What is the Christian stance on sex before marriage? (anyone in favour?) What does the Bible have to say?
Any info on Christian perspectives/ interpretations appreciated
Sex is a wonderful thing. It is a truly great shame the way in which it is denegrated, seemingly more so in this day and age than any other. Whist much of the direction of this thread may well go down the "terrible sins of promiscuity" road i would like to just add a word of caution in regard to the "the only place for sex is in marriage" faction.
If we take as a given that promiscuity is not a good thing, it being extreme and damaging, we also need to consider other practices that are alos extreme and damaging. to this list i would add the idea of sex in marriage only. I do so firstly because it never works. in all the societies that have tried this people are still adulterous or have sex before marriage.
Secondly it seems to me to be always the women who suffer the wrath of an indigant society (usually patriachal).
thirdly many marriages suffer from sexual dysfunction, many couples stay together whilst being very unhappy and unfulfilled because of the pressures to do so.
fourthly in times gone by the rate of re-marriage ( NOT divorece) was just as great then as it was today due to gretaer mortality rates among both men and women.
lastly, as i have said already what we need is a pragmatic and sensible appproach, the sex only on marriage faction has no evidence to suggest that what they espouse works or is less damaging than some other approaches.
I am in favour of teaching about respect for ones self and ones partners, about the sanctity (and this does not preclude fun) of sex, and eventual marriage and monogamy. But it worries me because the "moral majority" are often given to talking consevative nonsense which is pie in the sky, un-practicle and has hidden agendas.
Pyx_e
However I would hope that Christians will continue to uphold the primary importance of monogamous and lifelong faithfulness within a relationship. In this, formal "marriage" does have an important role in our less-than-perfect human race, by providing a definable framework within which such faithfulness can be practised on a level which can be seen and acknowledged. Remember, for Christians, the loving relationship which "marriage" signifies is to be seen, as Paul points out, as reflecting the relationship of loving fidelity which God has established between Christ and His Church (ie., us) To paraphrase Paul's words without, I hope, distorting their true meaning: "We love and are faithful (in "marriage") because God in Christ first loved and continues to be faithful to us."
Having said that, I revert to my earlier statement, that what we traditionally call "marriage" is by no means the be-all and end-all of God's dealings in human experience. If faithful love is a hallmark of God's people, reflecting the nature of God Himself, then so is forgiveness, redemption and the opportunity of the second chance. That, sadly, has been largely conspicuous by its absence in the history of Christian attitudes to sex and sexual relations.
quote:
Originally posted by Elijah on Horeb:
If faithful love is a hallmark of God's people, reflecting the nature of God Himself, then so is forgiveness, redemption and the opportunity of the second chance. That, sadly, has been largely conspicuous by its absence in the history of Christian attitudes to sex and sexual relations.
Well said, Elijah. That is the source of a lot of bitterness among people with a so-called Christian background. I say "so-called" because true Christians know how to love and to forgive.
That said, I think we need to acknowledge that pre-marital sexual relations are a source of emotional pain in our culture. I don't believe that this is due simply to artificial guilt feelings imposed by an insensitive society.
I believe that once a couple is involved sexually their relationship changes dramatically, and the less permanent the relationship the worse the experience will be. Even if the relationship is permanent for several years, the break-up will surely be one of the most traumatic events of the person's life. The less permanent the relationship, and the more frequently it is repeated, the cheaper you feel. It's just not fun in the long run.
Everyone understands that people do foolish things when they are young, and they need not have permanent ill effects. Nevertheless, the fewer these experiences are, and the more permanent the eventual relationship, the happier will be the final experience. That is what I observe, anyway, and I think this is the clear message of the Bible.
Permanent, loving, stable, monogamous marriage correlates strongly with good health, long life, financial well-being, happiness, and just about every other measurement of well-being. I would think that any individual interested in having a happy life would want to look into this.
The Christian ideal has always been virginity until marriage and fidelity after marriage. This does not guarantee happiness, nor does falling short necessarily ruin it. Still, this is, I think, the path that is most likely to lead to the fewest tears and the greatest number of smiles.
Marriage is an instituiton which suffers not only outside teh church but inside. It is about time the church woke up and dealt with this.
The teaching we got was leave, cleave and belong ( Genesis and 2 Cor ).
Pretty straight forward... hmm maybe!!
I still believe marriage is God's best for 2 people who want to commit to each other etc.
However if we mess up then that is ok with God as lets face it the Bible is full of people who did mess up and yet God used them.
It isn't the end of the world if we fall short.
I am not sure if this is helpful but I have a phrase "God honours those who honour him".
My advise is this if you are with someone and sex is an issue talk about it and find someone you can talk to other than your partner.
For me the issue was that sex is a taboo subject in church and it shouldn't be and if couples can't talk about this or have the subject covered in "marriage prep" it will make the relationship so much harder.
Sorry for the lecture!!
Before the 14th century (in England) type 1 existed but the only type 2 was what we know now as a common-law marriage.
As I understand things got comfused as regrds inhertiance etc. so the church was asked to keep a register of marriages which eventually became a legal document.
In some continental European countries citizens still pay a church tax which is amoung other things a payment to the church for performing the civil duty of keeping records of marriages.
These days a lot of people who do not get married still go in for a legal document.
Esppecially if they own their house together they may have what I have heard called a "Mortgage Marriage", like they are legally joined together to pay this mortgage until it is all payed off or deathe does them part.
So where is this ramble going well taking marraige type 1 "before God". He has designed us to have one partner to share everything with, including sexual pleasure and the shared upbringing of children as a result of sex. So really the "best" way is to wait until you find your life partner and then stay with him/her. However we have a God of Grace and he knows that we fall short of the ideal.
As far as the second type of marraige is concerned, well when is "before marriage"?
I think God can see into the heart and truth of a relationship - particularly thinking about the question of 'when does marriage begin' concerning common law marriages and committed reltionships in general. The difficulty is to know whether he is/would be happy with sex in a relationship just because we would be! I think it's really important to talk to or pray with others about this if possible, just for some distance.
The other thing I would add is that there seems to me to be no recognition of the emotional suffering that is felt by people sincerely trying to stick to the 'no sex before marriage' rule - when you are really deeply committed and involved in every other way this leaves a huge emotional gap in the relationship. People need to be supported through this, but this is hardly ever acknowledged.
But then again, maybe its just supposed to be easy with God's help, and I'm simply not spiritual enough...
I think you are right about the "suffering" couples go through.
However this is just one of many things that our emmotions run riot in our lives where we live to how we feel and that isn't what God wants from us.
Sometimes we have to say no to how we feel in order to honour God and at times this is extremely hard.
When I got engaged I didn't realise how much harder it was being engaged and still trying to honour God.
Lets not make any excuses as when everything around us is using sex in one way or another and as Christians we are constantly going against the flow it will never be easy.
I suppose the question it comes down to for me is, in what way is waiting for marriage honouring God? I mean that in the strict sense of sex in a long term committed relationship - and in fact for myself "long term" would have to mean a lifelong commitment, rather than a "for the foreseeable future" commitment. Is that different from civil/legal marriage with a certificate? If so, how does it dishonour God?
I can see the argument for an official, public marriage as a kind of safety net for the conscience - ie, if you're not sure just don't do it and go for the safest option - but then I don't think I would have even become a Christian if I took that approach to life.
This really is the crux of the issue for me I think. How to know what God wants us to do is the other thing - but then that's hardly limited to this particular topic.
quote:
I have come to the conclusion that marriage is a very overrated concept nowadays, it basically appears very fake to me.
Well, it can be if it is approached that way. The marriage is what you make of it. My own marriage is good and very real (knock on wood), and we take the marriage (as a separate unit from the two of us as individuals) very seriously.
The mistake is to think that marriage will confer seriousness or real-ness where there is none.
My own thoughts.
I come from a home where my parents divorced when I was 7. It was bitter. Most of my friends had parents who were divorced. And yet, I hope one day soon, that I will be married to someone I love very much.
But it's made me think carefully about what is real, and what isn't. And what are my expectations of marriage. I always said that I would never sleep with someone, unless I was prepared to walk down that aisle with them, because in having sex with them, you have made a commitment between you, them and God. And it made me think what the sacrifices are that are involved, and what I wanted from someone.
I didn't jump into bed with anyone thinking "this is the man I'll marry", but neither did I do it without reference to God.
Jesus' words were a gentle rebuke to those of us who get holier than thou on the subject. "If you look at a woman lustfully, you have committed adultery in your heart" - not to be taken at face value, but as a non too gentle reminder that, unless we have God in our hearts, we can't possibly be holy, because as humans we are imperfect.
So often we wind up rushing into things though. Not that it can't work out right in the end, but it makes it far harder. And sometimes God has this amazing way of stepping in, and sorting it out in the way you least expect it. (to those of you who've chatted to me recently, this last bit will make sense, otherwise it makes absolutely none )
There is a lot to be said for waiting. But at the same time, there are also people who just want "legitimized" sex, although they veil it as something else.
At the end of the day, marriage is a promise to yourself, to your community, and to God, as much as to someone else. When you go up and say your vows it's saying "I can't do this on my own, but with your help, I can."
Sex before marriage is, in a way, oxymoronic. Because in some sense, sexual intercourse is a form of marriage. It is the deepest intimacy. Just as those who go to church multiple times to get married can wind up cheapening the whole thing, so can sleeping around cheapen the person doing it, both male and female.
So what I'm saying is, sex should be precious, but it shouldn't be plonked in a glass case with "in case of marriage, break here" on it.
Love
Angel
quote:Forgive my cynicism here, but you've obviously not spent any time in Germany.
Originally posted by Astro:
In some continental European countries citizens still pay a church tax which is amoung other things a payment to the church for performing the civil duty of keeping records of marriages.
You pay a church tax to either the Lutheran Church, the Catholic Church or the Jewish... er, Synagogue? Or you can elect to pay no Church Tax at all.
However, this has nothing to do with performing marriages and everything to do with how the Churches get their money from the State. In fact, in Germany, if you want to have a church marriage ceremony, you have to get married twice: once in church, and again at the registry office. And the registry office charges an absolute fortune for the service.
Often people have the two marriage ceremonies days or even weeks apart. Of course, if you adamantly do not believe in sex before marriage, this raises the vexing question of when, in fact, you are actually married: after the Church ceremony, after the civic ceremony, or not until you've had both?
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
The mistake is to think that marriage will confer seriousness or real-ness where there is none.
Well said Laura.
I think that many people (both Christians and non-Christians) approach marriage as a magic wand that will fill their lives with happiness, light and flowers with little or no effort on their part. When they find that, surprise surprise, this is not necessarily the case that is when the "perfect relationship" starts to come apart.
In this, as with many other things the media has a lot to answer for. "I must look like this, I must dress like this, I must own this, I must have a marriage like this, I must have a relationship like this."
Not only the media, but our frends, our experiences, they all give us examples of what can happen, what might happen. But just because something has happened to someone else, doesn't mean that it will inevitably happen to you.
The Truth issues from one place and one place only.
hang in there Trixibelle.
I had the good fortune to not only be born into a home where my parents had a strong commitment to and love for one another, but into an extended family where this was true of nearly ever married couple. I saw how that commitment saw people through "for better or for worse..." For me, a physical act that proclaims that a couple are "one" is inappropriate, in fact a lie, if one is not ready to take on the other 95% of what is involved in the responsibilities of marriage.
This does not mean that I think God is unforgiving of any sin, nor that I find it appropriate for us to condemn others. Yet I believe that having seen witness to commitment in marriage, and having an honour for that blessed state, will be more likely to keep people from pre-marital (or extra-marital) relations than any threat of being ostracised.
I must admit that, in my extensive parish experience, it has troubled me that some vicars seem to think the commandment prohibiting sexual sin has been revoked. It seems to me they so fear offending anyone that this is the single commandment that can never be mentioned. I would have great respect for a vicar who openly (in private - I'm not referring to condeming a couple from the pulpit) counselled a couple that concubinage or fornication was wrong. Of course, and I say this with regret, I would imagine that most vicars today find that nearly everyone coming to plan a marriage has already been living together.
Anyway, I was struck by how much the wedding itself had receded in my mind into irrelevance. It was a nice day, with great music, and was, of course, important as a beginning. But the point is so much the marriage and not the wedding. And it's so hard to explain this to people. It's as if you re-commit regularly -- every time you get over a difficulty, you rededicate yourself to the marriage. And if that makes it sound too much like work, yet it's such enjoyable work that its difficulty makes it worthwhile.
Not very clear, I know. Maybe someone else will get what I'm trying to say badly.
But to the matter at hand, to which my musings are a tangent, sex is an entirely different thing from marriage, imho. It, like any intimate, risky activity, (like close harmony singing) deserves due deliberation before undertaking. And people should go at their comfort level -- if you don't want it before marriage, then don't do it before marriage. But though sex really enriches the marriage bond, I do think of it as a different matter entirely.
Just my $.02
quote:
Originally posted by Jo:
The other thing I would add is that there seems to me to be no recognition of the emotional suffering that is felt by people sincerely trying to stick to the 'no sex before marriage'
I think the reason is that this is a suffering that is familiar to a lot of people, and they recognize that it is really no suffering at all by comparison to the alternatives.
One thing that young people, in my experience, simply do not realize, is how exquisitely painful real pain is.
The pain of being repeatedly unable to maintain a stable relationship, of being left behind, of unending quarrels, of growing old with no security, of addiction, of mental illness, of loneliness and isolation.
These things are suffering. You want to try to avoid these things. One way is to do things that are consistent with long term stable and loving relationships, and avoid things that are not.
The sweet desire felt in an as-yet unconsumated relationship is not suffering. It is something that most people would give their eyeteeth for. 
"Two people may be formally married and fail to live a life which can seriously be regarded as marriage. And it may happen that two people are not married and yet, in their precarious way live under the law of marriage."
Stated rather conservatively, as he was writing 70 years ago, but still a good point, I think.
Also interesting to note that the Bible seems to have no interest whatsoever in wedding ceremonies or legal marriage. What it does seem to have is a downer on casual sex and a concern that a sexual relationship should be considered a lifelong commitment.
(PS I understood you too, ltg. Very true.)
First, I believe that society in general, and the Church in particular, tends to place too much importance on sex.
In society at large, there seems to be a general attitude that sex is the only valid expression of a loving relationship; sexual crimes are generally regarded as the worst sort; and one's sex life seems to be regarded as the chief indicator of happiness (or otherwise).
In the Church, there seems likewise to be an overemphasis on sexual morality above other morality. The issue of homosexuality is a particularly strong example, but sex before marriage, and what the Church preaches about it, is another. I get the impression that most church people would be happy to accept and help rehabilitate people who have lapsed in other ways, but seldom offer such help to those who have lapsed sexually.
This generates unnecessary problems - I am sure that many people are put off the Church because they see it as preaching outdated morality.
Well, so much for the Church. Let's move on to the next main source of doctrine for Christians - the Bible.
I'm not going to look up the verse, but somewhere in (?) the synoptic Gospels it says that Christians shouldn't swear oaths, but we should let our Yes be Yes and our No be No. My interpretation of this is that we shouldn't need to take an oath - our word should be absolutely reliable without it. I will be the first to admit that I don't live up to that, and therefore I will not (as some Christian friends do) refuse to take the Oath in court, for example.
But a more literal interpretation of this verse suggests that in a Christian context, there should be no need to exchange marriage vows; indeed, those whom I generally describe as "informally married" are arguably closer to the Christian ideal than those who have a Church wedding!
Next has to come the third source of doctrine: reason. Here is my line of reasoning, anyway.
The theme I see running through the whole New Testament (and spreading out into the OT as well) is that Christianity is about principles, not rules, and about attitudes more than actions.
On the subject of sex, the verse already quoted about looking at a woman lustfully, can be interpreted in terms of attitude: It is not being promiscuous that is important, so much as one's attitude to sex. Ogling the women is evidence of the wrong attitude to women and sex, and is therefore just as sinful as adultery, which puts into practice that wrong attitude.
On the subject of marriage, I shan't quote a verse, but I think that the general message from Scripture is that marriage is about commitment, not sex. Yes, sex is part of it, but that is not what marriage is about.
There is plenty of evidence to say that the biggest step change in an evolving relationship between two people is when it becomes a sexual relationship. The Christian message is that this should only be undertaken with commitment; and our love of turning principles into rules has put in the requirement of marriage as formal evidence of commitment.
My own view is that the Church is still putting too much importance on sex, and a bit more give and take would be a very good thing. I do not consider the issue so important that I will defy the Church's teaching; but this is a decision we must each make for ourselves.
Finally, I hope you will forgive a slightly personal comment. I think Freddy's rant in response to Jo's comment was uncalled-for.
Jo mentioned the suffering of people who are honestly trying to live up to the Christian ideal. Freddy interpreted this as
quote:
The sweet desire felt in an as-yet unconsumated relationship is not suffering. It is something that most people would give their eyeteeth for.
He also cited "alternatives":
quote:
The pain of being repeatedly unable to maintain a stable relationship, of being left behind, of unending quarrels, of growing old with no security, of addiction, of mental illness, of loneliness and isolation.
Well, I am no conoisseur of broken marriages, but I'm pretty sure most of these happen in marriage, too. Addiction and mental illness? I don't really see the connection. They certainly happen as a result of broken relationships, but they happen for lots of other reasons too.
Loneliness, on the other hand, seems to be the lot of many people (myself included) who are sincerely trying to stick to 'no sex before marriage', and who find themselves unable to enter into the culture of casual relationships with the built-in anticipation of sex.
I am not saying that the rule should be relaxed, but I agree with Jo that those of us who choose to keep it do suffer, and not just for the dubious reason that Freddy understandably disagrees with; and this should be recognised by those who preach sexual morality so heavily in our churches.
Philip.
First, my reason for trying to live like this is that I believe that the ideal for Christians is for sex to be within the context of a lifelong committed relationship. This seems to be assumed in the bible rather than explicitly stated. Women, prior to marriage, are several times described as virgins for example.
I'm not sure whether the current convention of how weddings are done is entirely meaningful, but they do provide a space to say to one another, before God, that the couple intends to remain together. Letting one's yes be yes, means sticking to that statement, I guess. The fancy words don't mean much. The reason then, that I'm trying to stick to a no-sex outside marriage rule - despite being engaged to a lovely man, who I fully expect to marry in less than a year - is that I don't want to fall short of God's standards for what is best, if I can avoid it.
Having said that - it isn't easy. And it's not a "sweet longing" - it's a cause of tears, stress and occaisional arguments.
Lastly, I would like to second everything that has been said about the church putting too much emphasis on this. In a church with a lot of students it comes up time after time in sermons etc. As someone struggling to keep within what I see as God's way of doing things, I always feel obscurely guilty and slightly dirty when I hear thius being preached on at any great length. I rather feel as if my struggles are being condemned. There are so many other things that should set Christians apart. However, in our society, this is seen as one of the obvious differences - and is therefore blown out of all proportion.
I hate to think what visitors to churches must think when they hear the preacher going on and on about sex outside marriage. I recall one particularly hellish example..... but that may not be appropriate to purgatory. I don't want to get this interesting thread consigned to hell.
All the best,
Rachel.
quote:
First, I believe that society in general, and the Church in particular, tends to place too much importance on sex.
Amen to that, Brother Philip! (hope I quoted you accurately - I was working from memory!)
I have been saying for some time, sex (=physical copulation and the activities associated with before and after - foreplay, etc) is a very much over-rated commodity.
Society in general, lacking, or rather rejecting any spiritual guidepost for the meaning of life, has seized on "sex" (definition above) and its gratification as the be-all and end-all of life, the hallmark of happiness, the signal of success. "I bonk, therefore I am" (was going to put another four-letter word there, but thought I'd beter not in a serious debate in Purgatory!) Therefore it ultimately doesn't matter how when, where and with whom or what your have it, so long as you are
are having it. (That of course is "the bottom of the pit", so to speak - I know not everybody goes as far as that, but you get my drift?)
On the other hand, the Church has always tended to regarded sex as "sin" - some seem to think, the only sin, and therefore to either be avoided all together or be used with deep regret for the necessity, for procreation purposes only, if possible without any enjoyment or pleasure! (OK!OK!,I know, that's another overexaggeration to make a point! Bad habit of mine!) One therefore end with some interesting contradictions, such as (no offence intended to my Roman Catholic friends) the simultaneous veneration of celibacy and of motherhood. It's good to have children, but not engage in conceiving them!?
When will Christians realize that sex is God's gift to humanity, for procreation certainly, and for enhancement of joy and love in a committed relationship. But like all gifts it comes with directions for proper use, and if we ignore them we cannot complain if we get into trouble.
[UBB fixed]
[ 01 November 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
I got married just over a year ago, and from past experience and the present I think the best place for sex is in marriage.
The vicar who married us (a good friend of my wifes) said the only reason you get a certificate is so you can break it. Which is true. The Bible has no marriage ceromony to follow, just he took her to his tent and loved her and made her his wife. But I think that the vows we made were significant. They acted to my un-churched mates as a way of showing what the values in our relationship are. Hopefully one day they will be all the stuff that St Paul says love should be. But in the mean time I geuss there is forgiveness.
Sex does form a lasting bond, and it takes the blood of Christ and sometimes a bit of councilling to bring freedom, why form that bond with somebody when there isnt a life long commitment? The Bible sort of shows that sex is the marriage (not to say an intimate relationship in which there is little or no sex for any reason is inferior) so why marry more than one person when the bible isnt too keen on that, even though a lot of OT people were into polyigamy big time.
Sorry that these thoughts are not too coherent.
Simon
Sex is a very complex energy in our lives as humans. Can it be mis-used? Most definitely. Can it only be used for good by remaining a virgin until you are married? Many churches teach this, but I disagree.
One of the things that bothers me about the emphasis on "saving it for marriage" is that it creates an all or nothing atmosphere where if you once cross some invisible line (and it can be *any* line, not just virginity), you are a failure and you might as well just go along with anything. On the other hand, you can hold out, but this can lead to an increasing feeling that you *have* to get married because that is the only outlet for this sexual energy, and you end up marrying young and foolish.
While I'm not proud of my promiscuous single years in some ways, I also learned a lot. And the core of what I learned is that sex is just a physical manifestation of our feelings toward a fellow human being. I have had the tawdry one-night-stands and cheap affairs that are preached from the pulpit as a way of striking fear of sex into the horny young people. But I have also had so-called casual sex which *didn't* resonate with ill-will and ugly feelings.
One incident in particular has always stayed with me. It was a single act of sex while I was on a ski vacation with a group of people, a few of whom I knew, and we were sleeping in co-ed dorm rooms, and this fellow was in the bunk above mine. There was no flirtation going on, but one night we had sex. As I look back at it, it seems like what the pagan sexual ritual of joining mother earth with the stag king must have been. It wasn't passionate sex, it wasn't deep personal relationship sex, but it felt so right that it resonates with me to this day. I did not know him, but I loved him at that moment and I still love him. Some time later, from this same connection of people I hardly knew, I got an off-hand remark that "X has been dealing with something personal and that night meant a lot to him".
As I have become more steeped in Christianity, I also think of this as the action of the Holy Spirit "...when I was hungry, you fed me..." I realize the scriptures don't mention sex, but I genuinely believe that the love of Christ manifested itself through me to that man on that night.
On the other hand, I have lots more tales of the losers and users and my own problems.
I think the more important point is the idea of sex within marriage, once one is adult enough to enter into a meaningful marriage. While I understand only too well human failings, and indulged them while I was single, I took my marriage vows with utmost seriousness. They are for monogamy until death.
