the animal. And he's within everyone, somewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
So that we know what really lies underneath.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:

---

DouglasTheOtter: Yup. That's the animal. And he's within everyone, somewhere.

---

(I wasn't completely serious when I posted that.)

---

quote:

---

DouglasTheOtter: I know, but the urge to have sex is the animal within you.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Most affecting DTO, most affecting. Real. Explains everything. God bless you mate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Most affecting DTO, most affecting. Real. Explains everything. God bless you mate.

---

Teensy bit patronising, maybe?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:
Because teenagerdom is a time when hormones start to kick in and your body undergoes powerful physiological changes that turn you from a child into an adult. It'd be impossible to recapture the intensity of this time, if only from a biochemical point of view.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by anoesis:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DouglasTheOtter:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Most affecting DTO, most affecting. Real. Explains everything. God bless you mate.

---

Teensy bit patronising, maybe?

---

If you want my take on that, ...probably not. Though, as always with Martin, hard to tell for sure.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:

FWIW, and in response to a point above, I am a father of daughters and haven't noticed my moral views on sex becoming more conservative. My hope is that once they are adults they will have enjoyable and responsible sex lives. Whether that is within marriage is something that I regard much more of a mere detail than I used to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by angelfish:
Douglas, might I venture to suggest that if this really is your view of sex you (a) are definitely not qualified to advise lust-riddled teens, whatever your age; and (b) for your own sake, you need to start having better sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


As I also suggested above, I think one's sociological context also makes a difference. A middle class British family are probably going to be far less worried about their well-educated daughters becoming teenage mothers than a less privileged parent who knows that unwholesome peer-pressure and an insalubrious local setting might easily derail their children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Cod

But the fact that you didn't bring this up earlier suggests that you don't even think it's likely to happen to your family.

---

quote:

---

Other families in other communities don't have that luxury. They would have to work a lot harder, I suspect, to prevent this from happening to their children.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Svitlana - 'If you can get your children into a good school and keep them away from undesirable peer pressure until they pass their exams then you won't have to worry about teen pregnancy.'

It's just not true, and how horrifically classist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jade Constable:
Svitlana - 'If you can get your children into a good school and keep them away from undesirable peer pressure until they pass their exams then you won't have to worry about teen pregnancy.'

It's just not true, and how horrifically classist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Studies show that children from particular social and ethnic groups living in particular areas are more likely to become teenage mothers. So, parents who know that they fit into these categories need to pay extra care if they want to avoid that fate for their children. This is hardly classist - it's acknowledging that some parents have a greater challenge than others if they want their children to be successful in life. I'm not sure why it's wrong to say so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

I come from an ethnic group that's been particularly affected by this issue. Were I raising a child today I'd take the matter extremely seriously, regardless of what other parents did or felt. When middle class girls from the indigenous community fall pregnant their parents' money and status can shield them from some of the negative aspects of that experience. Whether I could do the same is another matter.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0