Another point that hasn't been discussed is marriage at the union of two people and as a way of sanctifying sex, and marriage as creating a supportive environment for nurturing children. Margaret Mead, many years ago, proposed a civil system of marriage which would allow a simple, easily-dissolved marriage which allowed sex, but did not involve children, along with another more binding commitment which would be entered into when a couple wished to raise a family. I think this is an important distinction (except of course for those Christians who don't believe in birth control).
"...the idea of sex within marriage is a sacred thing, once one is adult..."
Sometimes I get caught up mulling over an idea and forget to finish my sentences.
There ought to be a thread in Hell for that sort of mishap. Sorry for not posting before; I have been too busy to log on for any time these last few days.
I agree with those who tell Trixibelle to hang in there. (BTW Trix, glad to see you are back in good health.) But please don't knock marriage. I am never sure about "marriage as an institution." It is more of a Creation Ordnance, part of God's creation, and part of our nature. Saying "I don't believe in marriage," strikes me as daft as saying, "I don't believe in sunsets/Ben Nevis/lions," or some other part of Creation.
Of course marriages break down. We are all part of a fallen world, which is subject to futility (Romans 8:20ff), and we are all imperfect. We can all find it difficult to communicate, difficult to understand each other (particularly the opposite sex), we cannot cope with arguments, and (if you read books like Why men don't listen and women can't read maps by Pease and Pease), we now find it harder to identify separate roles for husband and wife.
Also people tend to go at marriage with a defeated (as well as defeatist attitude), believing that a lifelong commitment will never work anyway. In which case it is hardly surprising the divorce rate has increased so.
It is possible however. I can claim 4 years' more marriage than anybody else on this thread has claimed; Ruth and I have had misunderstandings and arguments in our time. Somebody recently was very surprised that we have sstuck it out for 21 years.
I take people's points about "what is marriage?" If two people live in the same house, drive the same car, eat from the same saucepan, pay the same phone/gas/electricity/mortgage bill, this used to be called "common law marriage." I agree about that, as did our previous vicar, Ian (who has since died) who pointed out that many couples who had never married* showed just as much commitment as those who had.
I shall continue the post shortly.
CR
*In parts of this town, there are many people on benefits, who would lose a large proportion of theis income if they were legally married. If the Government tax mulct or fine people for marrying, it's hardly surprising, is it? 
The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity." Angel says the same thing implying that sex and marriage are one and the same thing*.
I am not sure about the eternity bit; I am quite sure Jesus' death will enable Him to break and obliterate any bad relationships, and to enable us to forget, when we stand before Him in His Kingdom. but we have to deal with life on earth. I am probably nearer my grave than my cradle, but most people posting on this thread are much younger. It is difficult for us to share our experience with you youngsters. I certainly could never share publicly an experience like jlg's (that is what comes from logging on with my real name), but I think jlg shows that Lewis was right, saying there remains a bond of love with that man so many years later. That is the real problem with sex before marriage.
I know why Ruth and I were engaged for over a year; we weren't in the same town. We weren't even in the same country some of the time. But why does it take so long to get married nowadays? I know somebody who can't arrange a wedding in the Church** where she comes from until next Summer and is at present in the later stages of pregnancy.
Why has this fashion grown up for long engagements? Why does the famous Rachel from Oxford have to wait so long to marry a "lovely man?" If a couple really intend to marry, and have known each other for a reasonable time, why not marry? Why all these delays?
CR
It's late. Good night. I shall look and see whether I have stirred anything, maybe tomorrow.
*Sorry about the awkward grammar. It's late and I have just had the tot of rum I voted Starbelly, and it's affected my language skills.
**Church?-it's the Church imposing the delays
quote:Yes, well, only someone who had spent most of his life in an all male environment studying medieval texts that idealise love and put women on a pedestal would say that sort of thing.
The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity."
quote:
Originally posted by Campbell Ritchie:
Yes, it's me again.The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity."
throughout eternity? i thought there was no marriage in heaven? c.f. Jesus' teaching about the woman with seven husbands
[UBB fixed]
[ 02 November 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Alan
Purgatory host
quote:
Why has this fashion grown up for long engagements? Why does the famous Rachel from Oxford have to wait so long to marry a "lovely man?" If a couple really intend to marry, and have known each other for a reasonable time, why not marry? Why all these delays?
Does that help?
CR
quote:
Originally posted by Campbell Ritchie:
Yes, it's me again.The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity." Angel says the same thing implying that sex and marriage are one and the same thing*.
I am not sure about the eternity bit; I am quite sure Jesus' death will enable Him to break and obliterate any bad relationships, and to enable us to forget, when we stand before Him in His Kingdom. but we have to deal with life on earth. I am probably nearer my grave than my cradle, but most people posting on this thread are much younger. It is difficult for us to share our experience with you youngsters. I certainly could never share publicly an experience like jlg's (that is what comes from logging on with my real name), but I think jlg shows that Lewis was right, saying there remains a bond of love with that man so many years later. That is the real problem with sex before marriage.I know why Ruth and I were engaged for over a year; we weren't in the same town. We weren't even in the same country some of the time. But why does it take so long to get married nowadays? I know somebody who can't arrange a wedding in the Church** where she comes from until next Summer and is at present in the later stages of pregnancy.
Why has this fashion grown up for long engagements? Why does the famous Rachel from Oxford have to wait so long to marry a "lovely man?" If a couple really intend to marry, and have known each other for a reasonable time, why not marry? Why all these delays?
The famous Rachel had to delay getting married for two reasons. The first was that the famous Rachel's mother went into nova when she heard the news of the famous Rachel's engagement, and took several months to calm down. After those several months had elapsed, the mother announced that she needed a minimum of 18 months to organise a wedding and see that "everything was done properly". The famous Rachel is trying hrad to honour her mother nad father, and would like to get married with their blessing.
Also, circumstances have meant that the famous Rachel's fiance has been living in London, while the famous Rachel is still in Oxford. The famous Rachel and the future Mr famous Rachel decided that they should be able to live in the same city before they got married.
With two careers to consider, this is often what life is like in the modern world.
Best wishes,
The famous Rachel
PS.... That was fun. Maybe I'll change my display name to the famous Rachel and continue to write in the thrid person for ever. Or maybe not.
I've been putting off hitting the scene until I'd worked out a Christian ethic for doing things, but it appears to be beyond the capacity of my little brain. Help!
NB a disclaimer right now: I am NOT initiating a discussion of the rights or wrongs of homosexual behaviour . I am asking that GIVEN THAT active homosexuality is as moral/immoral as active heterosexuality, how can it be conducted morally and in a Christian manner, given the different circumstances from those of hets? If you disagree with the premise, either treat it as a counterfactual exercise with no relelvance to the world, or simply don't post. For once I'd like to get beyond the 'but Leviticus says' 'no it doesn't' arguments.
Secondly there is no way to gainsay the fact that Jesus' teaching on the subject was fairly strict. It may be just another example of His requirements being too high for ur to live up to which is why we require His death on the cross for our redemption, but we should always be striving for the perfection He requires. I personally believe that the sixties were an abberation, because that was the first generation in the west where the young had money(it actualy started in the fifties in America)enough to feel independant of restrictive social norms, but our society is still paying the price today.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH:
We only need to look at the current generation of rootless youths who respect nothing and no-one to realise that they are the offspring of that sixties/eventies culture.
Assuming you mean people aged 21 and below, the current generation of rootless youths were born and brought up in the eighties, and are more a product of Thatcherism than free love. Whilst there are some mention of the effect of sexual sin on society in the OT, the is much more that rails against injustice and oppression of the weak, and the glorification of the self above the other.
A quick glance at the general registry office for Scotland shows that adultery is a minority reason for divorce and getting less, whereas the most common reasons are due to failure to live together, which would indicate that our society is being shaped more by selfishness and lack of community than by sex.
TME
all i can offer you are the hopes that i hold: i hope that as early as middle school, it will someday become acceptable for gay children to court respectably (hey, my daughter has had a couple of wretched emotional experiences in socially acceptable heterosexual situations (nonsexual, but still emotionally damaging), that the legitimate love you feel will be celebrated and rewarded with the dignity it deserves. we need all the examples of committed love we can get. for all i know, my daughters might be gay. i would hope they would have great role models to learn how to fashion a caring life. how could God ask for anything more?
quote:
Originally posted by blackbird:
I hope that as early as middle school, it will someday become acceptable for gay children to court respectably.
I would expect that gay children would be shooting for the same ideal that straight ones should be - no sexual experiences until marriage (or some equivalent thereto).
I know many young people who carry on heterosexual relationships for years without sex, usually leading to marriage. I don't know the percentage, but large numbers of people are virgins when they get married. I have known many people like this.
Is it not a reasonable expectation that the same would apply to homosexual relationships? That is, that both partners should be virgins when they enter a committed and hopefully life-long relationship?
quote:
Originally posted by Campbell Ritchie:
....The real problem about sex before marriage comes from something C S Lewis said (and I can't remember where), that it creates "a transcendental relationship to be enjoyed or endured throughout eternity." Angel says the same thing implying that sex and marriage are one and the same thing*.
....I am probably nearer my grave than my cradle, but most people posting on this thread are much younger. It is difficult for us to share our experience with you youngsters. I certainly could never share publicly an experience like jlg's (that is what comes from logging on with my real name), but I think jlg shows that Lewis was right, saying there remains a bond of love with that man so many years later. That is the real problem with sex before marriage.
Well, yes, I have some "...bonds for all eternity..." with that man, but also with other men (with or without a sexual history), and also with women (no sexual histories there at all, although at one point for a short while I was open to the idea). I guess I didn't finish making my point, which is that it isn't as simple as whether a relationship includes sexual activity or not, and whether that sexual activity takes place inside or outside of marriage, or even whether it is heterosexual or homosexual sex and/or relationship. There can be relationships which look superficially "toxic" (one-night stand, etc.) which actually are good. There can also be relationships which are superficially "good" (a totally mis-matched early marriage based on nothing but lust and guilt) which turn out to be toxic. And everything else in between and on both sides of these examples. And I decided to expose my personal life because while I don't recommend it as a role model, it taught me a lot. And one of the biggest lessons was the difference between genuine caring and respect and those people who use fake caring and respect to cover up their need to use others. And there is no way to distill this lesson down to something as simple as "all sex before marriage is bad".
quote:
I know why Ruth and I were engaged for over a year; we weren't in the same town. We weren't even in the same country some of the time. But why does it take so long to get married nowadays?....
Karl and I were living roughly 200 miles apart when we decided to get married. Once we decided, we were married about 9 weeks later, in church (Unitarian-Universalist, his), with the immediate families (and a few aunts, uncles, and cousins, too). We both returned to our respective jobs the following Monday and continued our commuting for another eleven months, by which time we had bought a house in a third location (close to his), I was five months pregnant, had quit work and sold my house.
I admit this was a bit extreme, but I guess the point I'm trying to make (which was made earlier) is that the WEDDING shouldn't be confused with the Marriage Ceremony. And to return to the OP, neither should sex.
You like big, elaborate parties? Great! Throw one. (Assuming you have the time and money.)
You like going to luxurious vacations? Wonderful! Take one. (Assuming you have the time and money.)
You're madly in love with the sexiest person you have ever known and want to get married but can't because you don't have the time and the money? Ummm/Erm....perhaps someone needs to do a little soul-searching?
Ummm/erm.... I seem to lapsed into preaching. There's a trap out there for every one of us!
[UBB fixed]
[ 04 November 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
I had some further thoughts on the way to church this morning... basically, what's repelled me about what I've seen of the scene (admittedly from secondary sources - magazines & internet primarily) is what I hated about the het scene when I was younger: the idea that you pull or are pulled, then jump into bed and use that to try and see if you like someone. The process that may lead to love is seen as coming after sex. The mere idea of doing this makes me want to run a mile, it's all inside out. From thence, cometh my idea for a working ethic: where there is love and emotional intimacy, there is the place for sex. Love first, then sex.
I always have thought that the 'no sex b4 marriage' thing was oversimplified (this is IMHO, I'm not denigrating those who try and live by it). I didn't abide by it in my dealings with men. However it feels more urgent now to sort out an alternative ethic because I now understand and have felt the incredible power of sexual emotions, and realise just how easy it is to hurt someone through them.
Am I oversimplifying things, saying sex where there is real, deep, spiritual love?
. IN our discussions, the question of sex before marriage often crops up. I don't think there is more today than in the past, I just think it's less taboo. My problem with pre-marital sex and the Church is the stigma of guilt they associate with it, along with every other sin. If you are not married and have sex then you will go straight to hell. GUILT GUILT GUILT!!! This is extremely prevalent in young Christians today. The Church is turning people away because of it's medieval approach to contempory society.jlg, I am sure many of us (and I won't say whether that includes me or not) Christians have similar memories. I was using your post as an example, because you actually have the "bottle" to post that sort of thing (I haven't, see a couple of lines back), and I wanted to show that memories like that can come back and haunt one, when one would rather they didn't.
Famous Rachel, Ruth and I were never nearer than Leicester and Sahf Lunnon, about 106 miles via St Pancras Station, which is nearly double London to Oxford, but that's quite far enough. If your mother has delayed the wedding, there is one thing I can recommend to change her mind. It's in the latest caption competition.
I think the ideal is that wedding, marriage (I have already said that I consider living and sleeping together to me more-or-less tantamount to marriage), sex and a big party (jlg note) all occur at the same time, 'though I agree with jlg about badd marriages.
It is particularly galling when I hear it is the Church delaying weddings; I have mentioned somebody I know (acquaintance) who is in the late stages of pregnancy (or was last Tuesday, maybe no longer pregnant ), but the Church in her home village say they will only carry out two weddings daily and won't fit her in before next August. I hope they never preach about "living in sin," or I shall have to use a icon.
CR
i have to say that in my 20 years of marriage, i know i have endured periods of fake caring for my husband...i'm sure i've disliked, used and been indifferent to him at times...i assume, actually hope, he has felt the same way...but these do pass much like the weather...i have come to think of the changes in our marriage landscape as one of the things that makes marriage interesting for the long haul...that being said, i know as i was experiencing those times, i questioned whether i should stay committed, and we didn't have any big issues like alcoholism, abuse or debts...it's a very difficult thing to know, and everyone's situation is different...some should definitely get out for their own survival...and there are many dreadful things that will only become apparent (sexually) after it's too late, if sex is to wait until after marriage.
i don't know what the right answer is, but telling someone to risk something like impotency or whatever, for the next 40 or so years seems cruel to me. by the same token, getting married because of sex will soon lose its value. with AID's so deadly, it scares me to death to think of what people have to risk today. i definitely think letting the relationship develop a while before rushing into sex is worth considering...some of those old fashioned tidbits of advice have some truth to them. but i remember what it was like to be young. i'll end this post with the words i always end the e-mails to my niece.
BE KIND and BE CAREFUL!!!!!
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
I know many young people who carry on heterosexual relationships for years without sex, usually leading to marriage. I don't know the percentage, but large numbers of people are virgins when they get married. I have known many people like this.
What are you (and the rest of this thread)talking about when using the word "sex"? Are we talking about penetrative sexual intercourse (for want of a non-offensive way of putting it that doesn't sound like it belongs on the front page of the Sun)? If so then I am quite prepared to believe that there are many couples, Christian or otherwise that wait until marriage.
If, however, we are talking about any form of sexual behaviour from kissing to bonking (damn it! I had to use it) then I'm sorry
Freddy but I just don't believe in "large percentages".
I think there is some confusion about what actually constitutes sex. I personally believe that you can become almost as emotionally tied to a person by having oral sex and without going all the way. We underestimate the intimacy value of some of these things. So many young adults in churches believe that its ok to 'go almost all the way' as long as they dont have penetrative sex. There are no easy answers and I certainly cannot moralise - but if I could pass on one piece of advice - its just not worth it, to throw it all away. I believe its not because God wants to deny us fun, but because he wants to deny us pain. We all have choices to make, I made some of mine very badly.
quote:
Originally posted by Septimus:
If, however, we are talking about any form of sexual behaviour from kissing to bonking (damn it! I had to use it) then I'm sorry Freddy but I just don't believe in "large percentages".
I'm with you. Of course kissing is a form of sexual behavior, as is leaning against one another at football games. I was thinking of intercourse. Obviously the lines are hard to draw.
I'm actually curious about the percentages. They often come out with statistics that say things like "40% of American 16-year-olds are not virgins" (though I don't know what the real numbers are.) But I don't recall hearing statistics about how many are virgins when they marry. I'm sure some would say that the percentage is virtually zero, but I would guess that it is higher.
What is more I would guess that it would vary TREMENDOUSLY from culture to culture. My experience has also been that Septimus is right on the money in questioning what we would consider sex to be. I have found in some cultures that kissing and sexual intercourse are virtually synonymous in moral terms, so that if you would do the one you would do the other. Whereas in the USA kissing is merely the first of many bases to be run in the course of an intimate relationship.
quote:
Originally posted by Campbell Ritchie:
jlg and Famour Rachel, Thank you. When I saw so much of what I had written in bold type, I was very worried, obviously having forgotten the advice on the cards, Please make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth. I had no intention to cause offence, I hope I haven't caused offence, and I am very sorry to have done so it I have. Please accept my apology if I have offended anybody.
Don't worry I was not offended, just wanted to explain that there are pressures in life that mame these things difficult.
Having been engaged for nearly two years, and with a wedding date set, a church, a reception, a vicar, and a photographer booked, the problem my fiance and I face is that all the reasons for not having sex that we had when we were first together no longer seemed to make sense.
The bible seems pretty silent on marriage as a formal ceremonial event - as has been discussed here before. Old testament marriage seems to be more pragmatic - sort of along the lines of move out from parents house, move in with spouse - OK, now you're married.
My fiance and I share almost everything - we don't keep track of whose money is whose, we own books and many other things in common, we tell each other everything etc etc. Having sex strikes us both as nothing more than a natural extension of our love for each other, and as something which presents no dangers - physical or moral. STDs aren't an issue, nor is promiscuity since we are utterly commited to each other. So are we preserving false boundaries and unnecessary formatliites and worrying oursleves for no reason? Or are we doing something noble and worthwhile?
Answers on a postcard please. .
Seriously, what do you all think?
Rachel.
) that they had a bl**d* good knees-up and booze-up (I hope the "happy couple" didn't drink all that wine, otherwise it would have been enforced virginity until the hangover recovers). The real reason is so all their friends could share in the joy, and know that the two people were now a couple.What I would tell you, and you had probably better not follow, is drag this bloke to Oxford Registry Office, and be happy with him, even 'though you are 50 miles apart (somebody has I think posted about that earlier in this thread or in my "childlessness is hell" thread, about being a couple who spend most of the working week apart). But you might find when your mum finds out . . . . . . 
CR
What I personally hate about the 'no sex before marriage' thing is that it puts too much emphasis on sex. Sex is a human action, and as such should be bound by the normal rules of Christian behaviour towards one-another, taking into account its particular and intimate nature. Having a rule specifically for it that cannot be explained in terms of the usual morality is IMHO putting sex on a false footing as something 'different'. What on earth is all this obsession with sex anyway? It's not terribly healthy, and can put an awful lot of pressure on the wedding night, to make is something 'special'. Which it isn't going physically to be if you're both virgins - to be fairly blunt, if you're female it's going to hurt like hell, and if you're male you're going to have difficulty finding where to stick it, and it'll probably be over in 2 minutes.
There isn't an easy answer. The two extremes are shagging around in a series of 1-night stands, and at the other end being so uptight about sex that it has to be locked behind the doors of the marriage institution (I'm not saying that's the attitude of all those who advocate NSB4M). Relax, work out what sex means for you (not what you've been told it should mean), what context you want it to happen in, and take decisions as 'we' so no-one gets hurt. If that means waiting until you're married in a church service then wait, if it means heading bed-wards now, then don't forget the family planning clinic gives out free condoms (in a rather fetching brown paper bag )
Rachel, here's my postcard:
Why bother waiting? You're married for all practical purposes, not to mention spiritual ones. But then I was the 15-yr-old who was faced with the Baha'i morality code (based on Islam -- you weren't to hold hands or kiss until you were engaged) and told God, "Sorry, but if it's you or sex, then you lose." (Luckily, God was more mature, and stuck around anyway.) I never did buy into the virginity bit, so you probably want to take my opinion with a whole box of salt.
Whatever you decide, it sounds like you and your beloved will go on to have a long and happy marriage -- any two people who have been patiently surviving what you describe definitely have a stable relationship!
quote:
Originally posted by Joan the Dwarf:
.... what sort of Christian sexual ethic should there be for homosexual couples, who can't get married?....
This is a really wonderful question, Joan. I have known and been friends with lots of homosexuals over the years. Some seem to have managed to create small, decent, "non-scene" communities. Is the Unitarian church just a US thing? They seem to be a safe haven for gay and lesbian friendly activities here in New England. And in Boston, on the college campuses, even the mainstream church ministries offer some sanctuary. Seems like in London you could track down something similar.
But I'd like to hear what shipmates who are more staunchly Christian think about this. (Even if I make it through and convert this coming Easter, I'll probably always be a renegade Christian, especially on matters of sexual morality!)
On the subject of what is Marriage. I think that there is something special about standing before God AND before others (as witnesses and supporters) to declare your commitment for each other. A committed manogamous relationship is going to be difficult enough a thing to honour through the years, without having to "go it alone". With a "private understanding" between two people, no one else really knows the score of quite where you stand with regards to each other, to be help and support you. I think a public ceremony has this in it's favour. When the going gets tough, it is a marking of the occasion which acts as a reminder of your commitment to see it through thick and thin. It also marks the occasion of your promises before God, so that over the years as our minds lose track, we can refer back to a signpost of what we said to each other as a commitment.
That marking doesn't need to be a "traditional" marriage ceremony, or be a civil legal ceremony, but is the point where you decide that the two will work together as a unit. I am guessing that for Rachel, this will be a traditional marriage.
I must say that the best wedding that I went to was a friend from Uni. Her church met in a school and so couldn't do a licenced wedding. So rather than use a local Anglican which held no meaning for her.... she had a marquee put up on the villiage green. To deal with the legal, she had a registry office thing in the morning. But for her, the marriage was the part in the marquee where she stood before her friends, family and neighbours, and more importantly God and declared their intent and commitment to one another. Because there were no legal restraints on what the service could say, they wrote the whole thing themselves. It was far more personal and actually a bigger commitment then your average wedding vows. Particularly moving parts were where the both of respective fathers addressed their childs partner to be and said "Do you take my Daughter/Son to be your Husband/Wife, to love them etc.." as a way of giving them away to each other, rather than the vicar doing this bit. The vows were very detailed and honest in terms of expectations of their absolute love for each other and their desire to make this last for life. It is by far the best example of what a committed Christian wedding should be....
I could talk for hours about that wedding... but back to the Topic in hand.... SEX. Well, if marriage is failing as an institution then it is because of just that... it has for many become a meaningless institution!!! That doesn't mean that marriage as a commitment AND as public ceremony is outmoded or dead. Far from it. It is up to us to re-claim what God intended. Quite how we mark the occasion is up for grabs. BUT I think we should mark the deepening commitment, before we leap into bed!!
I think that we should still AIM for very high standards sexually before marriage... and possibly with a better understanding about what we actually want for our marriage ceremony, we will see it as a turning point in our commitment for each other and a cementing publically of our commitment to each other before God. That to me sounds like an excellent time to start exploring the joys of sex.
Obviously, a big issue with high moral expectations, is the guilt trips inspired. Which is why if we need high moral standards, as always we need an even bigger expectation of grace and forgiveness. This at the end of the day is exactly why Christ came into the world, because we (quite literally sometimes) continually "screw things up". We shouldn't lower our expectations, but should recognise our need of mercy and grace. We are all in need of a chance for a fresh start.
Tigglet
quote:
Originally posted by Tigglet:
I think that we should still AIM for very high standards sexually before marriage... and possibly with a better understanding about what we actually want for our marriage ceremony, we will see it as a turning point in our commitment for each other and a cementing publically of our commitment to each other before God. That to me sounds like an excellent time to start exploring the joys of sex.Obviously, a big issue with high moral expectations, is the guilt trips inspired. Which is why if we need high moral standards, as always we need an even bigger expectation of grace and forgiveness. This at the end of the day is exactly why Christ came into the world, because we (quite literally sometimes) continually "screw things up". We shouldn't lower our expectations, but should recognise our need of mercy and grace. We are all in need of a chance for a fresh start.
Tigglet
I am now officially the saddest internet geek in the world. When I started reading this post I saw "AIM" and my VERY first thought was "What on earth has AOL to do with all of this?".
Digressing briefly on the subject of marriages (or rather the attendant celebrations), but in doing so sending a postcard to Rachel, the worst one I ever went to was between two people who had been seeing each other for six years, living together and then decided to get married. The wedding itself seemed to be a lot more to do with their parent's needs than their own. Honouring the f. and m. can be sooooooo difficult at times.
I think it's important to remember that the celebration of the commitment and love of two people doesn't stop when we leave the church. Weddings are not just meetings followed by parties.
By contrast, the most enjoyable wedding I have attended was one where the bride and groom invited people they knew rather than every single relation within a 5000 mile radius. The atmosphere from start to finish was fantastic. The downside for them is that certain relations are no longer talking to them... but then they didn't in the first place anyway so no harm done.
So basically Rachel I would agree with those others who have said do what feels right; you must know inside yourself what this is. If an Old testament stylee tented coming together feels 100% then go for it.
quote:
if you're female it's going to hurt like hell, and if you're male you're going to have difficulty finding where to stick it, and it'll probably be over in 2 minutes.
Heh heh. I've often thought that 'sound Christian' wedding nights are a sort of combination of two plays - Comedy of Errors and Love's Labours Lost.
quote:
On the subject of what is Marriage. I think that there is something special about standing before God AND before others (as witnesses and supporters) to declare your commitment for each other. A committed manogamous relationship is going to be difficult enough a thing to honour through the years, without having to "go it alone". With a "private understanding" between two people, no one else really knows the score of quite where you stand with regards to each other, to be help and support you. I think a public ceremony has this in it's favour. When the going gets tough, it is a marking of the occasion which acts as a reminder of your commitment to see it through thick and thin. It also marks the occasion of your promises before God, so that over the years as our minds lose track, we can refer back to a signpost of what we said to each other as a commitment.
Trouble is Tigglet, sometimes you can be pushed into marriage because the church says you should and then you're left with commitments you never wanted to make in the first place, and a condemning Church (in its widest sense) who says "tough - you're married now". We need to remember the afflicted as well as having the ideals.
I agree with you in principle though, and pray that those shipmates on this thread waiting to get married find it a joyful (and pleasurable Rachel!) experience.
Present company excepted, of course: I'm sure you're never going to make those sorts of comments
tony...her father was the light of my friend's eye...unfortuanley he passed on and now Mom gets to comment about the childrearing techniques...but i have to say, i like her alot...which is why i think that when we reach a certain age we should all swap our mothers.
Thanks a lot for your very helpful comments. I shall continue to think and pray about this. The problem with praying, of course, is that I find it very difficult to discern what is my wishful thinking, what is God's gentle prompting and what is simply my conditioning to guilt having spent too long in the Evangelical church.
That's one of the reasons that the evangelical church's big stress on this issue is a problem. It puts an equation in ones mind which goes sex = bad thing. I think this may even be carried over into marriage for some people.
I suspect that in the end my decision as to what to do will not be based on holiness, or whatever, but on the fact that I don't want to end up feeling guilty and dirty about something which (I hope) can be wonderful. Unfortunately, if you think about it, making a decision on that basis can seem simply hypocritical and selfish - like what Jesus said about looking at a woman with lust, being equivalent to committing adultery in your heart.
Hmmmm. Now I'm getting myself feeling confused and guilty. Grrrrr. Anyone still think that this is a "sweet longing" for engaged couples?
All the best,
Rachel.
I am relieved I haven't caused offence, and that Famous Rachel hasn't used the nuns'n'guns technique, nor the other idea I had (go for a short visit to Mum, complain about smells, and throw up embarrassingly after two sips of tea or coffee) to bring the Big Day forward.
I must agree with the people who use or about mothers. Some mothers really are and . Why do they have to hang on to their offspring who are grown up?
I think part of the sex-before-marriage problem nowadays is that there is so much "before marriage" time. Read Tess of the Durbervilles (Thomas Hardy). Tess was married by the age of 17, and girls probably didn't start their periods until 15. Now if girls start their periods at 13 on average and people aren't marrying until their 20s or 30s, that allows much more "before-marriage" time.
Famous Rachel. I think you have got it right about
quote:being by no means a Biblical idea. In the Bible sex between husband and wife is a very good thing.
sex=bad thing
quote:
What's she got that I haven't?*
quote:and particularly the third,
You'd really like her if you met her,
quote:Sex is a self-justifying activity, which is why people are liable to justify sexual sins who would never try thus to justify theft or violence.
How can it be wrong when it's so beautiful?
I hope to be back when I have this computer back in order.
See you later, everybody.
YIC CR
*The answer to that question is, of course, I've got your husband.
For what it's worth, that's my stance on the whole thing. I find cuddling, kissing, affection and other things to work very well for me in my relationships, without sexual intercourse. (I spell it out so explicitly above because I have found many people have different ideas about what "sex" is.) I'm not sure I consider what I personally do to be "romantic" as such, but I think it can be very powerful, helpful, healing and so forth.
I have heard that Tony Campolo suggested the idea of same-sex relationships which include everything except sex, and would love to read that, as that's my own position.
The notion of Jesus as the ultimate Lover (to Whom one must be faithful), not only of "The Church" but of oneself as an individual, male or female, may also be helpful here.
Well, I'm afraid I feel the need to wade in and defend the mainstream Christian view point here. Sorry to be dull, but sometimes the church gets things right!
As I understand it the Christian viewpoint is that one man should marry and have sexual intercourse with one woman. The only exception to this would be if one of the couple die when remarriage is allowed.
The most notable thing I see in the Bible is that marriage and sex are seen as so interlinked almost assumes them to be one and the same thing. It's attitude to sex without marriage commitment is emphatically opposed. I see no room at all for any other interpretation of scripture.
For example, in 1 Corintihians 7v8:
"Now to the unmarried I say, it is good for them to stay unmarried..(9)but if they cannot control themselves they should marry"
It's quite clear paul is saying sex outside marriage is not what God wants.
Jesus offers similar teaching himself in Matthew 5v27, and the old testament leviticus follows a similar line. I put it to the messageboard that sexual morality is probably the most consitently represented doctrine throughout the Bible, from Torah, to Gospel to Epistle. All three seem to sing from the same Hymn sheet on this subject.
So, if we are to reject this teaching we must either say scripture is unimportant and we can simply ignore it out of hand, or else we must justify a change of stance.
The most commonly heard complaint is that "Times have changed". Broadly speaking this breaks down to saying we live in a sex saturated culture and we should go with it.
The irony of this of course, is that our culture is nowhere near the level of sexual promiscuity that was rife in biblical empires. The classical empires were ridden with it. The emperor Tiberius (Luke 3v1) was famous for his love of "daisy chain" sexual orgys in the royal court involving over 300 people sexually linked together.
Paedophilia in particular was considered no crime at all in the classical world. Please be aware that in 84 AD,Emperor Domitian declared that no child could be prostituted until the age of SEVEN! And this was considered moral reform!
Incest was rampant among the greeks, where men would have sex with their daughters as a matter of course. They worked out that having vaginal sex caused defective children because of genetic problems and so restricted activity with their daughters to sodomy.
So, against this we have the jewish culture and, later, jesus' teachings in stark relief. If they seem unfashionable now, you can be assured they were practically unthinkable then.
So, if the "sexual culture" arguement is inadmissable, maybe there are other arguements which suggest our modern age is different?
Probably the most persuasive is
1) we marry later
2) we live longer
Consequently (1) means we have to put up with being single longer, and (2) means we must make a marriage work for longer without getting bored of the other person.
(2) seems to tacitly imply that the key factor in making a marriage work is the other person, and that changing the other person is the solution to marital problems. It may seems strange to say, but in some respects I believe the other person is kind of irrelevant to the success of a marriage.
100 years ago, the average man would marry a girl from his own village. This would probably mean a choice of maybe 2 or 3 sutiable girls. Divorces were so rare they were nearly unheard of.
100 years later and we all have all the choice in the world over who to marry. communication and transport means we have more choice than ever before, but what has happened to divorce rates? they are higher than ever before.
Common sense would tell us more choice would mean more successful marriages, and yet nothing could be further from the truth. Actually, this applys to the whole of our "choice" culture. I now have 100 cable TV channels...how many are actually worth watching? 5 or 6.
Then we come to the "we marry later" arguement. This one might be admissable, except that it generally seems to imply that sexual impulse is essentially uncontrollable, and that after being controlled for a few years it will eventually explode into of it's own accord.
What we are really saying is not that it is impossible, but that it is more difficult to keep to biblical teaching in 21st century because we get married later.
That may be so, but then there are other biblical teachings which are much easier to keep now than in other generations. For example, the invention of painkillers and the advancement of medicine in general have made biblical virtues like patience and trusting in the Lord to heal far easier.
The bible tells us to "Wait on the Lord" in times of trouble. Imagine having cancer in the days before pain relief and how much tougher that biblical teaching must have been then.
Basically, all people in all times have probably found biblical teaching as a whole equally difficult to stick to and that is no excuse for rejecting it.
Firstly, "mainstream view"? Ahem. Depends what you term 'the views of church'. Views given out by House of Bishops? If so, yes, no sex before marriage. Views of majority of clergy & laity? Depends which bit of the church you're in.
If you want to base your argument on Scripture alone, fine, just beware not everyone here's arguing like that. Ie Scripture is part of what we take into account, rather than what we MUST obey unless we have a v. good reason.
Promiscuity in ancient times - why is this an issue? I don't get the argument.
Changes in society. Like it or not, the whole way that marriage and relationships are viewed by society has changed. For a large part of history marriage was a social and economic contract with little to do with love. The woman had no security outside of marriage, and a lot of the time technically belonged to the husband. Hardly conducive for divorce. Because of inheritance rights there was a stigma attached to birth out of marriage or births with doubtful parentage which, coupled with a lack of reliable contraception, required a firm bond of sex within marriage.
The whole social landscape has changed. We can only work out how to apply Biblical injunctions to today if we can understand why they were given. Why did Jesus say not to divorce, for example? The bible is silent on that point. It could be to do with the social situation (protecting women) or it could be a rule for any situation of marriage. If you're arguing simply from the bible then you cannot tell as it doesn't say - anything further (like the claim that it applies for all marriage of all time) is a non-biblical assumption that then comes into the realm of non-biblical argument. Which is what this thread is all about
quote:
Probably the most persuasive is
1) we marry later
2) we live longer
You missed
For a woman to have sex in the pre-modern world was to put herself in significant danger of death in childbirth.
Not a smart thing to do unless you really wanted a child and had someone to support you.
Childbirth also put her in danger of becoming an invalid or a social outcast due to complications (like incurable double incontinence).
Not a smart risk to take without a partner bound by law to stand by you.
It put her a a significant risk of dying whilst her child lived.
Again not smart without a partner to take care of the child.
If the pregnancy ended OK for mother and child, but there was no partner, there were very limited options for the mother to make a living in a pre-modern society.
In other words, when sex and pregnancy and high maternal mortality were inextricably linked there were very good reasons for teaching 'no sex outside marriage'.Some of these reasons are still the same today but not to nearly the same degree.
Nowadays when people teach 'no sex outside marriage' it often has more to do with stigmatising those who do have sex without marriage than genuinely wanting the welfare of others.
It depends whether you think you should apply teaching aimed at that historical era and society to one where very significant things have changed.
As for marriages 100 years ago - due to adult mortality they endured for much shorter times than modern marriages. People married and remarried about as often as they do today and a surprisingly large proportion of the population (especially the urban and rural poor) didn't bother with marriage even then.
If you didn't like your spouse the chances were that they or you would die before you had to put up with it for too long. Even so, people often abandoned their partners or sought solace elsewhere - as any fule who read social history kno.
cheers,
Louise
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
Nowadays when people teach 'no sex outside marriage' it often has more to do with stigmatising those who do have sex without marriage than genuinely wanting the welfare of others.
I don't think that this is true. A tremendous amount of research shows that one of the primary keys to happiness in life is a life-long marriage. See here.
[url] http://www.marriagesavers.org/public/the_case_for_marriage.htm[/url]
Virginity before marriage is a significant aid in the quest for this kind of relationship, and fidelity within marriage is virtually an absolute requirement.
You can't get around the fact that this is the model taught in the Bible. As for the Bible not necessarily being the accepted authority in Christianity, well...
I guess I'm just not happy with that idea.
The book "The Case for Marriage" persuasively shows, I think, that the Biblical model is also the most successful model for finding satisfaction in life.
This isn't about stigmatizing others. It's about reducing the suicide rate.
Oh come on, that's just silly. Lets say "orthodox" view then. (and I no I don't mean Eastern Orthodox!)
nullFirstly, "mainstream view"? Ahem. Depends what you term 'the views of church'. If you want to base your argument on Scripture alone, fine, just beware not everyone here's arguing like that. Ie Scripture is part of what we take into account, rather than what we MUST obey unless we have a v. good reason.
Ahhhhh.....well, if we aren't working from scripture, then fair enough. The debate of whether Liberalism is real Christianity is a different one.
Promiscuity in ancient times - why is this an issue? I don't get the argument.
I didn't think it was rocket science but here it is in one syllable words:
Modern viewpoint: "Scripture is no longer valid because society values have changed concerning sexual ethics"
However, the ancient world had sexual ethics which would make must people blush now. Consequently the arguement is spurious.
Changes in society. Like it or not, the whole way that marriage and relationships are viewed by society has changed. For a large part of history marriage was a social and economic contract with little to do with love.
If your idea of "love" is violins and hearts and all that other hollywood nonsense then you'd be right. However, that is a very narrowminded view of love.
the social and economic aspects represent a different aspect of love beyond the "eros" emotional aspect. It's not my fault the 20th century trivalised love to being a "Feeling". There is virtually no suggestion at all..pre-20th century..that Love was seein primarily as a feeling.
For example, Jesus tells us to Love our Enemies. Only a fool would think Jesus meant by this to "Have nice feelings about your enemies". Here, Love is used as a verb, relating to the way in which we treat the object of the Love.
The woman had no security outside of marriage, and a lot of the time technically belonged to the husband. Hardly conducive for divorce. Because of inheritance rights there was a stigma attached to birth out of marriage or births with doubtful parentage which, coupled with a lack of reliable contraception, required a firm bond of sex within marriage.
Firstly, reliable contraception? Do we have that now? Did you know there are 180,000 abortions in the UK every year?
As for the cultural stuff, Jesus was quite willing to buck cultural trends...healing on the Sabbath etc.
You broadly seem to be implying that because of the cultural situation Jesus didn't really like it but didn't feel he could do anything about it, so just went along with the cultural teaching of the day.
Jesus set trends, not followed them. Else, what would be the point of his moral teaching if it was simply reiterative of the culture anyway?
The whole social landscape has changed. We can only work out how to apply Biblical injunctions to today if we can understand why they were given.
No it hasn't. Your just saying that because you are a westerner. Over the last (TINY) period of history (One little century!), America and European culture has moved in a particular direction. It could well be a passing trend, and 100 years from now people will teach how the 21st century people had quaint ideas about Men and Women being equal!
quote:
You missed
effective contraception
reduced mortality/complcation rate of childbirth
changed status of women
Ok, first, effective contraception?
did I miss something here? As my name may give away I'm a medical student, and I feel able to speak with some authority on this.
Contraception is terrifyingly ineffective and has pulled off one of the biggest marketing scams in history.
The only form of contraception which provides any kind of STD protection is condoms.
Condoms provide pretty good protection against HIV, but to be honest, HIV is no big deal in the western world.
On the other hand condoms provide no, (I repeat NO) protection against Chlamydia for example.
The chief of the CDC in the states was forced to resign over this issue. The US government knew this for several years and denied it because they didn't want to create a public health panic, stop using condoms and send pregnancy rates through the roof.
Also, many immunology experts believe we are on the brink of seeing a hypothetical virus "AIDS-2". Viruses are amazingly adaptable organisms, they can evolve faster than you can blink. Only a complete idiot would think you can put latex between you and the virus and stop it spreading.
STDs are often spread in association with pubic lice, it is only a matter of time before a virus evolves which uses pubic lice as a vector.
Promiscuity is creating the perfect breeding environment. And this process will be fast. Bacteria became immune to nearly every antibiotic we have in 50 years. Viruses can mutate much much faster still.
As for the rest of your mail, you made some valid points. I believe this misses the issue. God issued a law, he expects us to follow it for our own benefit. We may believe the situation has changed but rarely it has. The reasons for following the law may change, but surely we can trust God knows best?
For example, in the 60s we had the pill and we had antibiotics.....Yay! Finally we could protect against STDs and pregnancy! No need to follow Bible teaching anymore then!
The result? HIV spread like wildfire.
Now we have the Condom.....and THATS the end of the story? Yeah, right.
For centuries mankind has been trying to come up with ways to go one better than Gods rules. Sooner or later a fatal flaw in the oh so clever plan is revealed.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
As I understand it the Christian viewpoint is that one man should marry and have sexual intercourse with one woman. The only exception to this would be if one of the couple die when remarriage is allowed.
...
I see no room at all for any other interpretation of scripture.
quote:
So, if we are to reject this teaching we must either say scripture is unimportant and we can simply ignore it out of hand, or else we must justify a change of stance.
There does seem to be three strands of teaching in the OT one marriage:
Breaking the first is punished by death, the second by public punishment, and the third requires a purification ritual.
For example, the punishment for rape of a bethrothed virgin in deut 22:25 is death, but the punishment for a non-betrothed virgin in deut 22:28 is to pay compensation to her father for the loss of the dowry he would have gained when she married, and he must marry her.
The first breaks a vow made before God, the second harms a person and community.
In our society, the first punishment is considered excessive, and the second insulting to the value of women. In my opinion the second case only exists because of the failings of the then Israelite society, and nowadays a non virgin woman can find a husband, and there are other, better ways to support victims of rape.
quote:
The irony of this of course, is that our culture is nowhere near the level of sexual promiscuity that was rife in biblical empires.
quote:
What we are really saying is not that it is impossible, but that it is more difficult to keep to biblical teaching in 21st century because we get married later.
an aside-
quote:
Imagine having cancer in the days before pain relief and how much tougher that biblical teaching must have been then.
quote:
Basically, all people in all times have probably found biblical teaching as a whole equally difficult to stick to and that is no excuse for rejecting it.
quote:
From elsewhere..
but when I went to the site you have to pay, so I guess I will never find an 17-23 year old/attractive/intellegent christian girl living in london now!
TME
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic (whilst I was writing the previous message):
Condoms provide pretty good protection against HIV.
...
Only a complete idiot would think you can put latex between you and the virus and stop it spreading.
If you wish people to avoid the obvious conclusion, think a little more before posting. It's a fair assumption that no-one here is advocating 'unsafe' sex or promiscuity, but trying to dicuss how to act justly in their relationships with people they love.
TME
quote:
However, the ancient world had sexual ethics which would make must people blush now. Consequently the arguement is spurious.
Apologies, I probably didn't explain as well as I could have done...
Condoms do provide pretty good protection against the CURRENT known form of HIV. However, viruses are notoriously quick at evolving and adapting. It may well be the case that a version of the HIV virus which is "immune" to Condoms is already spreading.
Condoms are a selective pressure on HIV. The problem is that when you apply a selective pressure on an organism it will respond.
For example, we already know HIV can turn up in saliva, but the viral load is too low to cacause infection via deep kissing. However, if condoms apply a selective pressure on the virus spreading through semen, the obvious thing is for the virus to find ways of increasing it's viral load level in saliva.
Consquently, people who sleep around using condoms are raising the danger level for everyone else in the long run. This is another fact which gets ignored. Sex has social implications beyond the two individuals involved.
Secondly, your idea of promiscuity and my idea are probably very different.
When applying the word from a medical point of view I simply mean sex outside the context of one virgin sleeping with one other virgin.
We attach a lot of social stigma to STDs precisely because many people are under the illusion that you get STDs by being promiscuous.
You dont. You get an STD by sleeping with someone who isn't a virgin. That's all.
Someone who has slept with only one person, but knows there partner isn't a virgin probably doesn't FEEL very likely to get an STD.
However, if everyone in the world had two sexual partners then the possiblity for a chain of STD infection exists just as much as if everyone had 10 sexual partners. The "odds" of getting an STD don't actually get that much bigger in some respects.
For example, Cervical cancer is caused by a virus called HPV. (HPV is again not protected by condoms)
A VIRGIN woman who sleeps with ONE guy who has had ONE other sexual partner is FOUR times more likely to get cervical cancer than if she slept with a guy who was also a virgin.
A woman who sleeps with TWO men is SIX times more likely to get cervical cancer than a woman who sleeps with one man.
(data:Slattery M, Overall JC, Abbott TM et al Am J Epidemiol 1989 if anyone is interested!)
Consquently the points of my arguement were
1)that contraception hasn't really changed anything. Give the viruses 50 years and we will be right back where we started, only with more virulent viruses than before probably.
2) The key difference between chastity and promiscuity from an STD transmission viewpoint is whether or not you have 1 sexual partner or more than one sexual partner. (Note: of course the more you have the higher the risks, but the single biggest risk is whether or not you have more than one partner)
Matt
Good point. I'm tempted to conceed this point, except that i'm pretty sure the new testament points to monogamy. Like many other things, the new testament teaching superceeds the old.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, if we are to reject this teaching we must either say scripture is unimportant and we can simply ignore it out of hand, or else we must justify a change of stance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There does seem to be three strands of teaching in the OT one marriage:
breaking vows made before God
What is good for society in general
What is good for the people involved
Breaking the first is punished by death, the second by public punishment, and the third requires a purification ritual.
For example, the punishment for rape of a bethrothed virgin in deut 22:25 is death, but the punishment for a non-betrothed virgin in deut 22:28 is to pay compensation to her father for the loss of the dowry he would have gained when she married, and he must marry her.
The first breaks a vow made before God, the second harms a person and community.
In our society, the first punishment is considered excessive, and the second insulting to the value of women. In my opinion the second case only exists because of the failings of the then Israelite society, and nowadays a non virgin woman can find a husband, and there are other, better ways to support victims of rape.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The irony of this of course, is that our culture is nowhere near the level of sexual promiscuity that was rife in biblical empires.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lev. explictly says 'do not do what the people around you do, but what Yahweh says', and the people around the Israelites were sacrificing babies and the like. If anything, most of the arguments around for fitting in more with society on sex are based on society not being so bad as it was, and Christians not being a seperatist race. Notwithstanding that we are still called to be different.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What we are really saying is not that it is impossible, but that it is more difficult to keep to biblical teaching in 21st century because we get married later.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And by biblical teaching do mean all of the torah, the torah plus monogamy, the torah less the parts Paul said we weren't bound by....
I think maybe up to this point in the arguement we have all been a little bit legalistic about the phrase "Biblical teaching". I include myself in that subconciously.
We all appear to be studying the letter of the word trying to eek out exactly how much leeway it allows us.
Perhaps that's because we are so used to that philosophy where modern law is concerned. Lawyers get paid for doing exactly this: working out how far they can push the boundaries of the letter of the law.
But perhaps Biblical law isn't like that?
Surely this is God saying "this is my true path..follow it"
We as the church are described as "The bride of Christ". Our relationship with God is more intimate than that of a lover.
It would seem a very odd thing to sit around working out how little we could get away with doing for our beloved, or how much we could get away with without them dumping us!
When you love someone deeply, surely you are always looking for ways to do MORE for them, not less?
If you look at the Bible teaching in that context, paradoxically it becomes firstly less strict, but in another sense more demanding.
The Bible is God (our beloved) telling us what he would LIKE us to do.
Now in one sense, because of Gods grace and love, if we aren't absolutely on the straight and narrow it doesn't matter.
However, our general philosophy should surely be to get as close to what God wants as possible, if we truely love him?
The question therefore is not "how should we behave?" but "in what direction should we be moving in order to be moving closer to the way in which God wants us to behave?"
I think we are ALL agreed that becoming more promiscuous would be moving further away from Gods ideal. Doesn't that logically follow that the closest we can get to Monogamy is getting as close as possible to the ideal?
That doesn't mean we condem those who don't make that standard. It just so happens that so far in that particular area of my life I'm keeping pretty near the ideal. However, there are other areas of my life where I know I am way off God's ideal. Sexual morality should have neither more or less stigma attached than any other kind.
So, if we are agreed monogamy would be God's ideal, the question is should you wait until you are legally married?
The answer from the Bible would seem to be, that if both of you consider that this is going to be the one sexual relationship of your life, then you ARE married in the sight of each other and of God when you start having sex.
As for the legal aspect, I actually would find it hard to defend having to make that contract first, except that I think if you were reluctant to put pen to paper, this might bring into question how genuine you were about the whole contract.
If I have a workman into do a job and he says "Oh, give me the money first, and I'll sign the contract later". I'm likely to be a bit supicious. If he is genuine about sticking to the contract, why not sign it at the outset?
And finally, I just think the whole "Wedding night" hunnymoon thing is all rather sweet and romantic, and I'm sure it's a very special gift from God for those who get that experience.
Matt, you don't have to blind us with science, or pick fights with the social historians among us. I think you will find very little disagreement here about the fact that God's intention for sexual relationships is that they be faithful and committed. We can (and often do) argue about the details from there.
But I would ask you to remember that we are talking about people's lives here, not just abstractions. And a large measure of grace and understanding is going to be very useful.
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:Good point. I'm tempted to conceed this point, except that i'm pretty sure the new testament points to monogamy. Like many other things, the new testament teaching superceeds the old.
Hang on, Matt. Don't give up so easily. I think Judaism advocates monogamy and virginity until marriage. I don't know of any Biblically based religion that does not advocate these things. Despite the obvious practice of polygamy in the Old Testament there are no religious organizations within Christianity or Judaism that accept this as a norm, or even as acceptable.
Joan wants to talk to you in Hell. It's only polite to pop over and see what she wants.
I'm very very sorry to everyone who feels I have offended them.
I believe I have made some important and valid points which, I accept are not things people find easy to hear.
However, I have also made some very nasty "snide" comments in some of my posts. In particular I'd like to apologise for my "words of one syllable" comment and any other such comments which anyone found offensive.
As for "blinding with science". I make no apology for attempting to raise awareness of some very scarey facts.
Everything I have said I MUST state goes in the context of believing that we have a loving, forgiving God with Grace beyond measure. I am in need of that as much as the next person, and believe me, I know it.
I thought that much went without saying, but it's worth saying anyway.
Again, very very big apologies to EVERYONE particularly Joan. I'm not a nasty bigoted fundamentalist really, I promise!!!
*methinks I've spent too much time on the Left-Behind message board of late and picked up bad habits *
apolgies to all,
matt
I will bow to those with better knowledge of social history than myself, although I am a little suspicous that every generation of social historians interprets the past in the light of their own generation, but I will let that slide
As for the science, I hope most people did not find my comments "blinding" but rather enlightening to what is boardering on becoming an national crisis.
There were 2000 cases of chlamydia in britian in 1990. that had risen to 50,000 by 1998. That is terrifying. It's not "science", its 50,000 real people a year with real ruined lives.
But I would ask you to remember that we are talking about people's lives here, not just abstractions. And a large measure of grace and understanding is going to be very useful.
I would hate you to think I'm a dry academic. two nights ago I spent 3 hours on the phone to an ex-girlfriend who had just taken an overdose because of guilt about having had an abortion.
I sat there talking to her on my mobile while she slowly lost conciousness, while calling emergency services on my landline.
As a medical student, every day I come into contact with real people with real lives. It's heartbreaking.
However, the "real world" is driven by our abstract philosophies and ideas. That is why they are so important.
You are clearly the ancient history expert here, not me. I won't question you on this if people don't second guess me on matters of a medical nature which i actually know a little about
I overstated the case somewhat...how about I restate it something like: "Sexual ethics (for men at least) outside jewish culture were not THAT different to sexual ethics today"
What I was really trying to refute was the idea that in the ancient world everyone has naturally much more monogamous and "better behaved" and had "old fashioned sexual values". People in all times and all places have had sexual impulses and promiscuity in their culture. We aren't "special" in that respect.
Would you find that allowable from your knowledge of ancient history?
Matt
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:I sat there talking to her on my mobile while she slowly lost conciousness, while calling emergency services on my landline.
That is incredibly sad.
I wish that I could say that I know that incidents like these are isolated cases. But in my profession I also run into many similar incidents. These are real people with real problems, and it is startling how many of them are about sex and relationships.
It would be easy to think that if society just wouldn't lay guilt on these people these problems would go away, but I don't really believe that this would do it.
God the Trinity is shown to us through our bodies and sex. There was one God and God saw how incredible he was and thus the Word was generated from that intense understanding of his being/reality. Then the Word and God shared this intense understanding and then generated LOVE or the Holy Spirit. God is creative, God shares, God grows, God unites in his very Triun essence.
We are created in his image not just because we look like the Word and share his flesh but because we generate through sex. Sex is very good. The human body in its male and female realities is the very sign of the Trinity when those bodies come together and generate LOVE - another person. Even when they don't generate another person they are like unto the Trinity. But that generation - that sharing essence that expresses the Trinity is the best thing on the face o' the earth. Here is to sex!
I should tell you all, that she came home from hospital this afternoon and called me and sounds a lot better. Still, she has attempted suicide before and I believe she may well attempt it again.
I also run into many similar incidents. These are real people with real problems, and it is startling how many of them are about sex and relationships.
We are so on the same wavelength here. In teenage problems especially, sex and relationships are a key issue most of the time.
It would be easy to think that if society just wouldn't lay guilt on these people these problems would go away, but I don't really believe that this would do it.
Very true, because not all guilt comes from society. We might like to shift blame to society for making us feel guilty, but deep down we know that some guilt comes from inside...from a deep conviction that we are sinful.
That is surely the disease which Christ is the cure for? I'm not excluding myself before I get accused of stuff again...we are all diseased, we all need the cure.
If all guilt was put upon us by society, we wouldn't need Christ...we'd just need a better society.
--------------------
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:We might like to shift blame to society for making us feel guilty, but deep down we know that some guilt comes from inside.
The way that I would put it is that bad feelings are inherent in bad behavior. The thrill is transitory.
The feelings of emptiness or discomfort that tend to set in may seem like they are imposed by society. But I think the truth is that sex outside of marriage is by its very nature destructive of happiness - less so when it approaches the permanance and sincere love that people associate with marriage, and more so when it goes in the opposite direction.
I was just saying SOME guilt is simply genuine conviction of our sinful nature.
(Of course, too much shame is a bad thing. Shame of a "doll" is like cement of the soul, you ainte going up. You are barely moving).
Animals do not feel shame. Animals cannot have an eating disorder or a sexual disorder. They are not as close to God as we are. I think people feel shame because they know their true meaning. We can sit with God. We have spirit. We are always moving upward. Shame is the opposite of Love. We are lucky we have it because it shows that we are capable of God's Love.
So, a normal amount of shame is good. Otherwise, we are animals who work on instinct. Sure, animals "love" but they don't have sex to love.
Anyway, the point of this note is to wonder out loud about the goodness of sex and the greatness of having shame and love involved. I think it is great that God calls us higher and that we fail at times and experience the opposite of his love.
Some people have a crazy idea of shame and they don't see the excellence of the body. The body is very good - the male and female bodies are manifestations of God's Triune love. A love that generates more love. We need to help those people who see life as "Spirit good, body bad!" We need to help them see the glory of the body and of nuptial sex. The body is very good. Sex is very great when it reflects the essence of the Trinity.
Is that kooky?
Another factor, I think, is that in a world that is not as full of Christian love as it might be, many people feel unloved. They also feel unreasonably ashamed - not because they have especially done anything wrong, but because in a world short on love there is abundant criticism.
So many people have unreasonable feelings of guilt.
One of the tragedies of this is that our hurt and anger makes us unable to recognize, accept, and benefit from well-founded guilt. The kind of shame that makes us human, and signals us that we need to change. Many then reject guilt altogether - and their bad behavior starts the cycle all over again.
So let's not be prudes. But I'm with Sniffy in thinking shame has a place.
It is VERY one sided to seem to be assuming that "sex only in marriage" is the only happy way. I note the arguments that suggest it is the best way (best = least damaging) but for every abortion, std and painful outside marriage account I can point to equally horrendous inside marriage stories. getting married does NOT make sex good and right per se.
In fact if you are of the extreme to abstain from sex before marriage you are more likely to feel the need to stay in a marriage that is sexually dysfunctional (and hence dysfunctinal in a lot of areas) driven by a similar fear of God, Church and guilt that made you abstain in the first place.
I consider the "sex in marriage only" to be potentially damaging. As would be promiscuity.
Once again; please name me any society that successfully implements this policy. Its impossible. Those who try can only do it by subsuming one sex, 99% of the time women. Their has always been sex outside marriage, it is not always harmful. Trying to form a rule, law or imperative that tries to stop sex outside marriage would be like trying to stop people breathing. In all our discussion can we not make some stab at pragmatism ? (and common sense)
Pyx_e
quote:
Would you find that allowable from your knowledge of ancient history?
quote:
Originally posted by Cusanus:
Would you find that allowable from your knowledge of ancient history?
quote:Quite a lot of it, but also to the fore was worry about who was going to pay for the children, if a man could deny paternity.
Yes I would. And I'm happy to allow you 'expert' status on medical issues.
On the question of ancient (and indeed, medieval and early modern) sexual ethics, though, I wonder how much of it was more tied up with control over women's sexuality and fertility than it was over what we would call 'morals'. That is, that adultery and fornication was so 'bad' because it meant a man could not guarantee he was passing his property on to his own child.
quote:
In fact if you are of the extreme to abstain from sex before marriage you are more likely to feel the need to stay in a marriage that is sexually dysfunctional (and hence dysfunctinal in a lot of areas) driven by a similar fear of God, Church and guilt that made you abstain in the first place.
I don't think that's fair. I have come to the considered opinion that I will not have sex until (unless) I get married. This is not out of a fear of God, Church and guilt but because I believe it to be right. Sex is a good thing yes, but it is also a deeply intimate thing between you and your partner and I think that the place for such intimacy is within a committed relationship and for me that committment would be expressed in marriage where we could declare our commitment to each other before God and society.
Having said that, I accept that other people have come to different conclusions and I do think that the Church has frequently been too hung up on this issue. It is certainly not the worst sin (or indeed the only sin), and too often the teaching has been 'Don't do it because it's wrong (cos we say it's wrong)' whereas I think we need to encourage people to think about the issues for them selves and think about what sex is. There is an awful lot of pressure to have sex, there can be an underlying implication that you're not fully human if you haven't and that can be very hard to deal with.
Carys
The word 'faction' keeps being used here and that is very appropriate.
'Factions' don't tend to listen.
As someone who has been married 4 years it has worked/is working.
I do not condemn people who have not gone down the path I've chosen, and I wish that courtesy was extended by all the 'marriage is bilge and does not work' commentators who usually go on to cite facts and figures and use words like 'outdated institution.'
It works for me. It works for some other people. It dosen't work for some. But why generalise, then, and say it dosen't work for anyone?
In its simplest form, such an attitude is like someone trashing a painting they don't like so no-one else can see it either.
quote:
It is VERY one sided to seem to be assuming that "sex only in marriage" is the only happy way. I note the arguments that suggest it is the best way (best = least damaging) but for every abortion, std and painful outside marriage account I can point to equally horrendous inside marriage stories. getting married does NOT make sex good and right per
I think that is very glib statement. For EVERY abortion you can point to an equally horrendous situation inside a marriage?
Ok, in that case I will be requiring you to give 160,000 examples per YEAR for the UK alone then, because that's how many abortions there are.
Again, I think we have the kind of logical flaw which often creeps into these kinds of arguements...
You say
getting married does NOT make sex good and right per se, and you are of course RIGHT! That was never the arguement. The fact that there may be numerous "Biblical" marriages which are disfunctional isn't at debate here.
I'm certianly not pretending that my view point is void of it's own problems. However, I think your statement about being able to give an example for EVERY example etc, is underestimating the massive, truely mind boggling proportions of the problems caused by sex outside marriage.
This is the thing, a lot of the results of extra-marital sex are hidden from the public eye. Nothing enjoys better, more unequivocal media support, than sex. Even the most terrible, hurtful, seedy aspects, like prostitution, aquire a glamourous sheen in our media often.
I am sure this kind of positive propaganda invades everybody's mind much more than we think it does. Mine included.
Unless you happen to be a social worker or medical worker and in daily contact with the reality, the problem seems much smaller than it actually is.
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Once again; please name me any society that successfully implements this policy. Its impossible. Those who try can only do it by subsuming one sex, 99% of the time women. Their has always been sex outside marriage, it is not always harmful. Trying to form a rule, law or imperative that tries to stop sex outside marriage would be like trying to stop people breathing.
Well Pyx is right in suggesting that you really can't stop sex outside of marriage. People will do it and you can't have sex-police on every corner.
The real issue, I think, isn't stopping it but reaching consensus about whether or not extra-marital or pre-marital sex is harmful, and then hopefully reducing its prevalence.
While Pix is probably right that no society has ever successfully maintained the standard of 100% virgins at marriage and 100% fidelity within marriage, this is something that varies quite a bit from culture to culture. If you you have ever lived in a culture different than your own you have probably realized how much this is true.
And if it varies quite a bit from culture to culture, then it is not a biological given that most teen-agers are going to have sex so its no use trying to stop them.
I grew up in a Christian community where teen-agers did not have sex, where divorce was rare, and where virginity at marriage was assumed. Of course some strayed, but on the whole it was a happy and healthy environment. It didn't seem that hard to me. It puzzles me that some people assume that sexuality is unaffected by ideas.
And far from subsuming women, a culture that seeks to preserve morality is likely to be far more respectful and safe for women. Nothing mistreats women more than immorality.
But I agree that we are not out to promote a Nazi or fundamentalist state, where those who deviate are harshly punished, isolated, or held up to public ridicule.
It is simply about letting people know the truth about what is harmful and what is helpful as far as finding long-lasting happiness goes.
I think the truth is that extra-marital and pre-marital sex is more harmful than people seem to realize. If it could be reduced we would see a corresponding reduction in disease, abuse, suicide, etc. Of course it is not as simple as that. Many issues are related in bringing about a solution to civilization's discontents. But I do think that attitudes about sex and marriage are a fairly basic issue.
I never EVER want to get married, and moreover, never EVER want to have sex!
My parents are committed. Well, my Mum is. I have a lot of admiration for her stubbornness in her faithfulness to the vows she made before God to my Dad.
I have nothing but disdain for some of the ways in which my Dad has treated her. He has belittled her abilities, shouted her down, ignored her needs in preference for his own, left her to cope with an exceedingly difficult son (my brother is a complete shit, mainly due to the fact my Dad hasn't been able to see him as a human being with needs that can only be met by a father), left her on her own with young children for long periods of time (when I was about 3 and my sister was a baby my Dad went away for long stretches overseas; more recently, he moved to the US 2 years before my Mum and the twins moved, coming back every six months to pay brief visits), and, I have reason to suspect, has been unfaithful to her. This makes me angry, because my Mum has been unstinting in her loyalty to my Dad, even telling me off for expressing my anger over his behaviour. It just proves he's yet another sex crazed male, in need of boosting his own ego.
Alot of his problems he inherited from my Opa. My Opa was very violent, owing to bad childhood experiences and having to survive the brutality of the Germans who invaded Holland in WW2. He didn;t know how to relate to his children, with the result my Dad has always stumbled in the dark trying to be a good husband and father.
But it does NOT excuse him from treating my Mum like she's a complete dummie incapable of stringing together a stream of logic.
Now they say girls look for men who are like their fathers (subconsciously of course, because all girls think their fathers are complete wastes of space and try to find someone as different as possible). In that case, I never want to get into a relationship with anyone (I'm pretty sure I'm not gay, which means I don't want a relationship with the opposite sex).
Is sex really that worthwhile? It certainly seems a big deal is made about a few seconds (or was that nanoseconds?) of pleasure and intimacy, which is anticlimactically over so soon. What's so wonderful about it anyway? It merely causes complications of all sorts.
So do away with sex. I certainly don't want to be female anymore (or male either). I don't care that "God made us this way" and "Sex is a gift from God". It's disgusting, and that's the bottom line; from girls waking up to find blood on their sheets and boys getting unwanted wet dreams to honeymoon syndrome and childbirth - it's all completely gross. To say nothing of the constructs around it. If we didn;t have it, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Why do people want to get married today anyway, other than to bonk around and have children (eventually), or to satisfy some convention whether religious or otherwise? Companionship, sure, but surely this is still a mere secondary to sex, as you can have intimate companionship with just about anyone. Come to think of it, why does anyone want to get into a relationship with anyone else? It's all so pointless...
So, I will be a friend, I can be an intimate friend, but don't expect me to bed you, or to wed you. In fact, I think I'd rather starve of human love than be forced into a situation where I am obliged to bed or wed or both. I am perfectly happy in my miserable little hell-hole of a lonely life, thank you very much, and if there is no other way out of it than by sexuality, I'd rather die of loneliness.
[Sorry to the Hosts, if this is more appropriate for Hell...]
It isn't just about no sex outside of marriage. It is about obeying the laws of God, and being people who know how to love.
We live in a world where love is too rare. That is the problem. This what it's all about.
I'm terribly sorry to hear all of that stuff, and isn't it sad how evil sows evil through generations? The evil of the Nazi's in world war two has echos all the way up to the present day in ways we wouldn't neccessarily think of.
Fortunately, I believe Good can propagate in the same way. God made us relational. We relate to him, we relate to each other. You're quite right this need not neccessarily be sexual. Celebacy may be quite right for some people.
However, I am sure God does not want you to be lonely and you will not always be that way. "I am always with you, even to the very end of the Age".
God bless you Nunc.
Matt
Sex before marriage?
Biblically, I don't think there is much arguing there. We can talk about being distant in time and culture from biblical eras, but the fact is that the Bible speaks quite clearly about sex outside of marriage being against God's will.
That said, there is a human element to every choice we make to sin. I personally find it really hard to take a call from God in the Bible and put in into practice without first firmly believing it in my heart. The result is that I've made many a mistake and committed many a sin, but in each of those circumstances, God has taught me through that sin experience just why He commands as He does.
I've been married now for about a year and a half. Neither my husband nor I were virgins when we got married, but we each in our separate experiences had shown us both that we wanted to save sex for marriage, to protect ourselves, but to moreso protect each other and our relationship. Our relationship was too important to us to jeopardize it for pleasure that we were going to be able to have in a few months anyway. I can say now it was worth it.
Rachel, you have to make your own choices, and they may not be the same as mine. It ain't easy, eh?
Freddy, I admire your hutzpa in posting about your home town. I just can't hold back from suggesting that you may find someday that all that you believe about its chaste and happy nature is not so rosy. I came from a similar Canadian Bible-believing town and have seen that outward good morals do not exempt a town from struggling from the same issues and demons as everywhere else. Most often, they are just more covered up. We as humans basically have the same struggles, no matter where we come from. So, were those teenagers really not having sex or were they just not talking about the sex they were having.
e.
quote:
Biblically, I don't think there is much arguing there. We can talk about being distant in time and culture from biblical eras, but the fact is that the Bible speaks quite clearly about sex outside of marriage being against God's will.
Just don't even go there....
The foolish niavity of the newbie huh?
My point is that if by act of will or firm belief you are a virgin at marriage you will take that same strong will or firm belief through to its conclusion in dealing with a sexually dysfunctional (or damaging in another way) marriage. It seems to me a logical point to make, why don’t you think its “fair” ?
Matt : glib? are you SURE thats the right word, we could talk about it in hell if you like?
Yes I can exchange horror stories with you. Do not presume upon an ignorance on my part. How many of the k160 abortions are performed for married women ? How many beatings, rapes, systematic abuses go on inside marriage ?
Come on. Marriage is not the Sovereign Remedy and has been used as an abusive tool by a patriarchal society since its conception. Despite the huge steps forward I can not forget that less than 40 years ago women were locked up in insane asylums for having illegitimate children and to this day men use physical and economic force to subjugate there wives. My point was that we could try to seem to be going in the direction of “once you get married everything is cured”, the discussion does not end at marriage. And it was never true.
My point is not that sex inside or outside marriage is right or wrong. But that we seem only to speak about extremes; abstinence or “in marriage”. I agree (and have made the point many times myself) about the extreme degrading of sex by the capitalist regime. And this, by default, points us in the right direction. We need IMHO to be educating people (and ourselves) about the strengths of commitment, fidelity and the joy of a developing sexual relationship. We need to be pointing to marriage as a great gift even a sacrament, we may need to be even discouraging people to enter into this commitment!
We need to be educating our young people not only about the deep, affecting and holy nature of the gift of sex but also about contraception. We should not be presuming to stand on some high moral hillock making ourselves look pious and silly.
I would also like some biblical basis for this idea that sex only in marriage is “sound” if you are going to quote bits of Paul at me when he and all the churches were expecting the judgment that week then Duh. Thanks to Louise for :
“Surely sex between an unmarried couple who are faithful to each other and respectful of each other, is hardly the sort of 'fornication' St Paul was worrying about”
Most of this discussion is far to black and white. We only add to the false idea of sex being sinful by putting it beyond most youngsters reach, mystifying it, trying to make people feel guilty and promoting an ideal that is unattainable and has never been attained. Bluntly ; people screw we can encourage them to be careful in every sense. We can tell them to stop or suggest they get married before they screw. The first idea has my vote because neither of the other two work. If we do what we always did we will get what we always got.
Pyx_e
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I think that is very glib statement. For EVERY abortion you can point to an equally horrendous situation inside a marriage?Ok, in that case I will be requiring you to give 160,000 examples per YEAR for the UK alone then, because that's how many abortions there are.
First, just what would you, Matt, accept as "an equally horrendous situation inside a marriage" that would be equivalent to an abortion? (If only the actual death of a spouse or child, then consider this discussion ended.) Somehow I don't think you and I would even come close to agreement on this.
The second problem is that abortions are a discrete and concrete event, and thus easily counted. Even if we agreed on a definition of "horrendous situation inside a marriage" (and I'm thinking obvious child and/or spousal abuse), it is much harder to come up with exact numbers, because even if you deal with court convictions, you still have lots of different "offenses" and can debate which ones should be included and which are not really equivalent to abortion. And when you throw in the "PER YEAR" requirement, you make this even more meaningless, because while an abortion happens only once on a particular date, problems within a marriage tend to be on-going, so how can they be assigned to a particular year?
And finally, and most important, why are you using abortion as the equal and oppposite to "good marriage"? You like to cite logic, but these two things just aren't a clear example of "either/or". People in "good" marriages have been known to get abortions, and despite your ex-girlfriend's experience, many women who have abortions (I had five) go on to have happy marriages, bear children (mine seem to be turning out pretty normal), and otherwise get on with life.
Why is it that you keep equating sex before marriage with abortion?
I am sure this kind of positive propaganda invades everybody's mind much more than we think it does. Mine included. quote:
Nothing enjoys better, more unequivocal media support, than sex. Even the most terrible, hurtful, seedy aspects, like prostitution, aquire a glamourous sheen in our media often.
I agree with you that the media glamorizes sex, but I think the more important part is that is invades our minds. And that brings up the bigger question of what other things invade our minds? It's not the sex that's the problem, it the way our "Western" culture uses advertising to manipulate our minds and our desires about lots of things.
quote:
Unless you happen to be a social worker or medical worker and in daily contact with the reality, the problem seems much smaller than it actually is.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I see lots of really HUGE problems, though not necessarily the ones you see. And why do you think that only you and those like you are "in daily contact with the reality"? It seems to me that Christianity teaches that we are all constantly in contact with reality, and our challenge is to open our eyes and see it.
[UBB fixed]
[ 11 November 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
quote:
I respect the that you have given your opinion on this point. But I suggest both you and Matt may want to broaden your views beyond your own thoughts and experiences, or you may just as well not enjoin debate.
I should broaden my opinion beyond my own thoughts? Surely if I did that, then those things too would fall within the boundaries of "My own thoughts"?
How can anyone think something or express a viewpoint which is not their "own thought"?
I can express any opinion I like...so long as it's not my own opinion?
Seriously, how can you have a "debate" unless people bring their "own thoughts"? isn't that kind of what a debate is?
Please? Can some other people reassure me I'm not completely completely insane here?
If I express an opinion, it is by defintion "my own thoughts", (unless I'm deliberately playing devils advocate)?
I must say I'm at a bit of a loss. On this board, I've taken a fair bit of critisism, (Some of which I know was justified, again, I would very much like to apologise for being offensive to Joan. I was out of line and admitted as much) but now I'm being told I can express any opinion I like so long as its not my own?
[quote] How many of the k160 abortions are performed for married women ?[quote]
FYI, 66% of the 154,315 abortions carried out in 1995 in England and Wales were on unmarried women.
This becomes more marked when we look at the breakdown of the legal catagory of abortions.
Married women were more likely to have abortions for catagory E reasons (fetal abonormality) In fact 95% of the women in this catagory were married.
The catagory C abortions (emotional wellbeing of the mother) Single women constitute over 70%.
Statistical analysis shows this to be a significant trend.
(Source: Abortion statistics 1995, Office for National Statistics)
I hope that this counts as not being simply "my own thoughts".
Consequently, in view of what you shared about your own personal history, I will decline to answer any further on abortion questions.
Save to say, my statistics post shows there is a correlation between sex outside marriage and abortion. I'll leave it at that.
Louise
quote:
Carys , I respect your view that my point about virginity/ staying in a dysfunctional marriage is not fair. I respect the that you have given your opinion on this point. But I suggest both you and Matt may want to broaden your views beyond your own thoughts and experiences, or you may just as well not enjoin debate. In fact you then progress to not debate this issue at all but to state your thoughts on sex before marriage.My point is that if by act of will or firm belief you are a virgin at marriage you will take that same strong will or firm belief through to its conclusion in dealing with a sexually dysfunctional (or damaging in another way) marriage. It seems to me a logical point to make, why don’t you think its “fair” ?
I was questioning the fairness of your implication that all people who choose not to have sex before they get married do so out of fear and guilt and used the example of myself to show that this is not true. I also said that I respected that other people reached a different conclusion.
Are you suggesting everyone should have sex before they get married? Because that's what I almost infer from your posts.
quote:
We need to be educating our young people not only about the deep, affecting and holy nature of the gift of sex but also about contraception. We should not be presuming to stand on some high moral hillock making ourselves look pious and silly.
I agree (and said something similar in my last post).
I admit that marriages can be hell and I think that people should get out of abusive relationships as fast as possible, but that doesn't mean that all marriage is bad. I'll also admit that marriage has at times seemed to be more about controling women and property than about love, but just because it has been abused as a secular institution does not devalue the ideal of Christian marriage between two equal partners who love each other and are committed to sticking to the relationship 'for better, for worse'.
Carys
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Jig, I'm not quite sure what people on this board think of me, but I'm not quite as arrogant and insensitive as some people seem to think.Consequently, in view of what you shared about your own personal history, I will decline to answer any further on abortion questions.
Save to say, my statistics post shows there is a correlation between sex outside marriage and abortion. I'll leave it at that.
Host hat on
Matt, please please do leave it at that. You've been bordering on crusading on this topic, which is a violation of one of the ship's commandments. In hell babybear advised that you roam the rest of the ship, giving things here a chance to calm down and giving yourself a chance to reflect. I think that's excellent advice.
Host hat off
“In fact if you are of the extreme to abstain from sex before marriage you are more likely to feel the need to stay in a marriage that is sexually dysfunctional (and hence dysfunctinal in a lot of areas) driven by a similar fear of God, Church and guilt that made you abstain in the first place.”
I imply this in the “fear of God, Church and guilt that made you abstain in the first place.”. But again sorry I see you point.
Matt, An apology to you also, my skirting around your obvious pain over you ex-girlfriends situation caused me to be overly vague about “own thoughts” and “opinions”. I was trying to suggest that you were to close to a painful subject to be clear about it. Sorry, by trying to be tactful I have caused more discomfort. As others have said its probably best to leave it for a while, I will.
Pyx_e
quote:
Matt, please please do leave it at that. You've been bordering on crusading on this topic.
I quite clearly said I would so I will. The hostly reiteration was not required thanks. Good hosting is reactive not pre-emptive.
To Pye, cheers for the apology, and I was being a tad pedantic too I suspect.
quote:
“fear of God, Church and guilt that made you abstain in the first place.”. But again sorry I see you point.
What if it's love of God not fear of God that's the motivation?
What if it's not restrictive rule following, but your abstinance is a "Glad offering" To the Lord to honour him?
The point of old testament sacrifices was surely not that people went away from them grumpy at what the Lord had just taken from them, but rejoicing because they were thinking on what the Lord had done for them?
I rather think, if I could justify it for no other reason, abstaining till marriage is (for me) a kind of Faith Offering to God. Trusting that ultimately, the giver of all good things will give you something good at the end of it. It's a way of showing faithfulness to a faithful God.
At a completely personal level, I see abstinance as being usable by Christians as an offering in much the same way as some Christians use fasting. It's something I'm giving to God, not something he's taking from me.
If being a Christian means "Giving my life to the Lord" (and I honestly don't know if we are all agreed on that. Then I for one know that I am not giving all my money, or all my words, or all my deeds to him.
However, I am able to give all my sexuality over by abstinance in a continous, ongoing way. When I think of it in that respect, my impression is of how little I am doing for the Lord not what a great burden it is.
But I'd be interested to hear what others who are more staunchly Christian think about (homosexuality).
This is an issue which has bedevilled the Church in Australia, and apparently in other countries, for some years. The problem seems to have arisen because some Christians with homosexual leanings have called on secular concepts of "anti-discrimination" to claim recognition for their
"sexual preference", even to the extent of being admitted to Ordination as ministers or priests of the Church. Many others, including Church leaders, afraid of being dubbed "wowsers", "puritanical", "self-righteous", "judgmental", "unloving",and many other fashionable ecclesiastical dirty words, have been disinclined to question their claim.
The situation has not been helped by the fact that there still in our communities, even our own congregations, many who by their virulent homophobic stance have perpetuated the myth that homosexuality is the one unforgivable sin. Some people have only to hear the word "homosexual" for their minds to blow a mental fuse, and they will rant without rhyme or reason for as long as it takes for repairs to be made. For instance, I preached on Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch, pointing out that this was a daring step in that God was sending Philip to evangelise someone whom as a Jew he would have been conditioned to believe was outside the pale of God's love on two counts - he was a Gentile, and he was a eunuch. I went on to suggest that God still challenges us about the "Christian" attitudes we take about who is "in" or "out" of the Kingdom, and in passing mentioned Homosexuals as possibly one such group. A woman in the congregation went for me like a Bondi tram afterwards, accusing me of "promoting homosexuality" and everything else until I decided I didn't have to take this and gave her back as good as I got!.. She subsequently rang to apologize, but I have never seen in at that church since!
On the other hand, some years ago when the national Assembly of the Uniting Church in Australia was debating a resolution to permit the ordination of homosexuals and lesbians, a leading woman minister caused considerable furor and gained national media attention by publicly declaring herself a lesbian, saying in effect, "Look at me, I'm a lesbian, what are you going to do about it?" She has since retired, but many thought she should have been dismissed on the spot, not so much because she was a lesbian, but because she held the Body of Christ in such low regard that she was prepared to publicly blackmail into accepting her viewpoint (it didn't work - the resolution was not passed, though it will undoubtedly come up again one day!)
We have seen therefore arrogance, bigotry and lack of love at both ends ofthe spectrum, and many of us are caught in the middle, wanting to accept homosexuals as Christ would have accepted them - as he accepted prostitutes and tax-collectors. But we are still very aware that the whole tenor of both OT and NT teaching is that homosexuality in any shape or form has no place in God's scheme of things, and that this is by no means altered by the fact that we now have far greater understanding of the causes, physical or psychological, of homosexuality.
That being said, we must also bear in mind that neither do self-righteous judgmentalism and bigotry have any place in God's scheme. Again we take as our guide the practice of Jesus, who welcomed sinners but did not condone their behaviour. The story in John 8:1-11 (the woman taken in adultery) could equally well have been told of two men caught in sodomy: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone . . . Has no one condemned you? Then neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more". But remember Paul later was to describe homosexuality and lesbianism as the botom rung of the ladder humans climb down whenthey turn their backs on God and move away from him.
There are many more things I could say, but I think I've gone on long enough for now. Perhaps I'll post another contribution to this thread later, when maybeI have had some responses to this one, and canguagewhether it is being helpful at all.
go and sin no morego and sin no morego and sin no more
I have been married for nearly three years and it has been a positive experience for me and hopefully my wife
That said I often think about the words love and faithfulness being bound round my neck and what that means for me especially in the context of my marriage as a Christian.
My Vicar kinda said a funny remark about the way my wife show affection in Church for each other(Holiding her hands and putting my arms around her) and I was a bit sharp and said at least if things are bad you'll know about it!! Where else can I show love for my wife but in God's yard!! Chuh!!
The thing for me is that church is not always a safe space pastorally to talk about sex - how many of us would talk like this in our spaces and places of worship - few of us and yet there is so much emphasis on this. I find it frightening. We want to prescribe yet offer no support. I feel like I wanna say not being voyeuristic - what about sex within marriage and sustaining marriages to be lifelong - but that is another thread(s).
My key concern as someone who engages with teenagers is having safe relationships and being able to cope mentally and emotionally, with this and whether sex before marriage must be a pre-requisite for a valid relationship. Having loads of sexual partners must bring its own baggage in the formation of relationships for a fair few people.
For every action there must be a reaction.
Final point in this discussion there are two strands.
Those who are Christians and know the teachings on sex and marriage and how that is worked through. How do we support each other constructively in having relationships that reflect Christ within and outside of marriage.
Those who are not Christians and their understandings on sex and marriage. What are the consequences of serial monogamy and unions that are sustainable outside of a religious context, and what is happening to community and what dialogue are we having.
Who is informing who and whose values is a question that I ask. Where is the dialogue beyond these boards?
All I can say is thank God for his grace and people like yourselves that are grappling with issues on different levels and sharing in real way.
It's appreciated.
Respect one an' all
It's a sin - much the same as any other sin - why get so hung up about it - we wouldn't spend this much time talking about cheating the tax man out of a few pounds (would we ?) but its still a sin.
Like all sins, it can be confessed, absolved and forgiven. Let's remember - Jesus is about love, not law.
Maestro
Can't say I'm even Christian or even staunchly anything except an agnostic who has occasionally wondered about 13 guys sans femmes hanging out exclusively for long stretches at a time. Wasn't no football or rugby club, either or - heh- British public school.
No earthly pay, certainly no off-seasons, either.
Plus, homosexuality isn't a "choice" or so I've been told by those who are. I'm color- blind, left-handed and double-jointed. Not gay. But like my gay friends, I didn't have much choice in what genes I wear. (And man, that waist size gets bigger year by year...)
Alan
Purgatory host
quote:
Originally posted by rachel_o:
... Having been engaged for nearly two years, ... all the reasons for not having sex that we had when we were first together no longer seemed to make sense.
... My fiance and I share almost everything -... we are utterly commited to each other. ... Seriously, what do you all think?
Sorry to hack what you've said so much ... I hope I've not lost the gist.
I think the thing here is that the Wedding will make no real difference at all to the relationship you have. Big weddings that take months (years?) to organise are a cultural tradition, and not specifically a Christian thing.
The important bit is a long-term commitment to each other - that's what being husband and wife is really about.
Jon
However, I am not sure we should be bound biblically on this. It could be said that the main aim of the Biblical model is to prevent the birth of children outside marriage, and as the advent of birth-control has changed the situation so radically that its teaching no longer need be taken literally.
Also, what do we mean by sex before marriage? Penetration? I was a penetrative virgin when I got married. We wanted to save something for the married state, and are glad we did. But we did pet to orgasm, which in fact was a wonderful way to get to know each other sexually, and in sheer practical terms, for safety and enjoyment, regardless of theology, I would happily recommend it!!
quote:
Originally posted by rachel_o:
The bible seems pretty silent on marriage as a formal ceremonial event - as has been discussed here before. Old testament marriage seems to be more pragmatic - sort of along the lines of move out from parents house, move in with spouse - OK, now you're married.
I can see how that relates to, "a man shall leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife."
But how exactly does that relate to, I move out of my parents' house and move in somewhere else on my own. Or with flat mates with whom I am not in any way sexually involved?
If this question has been discussed somewhere, please point me in the right direction.
{two apparently identical posts deleted by TonyK - finger/computer trouble perhaps, Likeness?}
[ 13 May 2002: Message edited by: TonyK ]
Sorry to jump in the middle of things here, but I don't have anywhere else to post this since the original post I'm responding to must have been on T'n'T which has now closed. Apparently Tubbs wrote:
quote:
The only decent book on this is Veronica Zundel's Going Out... But of course it's out of print.[/B]
I'd just like to inform folks who might like to know that it's still available from
Veronica Zundel
72 Wilton Road
London N10 1LT
at the very humble price of £2.50 + 50p postage. If lots of you buy copies she can go to a publisher and say 'Look, people still want it, how about re-issuing?'
quote:And while you're asking, you could also ask for 'Life and Other Problems' by the same author. This is the book which first got me into Shiply-type thinking. It's had a life-changing effect on me. And the article on why sex is like the Holy Spirit would make a wonderful T&T discussion!
Originally posted by Esmeralda:
Hi folks
Sorry to jump in the middle of things here, but I don't have anywhere else to post this since the original post I'm responding to must have been on T'n'T which has now closed. Apparently Tubbs wrote:
quote:I'd just like to inform folks who might like to know that it's still available from
The only decent book on this is Veronica Zundel's Going Out... But of course it's out of print.[/B]
Veronica Zundel
72 Wilton Road
London N10 1LT
at the very humble price of £2.50 + 50p postage. If lots of you buy copies she can go to a publisher and say 'Look, people still want it, how about re-issuing?'
!)quote:You know, I think it's that people just have a hard time acknowledging that their addictions are sinful (cos they know they don't plan to give them up).
Sex is a self-justifying activity, which is why people are liable to justify sexual sins who would never try thus to justify theft or violence.
quote:I think I can see it, that would be impractical if not impossible. But in my opinion lust makes the difference here. I for myself do make a distinction between looking at a woman because i find her sexually attractive (lust) or "just" pretty. And for things like these i find it very helpful to know that he knows we do "fail" and as long as we can admit our sins and ask for them to be forgiven, i don't consider it a problem.
How am *I* (a non-married man with no children) supposed to get by in the world if I avert my eyes when women who may or may not be virgins walk by? Should I only scope out married women? You see?
quote:Well you don't have to believe the stereotype That Wikkid Person (mind if I call you TWP?)
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Yeah. Those of us who don't have sex outside committed relationships are given the very strong impression that "serious" relationships are "past" hot sex. "Not about" it, and "not possible with kids around" and "that fades." Wow. No wonder people tend to view marriage as the end of many things!
![[Embarrassed]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
![[Not worthy!]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:This leaves me with questions.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Apart from the naive 'The Bible says no sex before marriage' line, premissed largely (though not entirely) on the consistent mistranslation of Gk. porneia (sexual immorality/ impurity) as fornication, the best argument against sex before marriage seems to be 'human sexuality is best fulfilled within Christian marriage.'
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:Or just young and foolish. At 17 we were totally clueless except for the rudimentary "tab a goes in slot b" type facts. It was books by the pro-chastity brigade that taught me what the clitoris was, for example, and in general enabled it to become more than a one-sided off-getting of rocks.
Originally posted by multipara:
especially if the couple are so inexperienced and clueless (read brainwashed by the pro-chastity brigade) as to have not heard of foreplay.
quote:Oh no! It was magnificent! Violins wailed, rockets flared, drums beat and angels wept... the earth shook, rivers of tears rained down, hands out-stretched to meet across the gulfs of space, skin, the sensuous velvet caress, and all the host of heaven descended...
Originally posted by multipara:
... no-one but no-one is ever going to tell you the truth about their first intercourse irrespective of whether this took place before or after a wedding ceremony...
quote:No, no and no again (in my humble experience). The first time was lovely. It has, however, also improved greatly with time... but the beauty of that was that I never realised (and I'm sure I still don't) that there was "improvement" to be had until I found it!
Originally posted by multipara:
The first biological connection is best described as nasty, brutish and (thankfully) short
quote:Trying to remember - it was long ago and far away -
Originally posted by multipara:
... The first biological connection is best described as nasty, brutish and (thankfully) short, especially if the couple are so inexperienced and clueless (read brainwashed by the pro-chastity brigade)as to have not heard of foreplay...
just my 2 bob's worth,
m
![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
quote:2 Bobs?!?! Naughty, naughty.
Originally posted by multipara:
just my 2 bob's worth,
m
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
quote:Don't worry, it'll all become clear on the night
Originally posted by Little boy:
I just can't work it out.
quote:I didn't...
Don't worry, it'll all become clear on the night
quote:Oh, come now, multipara, even my prudish mother had a copy of Fannie Hill hidden in her underwear drawer!
Originally posted by multipara:
Half your luck. There wasn't anything more helpful than "Lady Chatterley's Lover" around when I was 17, and God knows that was as mucj use as tits on a bull; "Gray's Anatomy" was at least informative.
quote:nope - just any 2 average 21 year olds from an evo-charismatic background....
Originally posted by jlg:
I have to say that it must take a fair amount of conscious effort to come to one's wedding night as a totally ignorant, fumbling virgin of the type that you and I heard about from our older female relatives, multipara.
quote:Yes. But what is the harm in that - at least as a goal to aspire to? Of course it is much more difficult the second time.
Originally posted by jlg:
I have to say that it must take a fair amount of conscious effort to come to one's wedding night as a totally ignorant, fumbling virgin
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Yes. But what is the harm in that - at least as a goal to aspire to? Of course it is much more difficult the second time.
Originally posted by jlg:
I have to say that it must take a fair amount of conscious effort to come to one's wedding night as a totally ignorant, fumbling virgin
quote:Can you recommend a good one - preferably written by a decent evangelical author? It will need to be theologically sound, have no pictures and have lots of bible quotations. Any help appreciated.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The crummy thing is that my pre-wedding sexual experience didn't make me any more competent a partner on the Big Night. Reading one of those "how to make love to a woman" books, on the other hand, helped tons.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
The Act of Marriage by Tim and Beverly LaHaye is one.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Mousethief! one question... "technique" - singular???quote:Sorry - it was a weak attempt at humour.
Originally posted by TheGreenT:
why the preoccupation with an *evangelical* book? do you look for evangelical books on DIY, cooking, etc etc.....
quote:In the collective sense, yes. From m-w.com, sense 2a: "a body of technical methods."
Originally posted by caz667:
But, um,
quote:You have a body of technical methods? How ... unusual!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
"a body of technical methods."
quote:or - exercise self-control.
Originally posted by Big Steve:
Do they
- Live in different time zones
- Wear armour
- only meet with responsible adults nearby
- Do everything apart from "it"
quote:Yeah, Sharkshooter, very wise. Thanks for being sooo helpful. You suggest that exercising self-control more often would help? Maybe I should hire a prostitute and practise self-control with her, so when I start real relationships I have a certain level of match fitness. We could sit in the bedroom for hours watching Telly and reading books. Wow, what a great plan!
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:or - exercise self-control.
Originally posted by Big Steve:
Do they
- Live in different time zones
- Wear armour
- only meet with responsible adults nearby
- Do everything apart from "it"
quote:Are you looking for advice or permission? Advice I can give - but you have to be willing to take it.
Originally posted by Big Steve:
You suggest that exercising self-control more often would help? Maybe I should hire a prostitute and practise self-control with her, so when I start real relationships I have a certain level of match fitness. We could sit in the bedroom for hours watching Telly and reading books. Wow, what a great plan!
quote:This is an excellent idea. Amusingly enough, once you're used to regular marital sex, these companionable activities are about on a par with sex. Well, almost. I like to buy large quantities of chocolate and scatter it around so that I can feel virtuous in abstaining.
Originally posted by Big Steve:
You suggest that exercising self-control more often would help? Maybe I should hire a prostitute and practise self-control with her, so when I start real relationships I have a certain level of match fitness. We could sit in the bedroom for hours watching Telly and reading books. Wow, what a great plan!
quote:One thing that helped when I was dating my wife in Romania was that she lived in a fairly small house; though we did hang out in the bedroom by ourselves (with the door closed, even), her mom was always a couple rooms away. Regardless of what she'd have thought about walking in on us, I'd have died of mortification. Not having a place to do it (and not seeking one out!) helps a lot, and we managed to wait.
Originally posted by Big Steve:
Assuming that a couple would prefer to wait until marriage before sleeping together and assuming that the couple really, really want to sleep together right now, what should they do?
quote:Reminds me of a seminar I attended on "boy-girl relationships" in my youth, run I think by the Navigators. Their advice was to put a pillow in the door if alone with a person of the opposite sex...
Originally posted by Kÿralessa:
In Judaism there exist the laws of yichud ("privacy"), which prohibit an unmarried man and woman being in a closed room; the very closing of the door is considered a sexual act, regardless of what might or might not happen next.
quote:Marriage, a sacrament which makes the activity licit. Try this Catholic Pages article.
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
...what is the difference between screwing a day (a week, a month) before marriage and screwing a day (a week, a month) after marriage?
quote:Logic is objective; sacrament is subjective.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:Marriage, a sacrament which makes the activity licit. Try this Catholic Pages article.
Originally posted by Frisbeetarian:
...what is the difference between screwing a day (a week, a month) before marriage and screwing a day (a week, a month) after marriage?
quote:I guess that's possible if the relationship is "built" on sex before marriage. But it is possible to have a relationship before marriage which involves sex but is not "built" on sex. Why is a relationship which includes sex assumed to be "built" on sex? It could be built on love, friendship, genuinely seeking the best for the other person, and sex is just another expression of that. Any relationship which is "built" on sex and where sex is the foundation probably isn't as healthy as it could and should be, but you could probably say that that's the case with plenty of marriages as well.
Originally posted by ThisCoolMom:
Sex before marriage is not a good idea. I am not going to preach on why it's a sin, but more on why it's not a good idea.
For instance a relationship that is built on sex before marriage is a foundation that is built on passion and emotions.
quote:Without sounding preachy...God had intended the sex act to finalize the marriage deal. God has given us humans the freedom to make sex what we want it to be. It's sad to see such a beautiful and sacred thing to be used so fleatingly. As well when you have sex a peice of you is left with that person because it's such a intimate thing between a couple. I can remember my first kiss (with an Aussie and boy was he a good kisser) The second third etc I hardly remember. I saved myself for my husband (now deceiced) He didnt save himself for me and boy was I dissapointed. I have always dreamed that my first time would be with someone who saved himself. As I watch the Maury Povich show one day I saw a girl who's slept with over 200 guys. (a severe case of comparison but) Just imagine the tree that goes with that person not only has she slept with that person she has slept with everyone that has slept with that partner and partner's partner. Sad to say in today's society where the church scares the kids thinking sex is dirty or only for child conceiving. It is the deepest expression of love between a married couple. Taint that expression with just any old boyfriend only leaves room for Jelousy for the partner. Leaving them wondering if the other person pleased them better.
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
I guess that's possible if the relationship is "built" on sex before marriage. But it is possible to have a relationship before marriage which involves sex but is not "built" on sex. Why is a relationship which includes sex assumed to be "built" on sex? It could be built on love, friendship, genuinely seeking the best for the other person, and sex is just another expression of that. Any relationship which is "built" on sex and where sex is the foundation probably isn't as healthy as it could and should be, but you could probably say that that's the case with plenty of marriages as well.
quote:A commonly accepted platitude, but totally meaningless.
Originally posted by ThisCoolMom:
Finally there can only be one first time you can never take that back.
quote:
Originally posted by ThisCoolMom:
Without sounding preachy...
quote:Evidence for this assertion?
God had intended the sex act to finalize the marriage deal.
quote:Trust me, I didn't leave anything behind the first time I had sex. And when exactly was the first time, anyway? The first kiss? The first time a man made me come? First oral sex received? Given? First penetrative sex? If so, finger or penis? The whole first time mystique is complete hogwash to me.
As well when you have sex a peice of you is left with that person because it's such a intimate thing between a couple.
quote:This proves nothing. I vividly remember the second kiss from the first guy who kissed me, and I vividly remember many kisses from the second guy.
I can remember my first kiss (with an Aussie and boy was he a good kisser) The second third etc I hardly remember.
quote:So what?
As I watch the Maury Povich show one day I saw a girl who's slept with over 200 guys. (a severe case of comparison but) Just imagine the tree that goes with that person not only has she slept with that person she has slept with everyone that has slept with that partner and partner's partner.
quote:Sex may be the deepest expression of love between a married couple, though I imagine some married couples might cite other things. When I consider the care some elderly people give to their spouses, I think perhaps the deepest expression of love between a married couple might be wiping the other person's ass and managing not to make them feel bad about not being able to do it themselves.
Sad to say in today's society where the church scares the kids thinking sex is dirty or only for child conceiving. It is the deepest expression of love between a married couple. Taint that expression with just any old boyfriend only leaves room for Jelousy for the partner. Leaving them wondering if the other person pleased them better.
quote:I wasn't suggesting that it is used like that - in some relationships it is every bit as intimate and committed and long-lasting as marriage. I'm just struggling a little with the view that people are either married and therefore having wonderful committed sacred sex, or they are not married and therefore their sex is meaningless. I think that those are two extremes that do happen, of course, but they're not the only scenarios.
Originally posted by ThisCoolMom:
It's sad to see such a beautiful and sacred thing to be used so fleatingly.
quote:I'm inclined to agree with you on this. But I don't see why it's necessarily a bad thing, for a couple of reasons. One is that it's possible to give of yourself (I think I prefer "giving" rather than "leaving pieces") to other people without having sex (for example, as a nurse I have had to perform some very intimate acts, such as washing people or whatever, and I really think that I was giving myself to that person at those times) and that that act of giving of myself enriched me and made me in a very profound way more whole rather than taking a piece of me away. And secondly, whether or not we have had sex, we are all influenced by people we have had contact with, and all of those people have helped us to become who we are. So when I meet someone and find them attractive, the fact that they've had previous partners or not is one of the factors that have made them who they are and who I find attractive in the here and now. I don't dispute that sometimes fears of "comparison" are an issue, but they don't have to be.
Originally posted by ThisCoolMom:
As well when you have sex a peice of you is left with that person because it's such a intimate thing between a couple.
quote:I do have a problem with the thought of "saving oneself". At the risk of sounding preachy, it's Jesus who saves. I can't save myself, I can't redeem my sexuality, however "unsullied" (yeuch!) I may or may not be. I agree with Ruth about this one - if somebody has made a public commitment to me (and therefore not to previous partners) then that is way way more important and meaningful to me than those past relationships which are now over.
Originally posted by ThisCoolMom:
I saved myself for my husband (now deceiced) He didnt save himself for me and boy was I dissapointed. I have always dreamed that my first time would be with someone who saved himself.
quote:I couldn't agree more. I think the church and its teachings have a lot to answer for. Not necessarily that the teachings are wrong, but for the way something so profound has been simplified to "thou shalt not", end of discussion. The impression I get (forgive me if I'm wrong) from your post is that you see those who have had sex before marriage as "damaged goods" somehow (and I certainly get that impression from many people within our churches). For some people of course it can be damaging, but I really wonder sometimes if it's any more damaging than that emotional wasteland that the church expects those of us who are single (particularly those of us who are no longer in our 20s) to inhabit - a wasteland where we either have to commit to someone after one date, or forego any intimacy whatsoever.
Originally posted by ThisCoolMom:
Sad to say in today's society where the church scares the kids thinking sex is dirty or only for child conceiving.
Grrr.quote:Well yes that's true. But I'm inclined to agree with jlg about this. Yes you only lose your virginity once (though "losing" or "giving" your virginity both seem like slightly bizarre concepts to me to be honest - it's just a state you happen to be in) but you can work to make every sexual encounter meaningful and loving. Personally I'd find sex more meaningful and loving in the context of a committed relationship (with marriage as the ideal of course). But that doesn't necessarily mean that sex in another context could not be meaningful or loving at all. I still end up with my original point - one size doesn't fit all, and it's not for me to judge the significance or meaningfulness (is that a word?!) of somebody else's decisions.
Originally posted by ThisCoolMom:
Finally there can only be one first time you can never take that back.
quote:Now that's definitely on the list of future .sigs
Originally posted by RuthW:
I agree wholeheartedly with Jack the Lass.
quote:Run that by us again?
Originally posted by ThisCoolMom:
If you desire sexual relations with said person then you really should be married.
quote:Way up the thread, I found
Originally posted by xSx:
...I used to believe definitely that sex before marriage was wrong 'because the bible says so'. I no longer that inerrantist/infallible view, and am inclined to think that most of the teaching on sex in the bible is culturally conditioned, a result of a time when there was no contraception, etc.etc.
quote:It must have been on another thread where I remeber reading (possibly writing) a detailed list of the sexual mores prescribed in the Bible ... which don't actually prohibit sex before marriage. (But virginity is a commodity in the economic sense - a price is levied.)
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw-Dwarf:
Apart from the naive 'The Bible says no sex before marriage' line, premissed largely (though not entirely) on the consistent mistranslation of Gk. porneia (sexual immorality/ impurity) as fornication,
quote:I have the advantage here of being an Anglican, a member of a reformed church that allows me to own my own conscience. Most of the arguments (read above) against sex before marriage are not moral arguments but practical ones, and the practical issues are (still) under good control today.
Originally posted by xSx:
What I wondered was what authority those of you who think sex before marriage is ok (in some circumstances) are basing your opinion on? Is it your own reason, church teaching ... ?
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
quote:Been there, done that. Got the scars and the kid to show for it.
Originally posted by Rosy:
After a lot of thinking and praying about this issue, I came to the conclusion that sleeping with a partner in a monogamous relationship was ok by me. Sleeping around with every bloke who spoke to me was not. I've been with my current partner for 18 months, and yes we do sleep together. That doesn't mean that our entire relationship is based on sex however. We have an amazing bond, and beyond anything else, we are incredibly close friends. THIS is what our relationship is based on.
However, what really hurts my feeling is that my catholic housemates regard me as akin with a prostitute because I do sleep with my boyfriend. If people are going to make a decision, then fine, do so, stick to it, and don't judge anyone else on theirs. God is the true judge, and He alone.
quote:I don't normally post down here, but...
Originally posted by Rosy:
However, what really hurts my feeling is that my catholic housemates regard me as akin with a prostitute because I do sleep with my boyfriend. If people are going to make a decision, then fine, do so, stick to it, and don't judge anyone else on theirs. God is the true judge, and He alone.
- trite preaching over for the day (sorry)quote:I don't want them to change their opinions. Their decisions are their own, and I don't judge them to be lesser people than me because of it. And even though I know God's opinion is the one that matter, it doesn't make the fact that people i considered friends are so judgemental any easier to bear
I hope that your housemates will begin to act towards you with more kindness, but no one of us can force other people to change their opinions of us.
What their worldview is is up to them, even though, from personal experience, this can be a hard thing to accept. At the end of the day, God's approval is the only thing that matters.
quote:Rosy - what do you expect? You are doing something they find morally offensive and presumably you have changed your mind on the subject since moving in with your flatmates. They thought you thought one thing and now you have changed your mind. Understandably they are a bit narked off.
Originally posted by Rosy:
quote:I don't want them to change their opinions. Their decisions are their own, and I don't judge them to be lesser people than me because of it. And even though I know God's opinion is the one that matter, it doesn't make the fact that people i considered friends are so judgemental any easier to bear
I hope that your housemates will begin to act towards you with more kindness, but no one of us can force other people to change their opinions of us.
What their worldview is is up to them, even though, from personal experience, this can be a hard thing to accept. At the end of the day, God's approval is the only thing that matters.
quote:Despite my agreement with your thoughts on sex before marriage, I must say I think it rather unreasonable for you to expect your housemates not to judge you. People make moral judgements about others' actions all the time. It's not just wrong for me to lie, steal, cheat, kill, it's also wrong for other people to do those things, and I have no problem saying that. If someone thinks sex before marriage is wrong, why shouldn't they say so? If you were shop-lifting, would you expect your housemates not to judge you for it? Sure, to you and me shop-lifting and pre-marital sex are not comparable, but to your housemates they are.
Originally posted by Rosy:
However, what really hurts my feeling is that my catholic housemates regard me as akin with a prostitute because I do sleep with my boyfriend. If people are going to make a decision, then fine, do so, stick to it, and don't judge anyone else on theirs. God is the true judge, and He alone.
quote:No, this was discussed well before we moved in together, and I have not changed my mind. I made this decision several years ago. Actually, they have both changed their minds as it happens.
They thought you thought one thing and now you have changed your mind. Understandably they are a bit narked off.
C [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by Rosy:
quote:No, this was discussed well before we moved in together, and I have not changed my mind. I made this decision several years ago. Actually, they have both changed their minds as it happens. [/QB]
They thought you thought one thing and now you have changed your mind. Understandably they are a bit narked off.
C
quote:There is a difference between judging people and calling them prostitutes!
Despite my agreement with your thoughts on sex before marriage, I must say I think it rather unreasonable for you to expect your housemates not to judge you.
), and have finally reached the end and feel ready to make my first post! (Very appropriate that my 'first time' should be on this thread! ) !!
quote:Why, exactly?
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
We're at university together, and I've got another 4 1/2 years of my course (total 6 years) to finish before I would want to be thinking about getting married.
quote:I don't know exactly, but I suppose it's probably mostly for economic reasons if I'm completely honest. Marriage seems to me something that goes along with setting up home together etc, and I'd want to wait until I've finished uni, got a job etc. Also, I'd like to combine it with the big party, and celebration of our love with family and friends, and that also seems to me something that would fit in better after graduation, once I've got a job etc. I hope that makes some sort of sense!
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Why, exactly?
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
We're at university together, and I've got another 4 1/2 years of my course (total 6 years) to finish before I would want to be thinking about getting married.
quote:I'm of the opinion that the process of getting married is just a sign of the commitment two people have, rather than the commitment itself. However, I do think that it can be very useful. The whole thing of deciding to ask and the other person making up their mind means that both people have to definately stop and think and make sure that the relationship is right for the long term. ISTM that too many people slip into a serious relationship and end up living together/with kids without ever actually making a proper decision that thats what they want with their life.
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
quote:I don't know exactly, but I suppose it's probably mostly for economic reasons if I'm completely honest. Marriage seems to me something that goes along with setting up home together etc, and I'd want to wait until I've finished uni, got a job etc. Also, I'd like to combine it with the big party, and celebration of our love with family and friends, and that also seems to me something that would fit in better after graduation, once I've got a job etc. I hope that makes some sort of sense!
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Why, exactly?
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
We're at university together, and I've got another 4 1/2 years of my course (total 6 years) to finish before I would want to be thinking about getting married.
) of the no sex before marriage persuasion. This isn't because I regard marriage as something particularly holy but because I know what I am like. If I said to myself that I would wait until a relationship that i thought was the one, then I can guarantee I would talk myself into being more serious about a relationship than I was simply to have sex.quote:Speaking as a man, I fear you may be kidding yourself here. There will be a reason he doesn't like talking about marriage.
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
As a slight aside, I find it very amusing that my boyfriend avoids words like 'marriage' and 'wife' like the plague: he talks about me still being his girlfriend when we're both retired. It's always a source of entertainment the lengths he goes to to avoid using the dreaded 'm' word, and my girlfriends all find it hilarious too! I know it's not through lack of committment, as we're both utterly committed to each other.
quote:Not really, I'm afraid. Don't trust me with advice on sex and marriagte - my own life is such a foul-up in that line that I have no platform to talk from at all - but I'd have thought that if marriage is good when you are well-off it also ought to be good if you are poor.
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
Marriage seems to me something that goes along with setting up home together etc, and I'd want to wait until I've finished uni, got a job etc. Also, I'd like to combine it with the big party, and celebration of our love with family and friends, and that also seems to me something that would fit in better after graduation, once I've got a job etc. I hope that makes some sort of sense!
quote:Speaking as a woman, I'd say so, too, in general (I don't know about your specific situation). People who want to marry you and spend the rest of their lives with you typically have no great difficulty talking about marriage. Most of the people I know who are married talked of it at least prospectively before the actual question was popped. Not t o say that that comfort cannot come with time, but if several years aren't enough to produce that comfort level, I'd be a bit worried.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:Speaking as a man, I fear you may be kidding yourself here. There will be a reason he doesn't like talking about marriage.
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
As a slight aside, I find it very amusing that my boyfriend avoids words like 'marriage' and 'wife' like the plague: he talks about me still being his girlfriend when we're both retired. It's always a source of entertainment the lengths he goes to to avoid using the dreaded 'm' word, and my girlfriends all find it hilarious too! I know it's not through lack of committment, as we're both utterly committed to each other.
quote:You seem to be saying that you want to wait until everything else in your lives is settled before you get married. But life isn't like that - one thing might get sorted, for a while, but something else changes, and you find that the job doesn't work out, the house isn't all you wanted, or whatever. Being married means working through all these problems together.
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
Marriage seems to me something that goes along with setting up home together etc, and I'd want to wait until I've finished uni, got a job etc. Also, I'd like to combine it with the big party, and celebration of our love with family and friends, and that also seems to me something that would fit in better after graduation, once I've got a job etc. I hope that makes some sort of sense!
quote:Amen.
Originally posted by RuthW:
A lot can change in a few years, especially when you're young.
quote:Would you then, recommend that people don't marry while they're still young, as a lot can change and the marriage has less chance of surviving?
Originally posted by RuthW:
A lot can change in a few years, especially when you're young.
quote:That is, indeed, a worrying development.
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
I'm afraid I have to agree with Leprechaun here.
quote:That's ludicrous. Where did you get the idea that this is used on US military recruits?
Originally posted by Doh-nut:
It's what they use sometimes for sex offenders and even, I think, in US military boot camp at about the third week.
quote:Why is it worrying ? And why the
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
I'm afraid I have to agree with Leprechaun here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is, indeed, a worrying development.
after your post ? It looks rather rude to me, frankly.
quote:Sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude. I was just mildly amused at the way you phrased your post "I'm afraid I have to agree with Leprechaun." Just thought it was funny that it sounded like agreeing with me was something to be frightened of. Really wasn't being rude.
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
quote:Why is it worrying ? And why the
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
I'm afraid I have to agree with Leprechaun here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is, indeed, a worrying development.
quote:Must resist. Must resist.
Originally posted by A free Spirit:
.....Bananas....of a perverse and lustful nature.
quote:I might be wrong, but it strikes me that waiting six years to get married is a mistake.
Originally posted by Laura:
[backtracking a moment, though]
If you're in university, I'd certainly wait until done the degree to get married or to set up house together. That seems sensible to me.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
quote:I agree. And if, in particular, he feels he would resent you not sleeping with him (as if the most loving and intimate commitment a person can make to him is something he has a right to, rather than a gift to be received with gratitude) then he's not a 'perfect gentlemen'. 'Tosser' is probably closer to the truth.
Originally posted by Gill H:
My immediate response is "If you have to sleep with him to keep him, he's not worth keeping."
quote:In other words "if you don't sleep with me I'm breaking up with you". But said nicer.
Originally posted by Viola99:
Basically, we had the 'no sex before marriage chat' and he came to the conclusion that while it wasn't an issue now, and he doesn't believe in rushing these things (he's been a PERFECT gentleman!), that he's concerned it would become an issue and something he might resent, and we would fall out, and hurt each other even more, and so we should break up now to avoid this.
Wouldn't have been with him for 6 months if I didn't!
quote:Does any guy really feel this way? I'm having a hard time imagining that.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
he doesn't want to deprive his current partner of the closeness and intimacy he shared with others.
quote:Read what I wrote Mousetheif. I said for the sake of argument we'd imagine it was the bloke who had had past sexual experiences (which fits Viola's scenario, and is also probably more common than the other way around). But it could easily have been the woman. I'm a woman so naturally the thoughts I came up with as I tried to think through this, especially as I was trying to empathise with Viola, were probably more the way that a woman would approach it than a man. I make no apologies for not being able to think like a guy!
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:Does any guy really feel this way? I'm having a hard time imagining that.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
he doesn't want to deprive his current partner of the closeness and intimacy he shared with others.
quote:Apologies if I was too harsh. Of course, I am basing my judgment only on what you have posted, so a more balanced view would be that your ex may well be a very good and moral person, and on any other issue much my superiour in righteousness, but on this one issue (the only one I know anything about), his behaviour is well below standard, sufficient to put his character in issue generally.
Originally posted by Viola99:
Despite the vilification he seems to have got my ex is NOT a bad person, a tosser, a loser, a wrong 'un or any of the other phrases that were directed at him!
quote:On the contrary, I don't think you are naive at all. I think you are a cynic. You aren't deceiving yourself about him, you know precisely what the score is, but you are putting up with it because you think that's the best you can expect from most men in this degenerate society.
I know, I know, you all are thinking how niave I am and of course I'd jump to his defence [...] To be honest, he's just your average mid twenties guy, brought up in the western society we know all too well
quote:I don't see that in this example. All I see is someone who knows his desires could very well lead to hurt further down the line, and has decided to end it now when the pain caused will be less.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I don't share your view of society. I think it has a lot of bastards in it, but I don't think we men have, generally speaking, lost our standards of decent behaviour to women. And I don't think it is that difficult for a man who cares to find out what those standards are and to make a real effort to practice them.
quote:Again, that's not what I see here. In fact, it looks to me like he's trying to avoid putting himself into that position by walking away now.
I don't think it is asking too much of any man that he should refrain from putting pressure on his lady to sleep with him one moment before she is absolutely sure it is what she wants.
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
)
quote:Rather than, for example, exercising a little self-control and patience for the sake of the lady he purports to 'adore'? You don't think that's ever so slightly churlish?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't see that in this example. All I see is someone who knows his desires could very well lead to hurt further down the line, and has decided to end it now when the pain caused will be less.
quote:This I am very happy to do.
Originally posted by Viola99:
Please pray that God's will shall be done and I'll accept it - whatever the result (...and for a receptive heart for my ex!!)
quote:I have to agree somewhat here. Although I sympathise with both of you, it's a bit of a cop-out to say "well, I have these desires, you see, and I can't control them, so...."
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Rather than, for example, exercising a little self-control and patience for the sake of the lady he purports to 'adore'? You don't think that's ever so slightly churlish?
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I don't see that in this example. All I see is someone who knows his desires could very well lead to hurt further down the line, and has decided to end it now when the pain caused will be less.
quote:Not so much on this side of the pond.
Originally posted by Gill H:
Oh, they're out there, FN. (Well, unless I snagged the last one.) They're probably keeping very quiet, though, because it's completely counter-cultural these days.
but these guys are obsessed. There's much more to life than virginity.
And the masturbands!
quote:I'd try that at my local bar, but I enjoy having the use of my legs...
Originally posted by Gill H:
So I walk up to a beautiful woman in a bar and say, "I hear you're a virgin." And she looks up at me with eyes like blue velvet and smiles like I've just paid her the best compliment of the evening.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
True manhood gets polished by the hand of God? Somebody has a very strange fantasy life.
My reaction exactly, Ruth!
quote:So now I know what the "feminisation" of Christianity is. If this is the alternative the "feminine" version sounds much healthier!
But it's not just feminism that's to blame. It's also what the Christian right sees as an effeminized church. "Christianity, as it currently exists, has done some terrible things to men," writes John Eldredge, the author of a best-selling manhood guide called Wild at Heart. He thinks that church life in America has pacified Christian men and made them weak. Women who are frustrated with their girlie-man husbands and boyfriends seize power, and the men retreat to the safe haven of porn instead of whipping the ladies back into line. What women really want, he says, "is to be fought for." And men, he claims, are "hard-wired" by God for battle; Jesus wants them to be warriors in the vein of Braveheart and Gladiator.
quote:I'd be in so much trouble.
Originally posted by jlg:
Perhaps some church should forbid arguing before marriage?
quote:Having the use of your jaw, testicles and and front teeth may also help.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:I'd try that at my local bar, but I enjoy having the use of my legs...
Originally posted by Gill H:
So I walk up to a beautiful woman in a bar and say, "I hear you're a virgin." And she looks up at me with eyes like blue velvet and smiles like I've just paid her the best compliment of the evening.
quote:Well, speaking for myself, the wedding night first time is pretty special. I have (I hope)become more technically proficient since then, but I can vouch for the fact that expectations of a fantastic sexual payoff on the wedding night are not necessarily doomed to diappointment.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And the guy who'se looking forward to a fantastic sexual payoff on his wedding night--boy, has HE got a lot to learn.
quote:No, but there's no guarantee, either. People have all sorts of different first-night experiences after waiting for sex until they're married: some say it was okay but not great, some say it was horrible, some say they didn't actually have sex the first night, and some say it was great. Same for people who don't wait.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I can vouch for the fact that expectations of a fantastic sexual payoff on the wedding night are not necessarily doomed to diappointment.
quote:Yes. Which I think helped - neither of us had unrealistic expectations of what the other knew or had done, and we weren't bothered or embarassed by inexperience or nervousness.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Did you MARRY a virgin?
quote:Yes, I'm sure. But considered simply on the practical basis of "how can I make my first time as much of a good experience (or as little of a bad one) as it can possibly be?" waiting for the wedding night has a lot to be said for it. There is the ultimate romantic build-up. Both people have time to take advice and prepare mentally. Neither is being pressured or forced into something they aren't ready for. There's little risk of immediate guilt or regret. You probably won't feel, the next morning, that you did something stupid because you were drunk. You know that it is something as special to your partner as it is to you. It feels right.
Originally posted by RuthW:
People have all sorts of different first-night experiences after waiting for sex until they're married [...] Same for people who don't wait.
quote:My point is that the folks who are promoting these virginity until marriage programs are encouraging people to be guilt-ridden obsessives.
Originally posted by Eliab:
The guys in the article, if they do end up with bad experiences, should probably blame not the wait, but the fact that they are guilt-ridden obsessives. Clearly it would be better for them not to be guilt-ridden obsessives, but given that they are, the question is, what should they do?
quote:What? In the lobby of a theatre? Surely proper hugs aren't going to result in a mass orgy before the service?
The lobby is packed and loud right up to the beginning of the service, with well-scrubbed men and women greeting one another with chaste sideways hugs. Body to body, chest to chest, says Power, is just too enticing.
![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
quote:Well, I can't see evidence for that in the particular case in the article. It may be the case, or the programme may simply attract existing neurotics. It certainly does happen that repressive and guilt-based teaching screws people up, though.
Originally posted by RuthW:
My point is that the folks who are promoting these virginity until marriage programs are encouraging people to be guilt-ridden obsessives.
quote:Exactly the same for me. I'd decided that this was what I wanted, and didn't find it difficult to stick to. I'm not sure that being male or female makes much difference to this.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Easy? You really think its easy? [...] For myself, I found it easy enough to actually not want to have sex, thanks to my sincerely held beliefs
quote:Most of my friends were, I think, so surprised that I had a girlfriend at all that I lost no social status by not sleeping with her. I think some people assumed that it was her choice (it was, of course, but mine as well) and I would have wanted to but was just being a decent bloke. I know for a fact that several of our Christian friends assumed we were having sex and were denying it for the sake of appearance. Others thought I was cheating on her. People will believe what they want. It really didn't bother me.
admitting to my non Christian friends that I wasn't having sex with my boyfriend was much harder
quote:How soon people forget.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Easy? You really think its easy? I would have thought that most blokes do actually find it quite hard because of the ever present sex drive and the lack of 'taboo' these days about premarital sex.
quote:I'd agree with everything you've said here apart from the 'easy' bit. I certainly do not find it easy. Viewed objectively (from my pov) it is, but unless you want to avoid all levels of intimacy before marriage there will be time when you face temptation and that is hard. I don't think you're analogy with smoking is quite right either. Smoking is obviously something that damages you but is only addictive once started. Sex is damaging in debatable circumstances but everyone (well, most people anyway) is 'addicted' to sex by nature (hope this makes sense).
Originally posted by Eliab:
However, speaking as a well-adjusted, guilt-free, ex-virgin, this is not something inherent in the teaching of chastity in itself. I would recommend pre-marital virginity on the grounds that it is romantic, fulfilling, beautiful, respectful, wholesome and easy. I think I had much less heart-ache, and much more pleasure, than my sexually active friends, without needing to become a guilt-ridden obsessive. A little smug, maybe.
quote:Gill H, for what it is worth, I think this is about the best possible attitude you could have towards sex. You knew what was right for you and you stuck by it. Not through peer pressure to have (or not have as the case may be) sex, but because of what was right for you. And not just knee jerk reactions, but with well thought out reasoning. Good on you, and if you have children (I don' know how long you've been married) I hope you bring them up with the same strong sense of self and compassion, even if they opt not to follow in your path. I think this is one of the most under talked about aspects of sex - the "what's right for me and why". If you know the answer to that, temptation whichever way is much easier to say no to, and also helps you choose the right partner to have sex with, whether in marriage or outside of it.
Originally posted by Gill H:
Eliab/GR - I never had a problem with what my friends (Christian or otherwise) thought. Largely because I don't think it ever came up in conversation. All my Christian friends probably assumed we weren't sleeping together, and all my non-Christian ones probably assumed we were. Since I don't tend to have 'Sex and the City' style conversations with my friends, I don't remember it ever being mentioned. I'm sure that people in my office realised we weren't living together, but not everyone does, even these days.
I didn't feel the need to wear a placard around my neck saying 'Not Having Sex Yet'. Obviously I've been a terrible witness ...
quote:I don't know whether you will decide that living together first is right for you. If you don't, you might try asking him what he expects to get out of living together. Presumably, the idea is that it is a trial-run for marriage. Okay, so let's think about what may come out of the trial-run. Does he think that if you live together, he may find out that you (for instance) talk in your sleep and based on that, he may not want to be married to you? That is, if he is considering living with you, he must already like the important things about you so why is he worried about being put off by small habits.
Originally posted by Viola99:
Seems problem is not the issue of the sex now, but more related to the fact he can't imagine marrying someone without living with them first...
quote:I'm a Christian who will be marrying a non-Christian. Should I be doing that? Obviously, I don't think there's anything wrong with it. You might want to have a look at the (short) Unequal Yoking thread in Kerygmania.
Originally posted by Viola99:
should a Christian even be considering sleeping with/ marrying a non Christian anyway?
quote:Maybe. But then, Paul did say that eating meat offered to idols wasn't a problem for him, but he wouldn't do it if it made his brother stumble. That suggests, to me, that there are times we should do things, or refrain from doing them, because of what other people think.
Originally posted by Viola99:
Have realised that probably my main issue with not wanting to have sex before I marry someone is less to do with conviction that it is biblically wrong, and more to do with what would my Christian friends think? And only doing something, anything, because of other people's opinions is just wrong.
quote:How committed and stable is it if one party or the other is considering it a trial run?
Although I still feel like I haven't heard enough on the subject, I am now struggling to see the harm of it a committed, stable relationship.
quote:The sex itself? Probably it doesn't do much. However, if you are uncertain about it, and end up feeling too guilty or ashamed to approach God, then it's serious (even if the act itself isn't sinful). Would you truly be acting according to your conscience? An honest mistake is not serious, deliberate disobedience is.
if I get this wrong and it is a sin to sleep with a guy, but then I do it, what does that do to me as a Christian and my relationship with God?
quote:I think there must be. You clearly aren't indifferent about who you sleep with - why would God be indifferent about it?
is there even a definitive answer - is it either right or wrong?
quote:I've seen it work wonderfully (the husband remained, in his words, a 'born again atheist', but the marriage was one of the strongest and most inspirational I've seen). I've also seen disastrous failures. Of course, that's true of Christian-to-Christian marriages too.
should a Christian even be considering sleeping with/ marrying a non Christian anyway?
quote:Using sex selfishly, dishonestly, ungratefully, or thoughtlessly of your partner and God is immoral. There isn't a Biblical definition that answers all questions, though.
what is meant by 'sexual immorality'?
quote:I don't think so. The assumption throughout scripture seems to be that sex goes with marriage. Nowhere, I think, is fornication approved. There isn't any pastoral guidance on how Christians should treat their concubines. I suspect this is because we aren't expected to keep them.
Is the 1 Cor verse the only prohibition on sex before marriage in the Bible?
quote:Yes, all those are relevant - but that's not the whole point (and they apply today, anyway, even if the importance has lessened). The ideal of intimacy with one person in a relationship of formal commitment is valuable in itself, not purely because a committed relationship is (or was once) socially beneficial.
is it possible that the ban on sex is purely to do with cultural reasons...contraception, earlier age of marriage, death in child birth, different concepts of marriage?
quote:Some principles are universal.
but if that's the case - how do we know what in the Bible is still relevant today? Is it all about principles and not actuals?
quote:No. There are many moral duties that are much more important.
is not having sex before marriage a fundamental of the Christian faith?
quote:I think it can be, for the reasons I've said. For me, it was more that I wanted to wait, and I'm glad I did.
is it a sin?
quote:The problem is, "thou shalt not" is, pretty much, the best moral argument against sex before marriage. What I mean is, there are all manner of practical arguments aimed at the negative conquences of illicit sex (unwanted pregnancies, venereal diseases, emotional harms) and the positive consequences of abstinence (encouragement of friendship/purity/commitment/trust, romance, promotional of unity and intimacy within marriage), but these are all essentially points good advice rather than moral injunction. And even so, while I might be able to persuade you that the whole human race would be happier if everyone adopted traditional sexual morality, but that's a very long way from saying that you will be happier if you do.
Originally posted by Viola99:
Went to local Christian bookshop last night to look for inspiration…didn't find any…nothing debating the issues just lots of ‘thou shalt nots' by cheesy American authors
quote:Some are. Some aren't. It depends as much on the person as the sin. But so what? Our call is to be pure, not just to avoid the worst sins.
and one dreadful looking book which had the tag-line ‘Why Sex sins are worse than others'.
quote:If the question is, can Christians honestly differ on this issue, then yes, of course. If it is a question of whether you personally will be alright whichever choice you make, then no. If you do not honestly in faith believe that sex ouside marriage is lawful, it's a sin for you, even if Jesus and all his saints think that you are being unnecessarily prudish.
It's not a fundamental of our faith, so the differing opinions don't seem to matter, and I fully respect what they believe while practicing slightly different. Could I extend that to this issue??
quote:My bold. Nope. I don't see this happening. I'd say the last thing he felt about getting sucked off was heart-broken. But is there something missing from this picture? I mean, fellatio doesn't happen momentarily by accident... there has to be a certain amount of compliance by the fellated party.
He was a man known to be on fire for God. The girl - a "baby Christian," in the lingo -- wanted to get closer to that warmth. She did so the only way she knew how.
"A blow job," says Power.
It had been one thing to go down on his girlfriend when he wasn't sure what he believed. It was another to let a girlfriend go down on him after he'd committed himself to God. But then, he says, that's how it works all too often when a man looks like he's devoted to Jesus. "It becomes more about giving than receiving" -- an implicit recognition of the sexism he knows permeates the best intentions. Even among Christians, the girls, he says, "will go down on you, but you don't have to go down on them."
The experience, he says, broke his heart. What it did for the girl, he can't even imagine.
quote:My thought was, "what a hypocrite!". If you object to having oral sex performed on you, I'd say it is your job to refuse it. Especially if it is likely to be "heart breaking". Maybe they were doing it wrong.
Originally posted by The Coot:
My bold. Nope. I don't see this happening. I'd say the last thing he felt about getting sucked off was heart-broken. But is there something missing from this picture? I mean, fellatio doesn't happen momentarily by accident... there has to be a certain amount of compliance by the fellated party.
quote:I have a different stance on sex before marriage than Eliab, but I completely agree with what she (he?) has said here. If both parties don't have pretty much the same idea about what the sex means, it will be emotionally disastrous for the person for whom it means more, and if the other person is a decent human being they'll at the very least feel pretty bad about that sooner or later. Having sex with someone who is not on the same page with you emotionally is a Very Bad Idea.
Originally posted by Eliab:
My main reason for thinking that you should not, is that I get the impression that fundamentally you already think of sex as the expression of a permanent committment. I don't need to persuade you of that, you already feel it. The trouble is, you have a desire for committment to this man, and it is, at best, returned by him on a conditional basis. He isn't sure about you. He doesn't sound as if he's desperate to get laid, but he does strike me as being unwilling to tie himself to a relationship he hasn't tried out first. That means that if you sleep with him, or live with him, he'll still be deciding if this is for good or not. You will think that you are expressing and deepening a committment to him, when he may just be testing the water. Which I think is, for you, both an invitation to be hurt (which may not always be a bad thing) and also a devaluing of what you want to offer this man (which is). If he loves you enough to be worth it, he will wait.
quote:
If this guy is the person for you, then you get to sleep with him all your life....
If he isn't, I get the impression you wouldn't want to have sex. But it seems to me that he either does want, or will want, to sleep with you before he is prepared to say that he definitely wants to be yours forever.
quote:You do have me in a nut-shell there, Elaib. Which is at least one of the reasons I'm still trying to work through this and not just going out there and getting him! I know that regardless of whether I change my opinions on the sex before marriage issue I couldn't sleep with him unless I knew that he was in this for the long run. And I'm still trying to work out if I could get that from him.
My main reason for thinking that you should not, is that I get the impression that fundamentally you already think of sex as the expression of a permanent committment. I don't need to persuade you of that, you already feel it. The trouble is, you have a desire for committment to this man, and it is, at best, returned by him on a conditional basis. He isn't sure about you. He doesn't sound as if he's desperate to get laid, but he does strike me as being unwilling to tie himself to a relationship he hasn't tried out first. That means that if you sleep with him, or live with him, he'll still be deciding if this is for good or not. You will think that you are expressing and deepening a committment to him, when he may just be testing the water. Which I think is, for you, both an invitation to be hurt (which may not always be a bad thing) and also a devaluing of what you want to offer this man (which is). If he loves you enough to be worth it, he will wait.
quote:The thing is, if it's that simple (which for the last 25 years, without having had to explore the issue, I would always have thought it was) then I have my answer. Because as a Christian if God says No then that has to be good enough for me....no matter how much it hurts...
The moral issue comes in when it is alleged that God says "thou shalt not". The questions then are "Has he actually said this?" and "Is that for all Chistians for all time?". I think, it's a ‘yes' to both. If so, there's not much room for moral debate.
quote:You see, I guess I'd never realised that sin had a relative element to it. I'd kind of always thought of it as a black and white, legalistic, it's either a sin or it isn't. And so what I've been trying to work out is if sex before marriage is a sin in the abstract, not is it a sin for me. Hadn't really thought of things this way before.
If the question is, can Christians honestly differ on this issue, then yes, of course. If it is a question of whether you personally will be alright whichever choice you make, then no. If you do not honestly in faith believe that sex ouside marriage is lawful, it's a sin for you, even if Jesus and all his saints think that you are being unnecessarily prudish.
quote:Without wanting to get on the defensive, I do realise this! Am a bit concerned some of my more jumbled postings on this topic have left me sounding like a confused 15 year old! I don't think my ex and I are that far apart in the need for not rushing these things and the need for commitment, but I'm probably looking for that little bit more than he can give me.
I have a different stance on sex before marriage than Eliab, but I completely agree with what she (he?) has said here. If both parties don't have pretty much the same idea about what the sex means, it will be emotionally disastrous for the person for whom it means more, and if the other person is a decent human being they'll at the very least feel pretty bad about that sooner or later. Having sex with someone who is not on the same page with you emotionally is a Very Bad Idea.
) Sadly out of print, but I believe they are considering an updated edition.
quote:Originally posted by Ferijen:
Hello,
I'm just starting to read the Bible seriously for the first time, and I'm a bit of novice when it comes to knowing which bits say what. Are there any passages that actually explicitly forbid pre-marital sex? If not, what are the passages that have led to this rule? Does anybody here agree that pre-marital sex is wrong? Seeing I'm a young unmarried chap you can probably see why this topic intrests me.
quote:Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Hey Hey Zeus! Welcome to the ship
I think you might find this thread on sex before marriage in the Dead Horses area of the ship useful
quote:Originally posted by Hey Zeus:
Hi Hey Zeus. Welcome to the Ship. I'm sure a Host will be along soon to welcome you more formally, but in the meantime, you might like to peruse this link.
quote:Originally posted by Tom of Tarsus:
Thanks for the welcome.
The link was very helpful, thanks. I should have guessed that it would be a well discussed subject.
quote:
A welcome to you real quick before a host comes along to close this. Hope you enjoy the cruise!
One quick point: While I believe sex before marriage is wrong, I want to emphasize that Christianity is NOT about obeying some set of rules to please a difficult and demanding God. Christianity is a love story where God reaches out to us in Christ, reveals Himself to us through the Spirit, and through various processes (often unbidden by us) gives us opportunities to become like Jesus. Thus if it's wrong it's wrong because it will hurt us (perhaps not in the short term [Big Grin] ) and the people who love us.
We live out His love in the world, or at least we're supposed to. Often, Christains over-demonize something (such as sexual sin), while ignoring the fact that they are gluttons, or not helping the poor, or are being exclusivist, etc.
Ideally, a Christian is good news on feet.
Blessings,
Tom
quote:Oh gee thanks Gill H
Originally posted by Gill H:
<snip> Oh, and re those cheesy authors: do not buy any book re sex by anyone called Wheat or LaHaye. Several of us on the ship have had our lives messed with my these books. Avoid!
- I'd spent twenty years forgetting I'd ever heard of the La Hayes and suddenly the memories come flooding back. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
)
quote:No it doesn't.
Originally posted by Luke:
Sex before marriage is a sin, because it says so in the Bible!
quote:I'm with Karl here:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:No it doesn't.
Originally posted by Luke:
Sex before marriage is a sin, because it says so in the Bible!
quote:But that's ridiculous isn't it? Surely for adultery to occur, at least one of the people involved must be married to somebody else. I thought that was the definition of adultery.
Originally posted by Luke:
Hi Karl,
all right your've got me I'll say my proof text....
Dueteronomy 5:18
(To save you the time asking, I’m taking sex before marriage as adultery.)
Taken in context, assusming the Bible is infalliable etc etc
quote:And since adultery is quite clearly defined as a married person having sex with someone who is not their spouse, and this is the best you've got, I think we can safely assume that your earlier "It's in the Bible" was wrong.
Originally posted by Luke:
Hi Karl,
all right your've got me I'll say my proof text....
Dueteronomy 5:18
(To save you the time asking, I’m taking sex before marriage as adultery.)
Taken in context, assusming the Bible is infalliable etc etc
quote:Sex before marriage is not adultery in my mind Luke. Can you elaborate on your reasoning? Was this the basis of some Church teaching?
Originally posted by Luke:
Hi Karl,
all right your've got me I'll say my proof text....
Dueteronomy 5:18
(To save you the time asking, I’m taking sex before marriage as adultery.)
Taken in context, assusming the Bible is infalliable etc etc
quote:I think the key question is what did the Greek term porneia mean to the first century Jews who wrote the NT? When one takes this Jewish background into account, there is a lot of literature outside the NT that provides an insight into this term and its range of meanings.
Originally posted by leo:
There are lots of views about what porneia means.
quote:I'd be very careful about Gagnon - he grinds very large axes.
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:........For evidence on the last case, one needs to refer to the work of Robert Gagnon, but for now I'm talking generally)
Originally posted by leo:
There are lots of views about what porneia means.
quote:And he grinds them very competently too, IMO.
Originally posted by leo:
I'd be very careful about Gagnon - he grinds very large axes.
quote:No, any sex outside marriage is wrong. Someone might sleep with someone who isn't their wife before they get married. I don't see any parameters saying both or one have to be married at the time of sex. It seems to me anything outside the circle of marriage.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:And since adultery is quite clearly defined as a married person having sex with someone who is not their spouse, and this is the best you've got, I think we can safely assume that your earlier "It's in the Bible" was wrong.
Originally posted by Luke:
Hi Karl,
all right your've got me I'll say my proof text....
Dueteronomy 5:18
(To save you the time asking, I’m taking sex before marriage as adultery.)
Taken in context, assusming the Bible is infalliable etc etc
quote:Although you've spectacularly failed to find any Scripture, despite stating it is there, that supports this view
Originally posted by Luke:
quote:No, any sex outside marriage is wrong.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:And since adultery is quite clearly defined as a married person having sex with someone who is not their spouse, and this is the best you've got, I think we can safely assume that your earlier "It's in the Bible" was wrong.
Originally posted by Luke:
Hi Karl,
all right your've got me I'll say my proof text....
Dueteronomy 5:18
(To save you the time asking, I’m taking sex before marriage as adultery.)
Taken in context, assusming the Bible is infalliable etc etc
quote:Except that's exactly what adultery means. Why use such a specific term if it's not what's meant?
Someone might sleep with someone who isn't their wife before they get married. I don't see any parameters saying both or one have to be married at the time of sex.
quote:Forgive me, but your reasoning appears to be:
It seems to me anything outside the circle of marriage.
quote:I haven't got the stomache to write a serious critique of Gagnon because:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:And he grinds them very competently too, IMO.
Originally posted by leo:
I'd be very careful about Gagnon - he grinds very large axes.
If you have some strong views regarding his academic work on homosexuality in the Bible, I would be interested to hear a serious critique on the relevant Dead Horses thread.
Neil
quote:Sorry, I don't understand your point here. In my understanding, adultery is a subset of fornication (the KJV translation of porneia), but not vice versa. We seem to be agreed, or are we?
Originally posted by leo:
Re- 'adultery' - it does NOT cover fornication.
quote:Adultery is indeed a subset of fornication. However, by using injunctions against adultery to forbid all fornication, Luke is trying to make fornication a subset of adultery.
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:Sorry, I don't understand your point here. In my understanding, adultery is a subset of fornication (the KJV translation of porneia), but not vice versa. We seem to be agreed, or are we?
Originally posted by leo:
Re- 'adultery' - it does NOT cover fornication.
Neil
quote:I just HAVE written something about Gagnon after a request from a shipmate - it is on the Homosexuality thread.
Originally posted by leo:
quote:I haven't got the stomache to write a serious critique of Gagnon because:
Originally posted by Faithful Sheepdog:
quote:And he grinds them very competently too, IMO.
Originally posted by leo:
I'd be very careful about Gagnon - he grinds very large axes.
If you have some strong views regarding his academic work on homosexuality in the Bible, I would be interested to hear a serious critique on the relevant Dead Horses thread.
Neil
a) the thread is already over 50 pages long and most of it has already been covered
b) I am bored to death with the subject and wish the Church could get on with other aspect of the gospel e.g. world debt.
Re- 'adultery' - it does NOT cover fornication.
quote:It's possible that Luke is referring to how the word moicheia was used in Jewish ethical discourse in the first century AD. The normal translation of this word into English is 'adultery', and that is indeed a subset of fornication, as you say.
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Adultery is indeed a subset of fornication. However, by using injunctions against adultery to forbid all fornication, Luke is trying to make fornication a subset of adultery.
quote:Lucky dog.
Originally posted by da_musicman:
It better be Emma. Otherwise I'm screwed.
quote:On which basis, presumably, sex before marriage can't be wrong. It's just a peared-down marriage ceremony, without confetti and drunken uncles.
Originally posted by philpcpt5:
This is how I see it
If you have sex - intercourse you are married, the 2 shall become 1 and all that
quote:That having sex makes you married is clearly nonsense in terms of scripture, tradition and reason -- or there would be no such thing as fornication, or even (arguably) adultery, since you'd have "married" everyone you had sex with.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:On which basis, presumably, sex before marriage can't be wrong. It's just a peared-down marriage ceremony, without confetti and drunken uncles.
Originally posted by philpcpt5:
This is how I see it
If you have sex - intercourse you are married, the 2 shall become 1 and all that
quote:I'd imagine that in early times (Exodus, Judges) that was the working definition of man and wife; people who lived together and had sex. And that first intercourse was what marked the beginning of the 'marriage'.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
In traditional Judaism, having sex essentially did make you married.
as we'd made a complete committment to each other three years earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I remember reading somewhere that some famous medieval medical guidebook said that first babies had a variable gestation period, but subsequent babies all took 40 weeks. Indicating (to me, anyway) that people were quite aware that people jumped the gun, and bent over backward to not make a big deal about it.
The medievals weren't all the old poops they're made out to be.
quote:In many peasant societies, bethrothal is license for cohabitation and sex; marriage occurs after the bride becomes pregnant. This is because infertility in a peasant society is a major disaster.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I'd imagine that in early times (Exodus, Judges) that was the working definition of man and wife; people who lived together and had sex. And that first intercourse was what marked the beginning of the 'marriage'.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
In traditional Judaism, having sex essentially did make you married.
quote:Do we have contemporary witness from NT times thet the word was used that way? It isn't obviously clear that that's what it means in the NT.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Scripturally, "fornication" when it refers to sexual intercourse was sex between two people who never intend to get married
quote:Was that the book that talked about first babies being big too? Bouncing seven pounders at 33 weeks?
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I remember reading somewhere that some famous medieval medical guidebook said that first babies had a variable gestation period, but subsequent babies all took 40 weeks. Indicating (to me, anyway) that people were quite aware that people jumped the gun, and bent over backward to not make a big deal about it.
quote:The problem is that the meaning of fornication has never been consistent - both in the Bible and in Christian history.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Do we have contemporary witness from NT times thet the word was used that way? It isn't obviously clear that that's what it means in the NT.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Scripturally, "fornication" when it refers to sexual intercourse was sex between two people who never intend to get married
quote:Ye-ess. But those are all sex plus -- that is, sex plus then living together as if married, or sex with the intent of being married. I was responding to the earlier contention that the two into one language meant you're married to whomever you had sex with.
Originally posted by mdijon:
quote:I'd imagine that in early times (Exodus, Judges) that was the working definition of man and wife; people who lived together and had sex. And that first intercourse was what marked the beginning of the 'marriage'.
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
In traditional Judaism, having sex essentially did make you married.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
quote:together with
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
quote:does lead you in that direction.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
quote:Not least because the NT wasn't written in English!
Originally posted by ken:
Do we have contemporary witness from NT times thet the word was used that way? It isn't obviously clear that that's what it means in the NT.
quote:I understood that there were no sexual relations during a jewish betrothal (which was more binding than a modern engagement).
But considering that it was accepted Hebrew practise to have intercourse with your betrothed to "seal the deal", if this practise was now condemned as divorce was, one would think there would be clear verses against it
quote:That doesn't compare to my experience. Within our parish, and I mean core members, parish council, etc. I can think of one couple where they announced that they were living together and a wedding date, and another who simple have moved to the same address. And pretty much everyone knows that.
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
...There would obviously be an unusual set of couples asking to get married there. There are plenty of other churches which would see a lot of couples not sleeping together wanting to get married from within the regular congregation, though obviously not couples from outside.
quote:I am well aware that most people now live together before getting married. But most English people are not Christians and a large proportion of Christians do not hold to the traditional evangelical views.
Originally posted by JimS:
Jonathan the Free,
Is that Cambridge, England planet Earth?
With 40% of children being born out of marriage people living together hardly gets noticed in most churches.
quote:That was not the traditional situation in England. Most men, and many women, left their parent's homes before they married. Often into some sort of domestic service or apprenticeship of course, where they lived with their employer's family rather than on theor own.
Originally posted by TheoM:
Remember that living together != having sex. Today's society has moved quite a long way from the traditional situation where you live with your parents until you get married.
quote:It's just that, human nature being what it is, even people who don't think they should have sex before marriage often do, don't they? Especially if they are in love and are on their way to getting married? Even if they're not openly living together?
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
quote:I am well aware that most people now live together before getting married. But most English people are not Christians and a large proportion of Christians do not hold to the traditional evangelical views.
Originally posted by JimS:
Jonathan the Free,
Is that Cambridge, England planet Earth?
With 40% of children being born out of marriage people living together hardly gets noticed in most churches.
However there are still a large number of churches in England, inside the Church of England and outside of it, where the traditional evangelical views are the norm. Those in leadership positions in the church would be expected to conform to it, and there would be a hope that others would too.
quote:And one for "could you be any more patronising if you tried?" This will have to do
Originally posted by badman:
Wouldn't it be great if there was a smiley of someone waking up and smelling coffee? Then I could put it here!
quote:That happens of course. People do many things they believe they shouldn't, sometimes occasionally, sometimes as a way of life. It is very difficult to put percentage figures on it in the absence of early pregnancies.
Originally posted by badman:
It's just that, human nature being what it is, even people who don't think they should have sex before marriage often do, don't they? Especially if they are in love and are on their way to getting married? Even if they're not openly living together?
quote:Lep (and JtF)
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:And one for "could you be any more patronising if you tried?" This will have to do
Originally posted by badman:
Wouldn't it be great if there was a smiley of someone waking up and smelling coffee? Then I could put it here!
Your argument is that "People really like having sex before marriage so the church ought to change its' moral position on the issue." Surprisingly, for some of us, that argument doesn't hold much water.
quote:"Mocked"? Well, Jonathan, perhaps now you can appreciate what's it's been like for people who don't hold your viewpoint to be mocked -- and scorned and loathed and condemned and despised and belittled and disparaged and shunned and reviled and vilified -- by churchgoers for years.
Jonathan the Free wrote: I think it is rather sad that you are mocking those who choose to try and live in the traditional Christian pattern of chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it. Even if you choose not to do that yourself, do you have to mock those who do.
quote:Ah, so two wrongs DO make a right. I kinda figured.
Originally posted by Presleyterian:
Well, Jonathan, perhaps now you can appreciate what's it's been like for people who don't hold your viewpoint to be mocked -- and scorned and loathed and condemned and despised and belittled and disparaged and shunned and reviled and vilified -- by churchgoers for years.
quote:I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be patronising at all.
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:And one for "could you be any more patronising if you tried?" This will have to do
Originally posted by badman:
Wouldn't it be great if there was a smiley of someone waking up and smelling coffee? Then I could put it here!
quote:I am not mocking them.
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
quote:I think it is rather sad that you are mocking those who choose to try and live in the traditional Christian pattern of chastity outside marriage and fidelity within it.
Originally posted by badman:
It's just that, human nature being what it is, even people who don't think they should have sex before marriage often do, don't they? Especially if they are in love and are on their way to getting married? Even if they're not openly living together?
quote:I have not argued that and I do not believe it. My point is that it is very unusual indeed in England for people to get married when still virgin, and that goes for churchgoers as well as non churchgoers. That has been my personal experience and I have been active in a number of churches over the years. I respect your experience which is plainly different, and I do not doubt it although I do not recognise it.
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
Badman and others were implying that we don't exist or worse that we were being deliberately hypocritical.
quote:I'd just like to approach this from the other direction for a second. I've been in the churches you describe, Jonathan, for most of my life. The reality is that most young people are struggling with various forms of sexuality and/or sexual sins. There is no problems with preaching purity in itself. However, it becomes rather self defeating when it is championed as a sign of the 'true' christian when those held up as bastions are actually not quite as pure as might be expected.
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
Badman and others were implying that we don't exist or worse that we were being deliberately hypocritical. The claim that we don't exist is clearly ridiculous which Badman would be well aware of, if he is in England. (I can see why someone from North America might need to be convinced as I think we have a much bigger charismatic and evangelical Anglican presence here.) I think the claim of hypocrisy is not as completely successful as those with a different theological position would like.
There are thousands of parishes in the Church of England where the priest and people don't share Badman's views, and where there is a fairly high degree of voluntary chastity. Those churches are growing in number and in size of congregation. We might be wrong, we might be over-zealous, or many other things. Dead and buried, we are not.
quote:This is at least the second time you have made this claim. Is it one of the 80% of statistics that are made up on the spot or do you have real, independent data to support it?
Originally posted by Jonathan the Free:
There are thousands of parishes in the Church of England where the priest and people don't share Badman's views, and where there is a fairly high degree of voluntary chastity. Those churches are growing in number and in size of congregation. We might be wrong, we might be over-zealous, or many other things. Dead and buried, we are not.
quote:Exactly. Thank you. I get really frustrated when people are so quick to "so and so are living in sin" when the reality is that so and so are completely broke and they are already doing the best they can.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
As a subpoint, I believe most people do not 'live in sin' due to some malicious sexual disobedience, but due to the realities of living in a society where it is financially almost impossible to leave home and live alone coupled with the high price of a wedding. Church would do well to deal with some of these issues before slamming people, not that slamming people achieves much anyway.
quote:But in reality they could get married pretty cheaply. It is the western ideal of the massive white wedding which is the problem. And the massive wedding celebration isn't even important, the commitment is the important thing.
Originally posted by Joyfulsoul:
quote:Exactly. Thank you. I get really frustrated when people are so quick to "so and so are living in sin" when the reality is that so and so are completely broke and they are already doing the best they can.
Originally posted by Cheesy*:
As a subpoint, I believe most people do not 'live in sin' due to some malicious sexual disobedience, but due to the realities of living in a society where it is financially almost impossible to leave home and live alone coupled with the high price of a wedding. Church would do well to deal with some of these issues before slamming people, not that slamming people achieves much anyway.
quote:Only £25 at the registry office IIRC.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
But in reality they could get married pretty cheaply. It is the western ideal of the massive white wedding which is the problem. And the massive wedding celebration isn't even important, the commitment is the important thing.
quote:This doesn't bear any resemblance to reality as I've witnessed it. The public commitment still allows people to divorce at will, and they do.
Originally posted by TheoM:
For me the public commitment is important because it makes it harder to escape from the marriage, and thus the marriage is more secure.
quote:Which is why I think the whole thing is a joke. If I commit to something then doing so in front of a whole bunch of people wont make any difference.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:This doesn't bear any resemblance to reality as I've witnessed it. The public commitment still allows people to divorce at will, and they do.
Originally posted by TheoM:
For me the public commitment is important because it makes it harder to escape from the marriage, and thus the marriage is more secure.
quote:Except that society holds that divorce is totally okay as long as children aren't involved. Which in this day and age means the public commitment is basically worth nothing (Except as a big party).
Originally posted by Gill H:
TheoM said 'makes it harder' not 'impossible'.
The fact that so many people find groups like Weight Watchers or 'Stop Smoking' groups helpful seems to indicate that a public declaration of a commitment to do/stop something is an important part of that commitment for many people. The fact that so many of us go back on that commitment (yes, I've stopped going to WW, guilty as charged ...) doesn't mean the initial declaration shouldn't have been there.
quote:The public declaration may be important, but it doesn't make going back on it any harder, as witnessed by divorce statistics. But really your comparison is quite facile. Stopping smoking and staying married are quite different things, if for no other reason than that the first requires just one person's commitment, and the second that of two. As I discovered in my own first marriage, if your spouse isn't interested in remaining married to you, it doesn't much matter whether or not you are interested in staying married to them.
Originally posted by Gill H:
TheoM said 'makes it harder' not 'impossible'.
The fact that so many people find groups like Weight Watchers or 'Stop Smoking' groups helpful seems to indicate that a public declaration of a commitment to do/stop something is an important part of that commitment for many people. The fact that so many of us go back on that commitment (yes, I've stopped going to WW, guilty as charged ...) doesn't mean the initial declaration shouldn't have been there.
quote:Yes, the divorce rate is high but what about the breakdown rate of people who don't see the ceremony as important/see the need for `a piece of paper' and live together (with the intention of it being for life) without going through the ceremony? I suspect that would be higher, although it is probably impossible to get statistics for as how do you discern the intention?
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:The public declaration may be important, but it doesn't make going back on it any harder, as witnessed by divorce statistics.
Originally posted by Gill H:
TheoM said 'makes it harder' not 'impossible'.
The fact that so many people find groups like Weight Watchers or 'Stop Smoking' groups helpful seems to indicate that a public declaration of a commitment to do/stop something is an important part of that commitment for many people. The fact that so many of us go back on that commitment (yes, I've stopped going to WW, guilty as charged ...) doesn't mean the initial declaration shouldn't have been there.
quote:Of course both parties need to stay true to the commitment they made and it's hard on one if the other just gives up (as happened to a friend of mine), but that doesn't mean that making the commitment in the first place is pointless.
But really your comparison is quite facile. Stopping smoking and staying married are quite different things, if for no other reason than that the first requires just one person's commitment, and the second that of two. As I discovered in my own first marriage, if your spouse isn't interested in remaining married to you, it doesn't much matter whether or not you are interested in staying married to them.
quote:Keep posting, CharlotteRuth. Your stance is not laughable, but honourable. My own position is slightly different; I whispered my "amen" to everything but everything Craigmaddie has just said, but I guess my position on when a marriage begins is (perhaps shamefully) fluid. But never allow anyone to deide your position, CharlotteRuth: it is, yes, honourable - and less unusual than the popular media like to admit.
Originally posted by CharlotteRuth:
As a 22-year-old virgin who would very much like to wait until marriage, it’s not at all unusual for me to feel alone or freakish. In a society in which it is common for people to live together long before marriage and virginity is often portrayed as laughable, if not downright unhealthy, it can be hard to feel any conviction about waiting. It is difficult enough to explain my position to friends; telling a new boyfriend that I find him awfully attractive but that he should not expect to “get any” from me outside of marriage is dreadful.
I wanted, therefore, to thank all of you for this discussion. Reading posts by rational, thoughtful people who consider chastity outside of marriage a possible or even laudable decision in this day in age is both eye opening and encouraging. If nothing else, I suddenly feel much less alone in the world.
This is my first post on the ship but I can’t imagine it being the last.
Charlotte Ruth
quote:It depends if you hang around with the sort of people who are obsessed with sex or not. For one reason or another all my friends and I are virgins (we are all around 22-23), and had no real desire to lose our virginities, even before we became Christians.
Originally posted by CharlotteRuth:
As a 22-year-old virgin who would very much like to wait until marriage, it’s not at all unusual for me to feel alone or freakish. In a society in which it is common for people to live together long before marriage and virginity is often portrayed as laughable, if not downright unhealthy, it can be hard to feel any conviction about waiting.
). I genuinely thought that that was what God wanted, what pleased him, and it was certainly the "party line" promoted by the church I was part of, to the point where, looking back, I think I saw "being Christian" and "not having sex before marriage" as totally synonymous. Now in my 30s (creak) I am not of that view any more, and I have to say that holding the view that sex before marriage was definitely wrong in all cases, especially mine, without thinking things through, wasn't all that healthy for me. In fact, it has left me with not dissimilar issues to those Craigmaddie outlined (reluctance to open up, fear of being vulnerable, etc etc). ]quote:I admire you for what you are doing it is not easy for you in this day and age.
Originally posted by CharlotteRuth:
As a 22-year-old virgin who would very much like to wait until marriage, it’s not at all unusual for me to feel alone or freakish. In a society in which it is common for people to live together long before marriage and virginity is often portrayed as laughable, if not downright unhealthy, it can be hard to feel any conviction about waiting. It is difficult enough to explain my position to friends; telling a new boyfriend that I find him awfully attractive but that he should not expect to “get any” from me outside of marriage is dreadful.
I wanted, therefore, to thank all of you for this discussion. Reading posts by rational, thoughtful people who consider chastity outside of marriage a possible or even laudable decision in this day in age is both eye opening and encouraging. If nothing else, I suddenly feel much less alone in the world.
This is my first post on the ship but I can’t imagine it being the last.
Charlotte Ruth
quote:In my thinking of this there was some sort of threshold around the 25 y.o. mark where I shifted from a no-sex-before-marriage to a no-sex-outside- a-committed relationship model.
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
Now in my 30s (creak) I am not of that view any more, and I have to say that holding the view that sex before marriage was definitely wrong in all cases, especially mine, without thinking things through, wasn't all that healthy for me.
).
quote:The fact that you know this does indicate that it's at least a topic of discussion. There's no reason to relate "obsessed with sex" to "having sex". Many people are more obsessed when they're not getting any, for example.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
...It depends if you hang around with the sort of people who are obsessed with sex or not. For one reason or another all my friends and I are virgins ...
quote:I'm not entirely sure what you mean here, Charlotte - do you mean whether you should date someone whom you are certain you would never marry? If so, then, my question would be: why would you want to date someone you definitely couldn't imagine marrying? And, of course, vice versa. I hope I haven't misunderstood you?
Originally posted by CharlotteRuth:
Should people even bother to date others if there is little or no possibility of marriage?
quote:It has come up on occasion. But from my interactions with "normal" people my age, I can see they are obsessed with it. Their main topics of discussion are about how drunk they got while out on the pull.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:The fact that you know this does indicate that it's at least a topic of discussion. There's no reason to relate "obsessed with sex" to "having sex". Many people are more obsessed when they're not getting any, for example.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
...It depends if you hang around with the sort of people who are obsessed with sex or not. For one reason or another all my friends and I are virgins ...
quote:And yet they are not the ones posting on this forum.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
But from my interactions with "normal" people my age, I can see they are obsessed with it.
quote:I'm with CharlotteRuth: thank you for such an open discussion, which I can't have with my friends without being treated as some kind of pariah.
Originally posted by CharlotteRuth:
Reading posts by rational, thoughtful people who consider chastity outside of marriage a possible or even laudable decision in this day in age is both eye opening and encouraging. If nothing else, I suddenly feel much less alone in the world.
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
quote:Mainly because they are to busy trying to get laid to waste time on Christian-centric internet forums.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
quote:And yet they are not the ones posting on this forum.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
But from my interactions with "normal" people my age, I can see they are obsessed with it.
quote:I wonder how many people do think that "anything goes"? My impression of the secular consensus is more a pragmatic "Don't do anything one partner is uncomfortable with / not ready for" - a fluid rule but not amoral.
Originally posted by karlbarth:
Is it possible to have a Christian sexual ethic for the 21st century? What seems to be the case at the moment is that the church kind of recognises many professing Christians are living together or engaging in premarital sex, but does not want to talk about it. Surely the choices are not restricted to: (1) a return to 18th century culture or (2) accepting the view of modern secular anything-goes in respect of sexuality.
quote:Are you a young person? Have you actually hung around with young people who speak naturally in front of you? I am only six years out of high school, I recall my peers constant yammerings about girls and sex quite vividly. Most of them spent every weekend getting drunk and picking up chicks. Most of my university class mates are still doing the same thing.
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Sorry but the only evidence of pathological 'obsession with sex' I see on a regular basis amongst young/ youngish people is on the part of a certain type of Christian who spends inordinate amounts of time telling people that either (a.) everyone else is obsessed with sex or (b.) they are not going to have sex until they are married.
I think a lot of people are deeply obsessed with gaining the approval of others. This can involve sexual behaviour, but goes a long way beyond it - religion can be a way of going about it, for example.
quote:I am a young person (19). This is not my experience - or at least not my experience of most of my peers. It is undoubtedly true for some of them, but as far as my experience goes I doubt they're in anything like a majority.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Are you a young person? Have you actually hung around with young people who speak naturally in front of you? I am only six years out of high school, I recall my peers constant yammerings about girls and sex quite vividly. Most of them spent every weekend getting drunk and picking up chicks. Most of my university class mates are still doing the same thing.
quote:I'm currently at University and it doesn't seem as if the whole place is obsessed with sex. Obsessed with relationships prehaps but not just the old in and out. Those who are currently sexually active don't talk about it because it is a private thing and those who aren't at the moment don't just because what is there to talk about? It does come up in conversation but not half as often as other people seem to assume. But then maybe its different at other places.
Originally posted by Rat:
The rest, who may or may not have been having sex, depending on their inclinations, were not obsessed with it. Unless you count being interested in finding a relationship as being obsessed with sex.
quote:It can help to recall that most societies have not been as libertarian as ours in their official sexual ethics, and that members of other faiths are often more conservative than Christians as well. Personally I think that Christians in western countries stand uncomfortably between the more conservative ethics of other faiths, esp. if many of their adherents have arranged marriages, and the secular majority, where there isn't an agreed set of rules and norms.
Originally posted by Craigmaddie:
I can imagine it must be a lot harder when you are younger and your peers and the media are portraying casual sex as a perfectly valid pasttime and chastity as almost perverse.
quote:That seems pretty accurate. I'm 16, and I seriously doubt that there are enough girls in the West of Scotland as some guys I know claim to have had sex with. It's a boasting thing.
Well, I suspect there's a lot more talk than action.
quote:This is not universally the case. Having had previous sexual partners does not automatically make people compare them. I have had more than one sexual partner, and each of those men had had sex with others before me. None of them ever made me feel like he was comparing me to others, and I have never done this to someone myself. Each relationship is its own separate thing, and mature people who respect themselves and their partners do not in general have this problem.
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
One value of insisting that the Christian community (or any other religion for that matter) sticks to the traditional line throughout the life-cycle is that provided the majority obey it, people are less worried about being compared to their spouse's previous sexual partners if both are virgins. I don't think we can underestimate the importance of this, in the context of discussing difficulties re: intimacy with others.
quote:A few things, as my 2p here:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
Re: Jack the Lass' change of attitude, that's a very common change of attitude for Christians to make, but how does it affect the community at large ? Who is benefitting from such a liberalisation of views ?
quote:Most newspapers also have articles about David Cameron. We would, I suggest, be foolish to conclude on that basis that modern society is obsessed with the leader of the opposition.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
Most news papers have regular articles about modern societies sexuality.
quote:I can't know of course, but I have a very strong suspicion that at least some of them were likely to be saying what they thought to be acceptable in that forum, or what they were used to hearing, or even what they thought was generally the best thing, but if actually faced with the situation of having sex or not having sex they might find that in their specific situation that general rule was overridden by circumstances. For the men at least, if not the women. In fact I'm almost sure of it.
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
I can say that mine was most definitely a minority opinion - nearly everyone posting on the bulletin boards of that site at that time seemed really quite trenchant about wanting their partner to be a virgin on their wedding night, and viewing those who weren't as "faulty" or "damaged goods".
quote:Why on earth should she think that that is incompatible with feminism?
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
her reply was that the community's ability to work as a community and to reproduce itself and nurture future generations is as important as concern for the individual.
quote:Indeed. What exactly are they supposed to say in that setting?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:I can't know of course, but I have a very strong suspicion that at least some of them were likely to be saying what they thought to be acceptable in that forum, or what they were used to hearing, or even what they thought was generally the best thing, but if actually faced with the situation of having sex or not having sex they might find that in their specific situation that general rule was overridden by circumstances. For the men at least, if not the women. In fact I'm almost sure of it.
Originally posted by Jack the Lass:
I can say that mine was most definitely a minority opinion - nearly everyone posting on the bulletin boards of that site at that time seemed really quite trenchant about wanting their partner to be a virgin on their wedding night, and viewing those who weren't as "faulty" or "damaged goods".
quote:That whether your future partner has had sex or not is a stupid thing to worry about.
Originally posted by FreeJack:
What exactly are they supposed to say in that setting?
quote:I guess that's true - though I wasn't so much thinking about men worrying about whether or not the women had had previous partners, as men not allowing their own theoretical objectionn to sex outside marriage to get in the way if they find themselves in a situation where someone wanted to have sex with them. Whether that person was a virgin or not.
Originally posted by FreeJack:
It doesn't necessarily mean that you will stick to 1 if it comes to the crunch
quote:My experience is very different. I can't think of anyone I know who is worried about this. This is not to say that I and my friends and acquaintances think previous sexual experiences are completely irrelevant; I'd certainly want to know basic things about someone's sexual history if I were going to have sex with him. But for me this is just like learning other things about someone's life.
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
I can see what you are saying is true, that there are people who do not compare their partners and thereby avert the problems that could arise from that. However,1)I guess I was talking about some people's worry of being badly treated in this way, which isn't quite the same thing. Quite a few people seem to be weighed down by that worry. (I'd be interested to know if there are any gender differences here).
quote:I had sex when I was not a Christian, and I have had sex since becoming one, and I don't feel at all guilty about any of it, because there was nothing wrong with it.
Then, 2) there is the problem of how do different people handle their 'past' with partners or prospective partners. It seems to me that people adopt different attitudes:
1) this was their 'past' before they became Christians, due to having held different attitudes then
2) this was a time when they lapsed from the faith and are now coming back in
These people may or may not feel guilt, remorse, etc. and are striving to turn a new leaf
4) they don't feel guilty. No. 4 is the scenario that intrigues me here, because some people are open about their attitude, whereas others aren't, but will either a)hide their 'past' from a partner or prospective partner or b)feign a sense of guilt and repentance.
quote:We need some more acronyms and abbreviations!
Originally posted by xSx:
xSx, who used to be GLE no sex before marriage gal and now isn't G, L or E and isn't sure about sex before marriage either!
quote:In the US, the UUs (Unitarian Universalists - not usually considered Christian) and the UCC (United Church of Christ) have developed a sexuality curriculum called Our Whole Lives
Originally posted by karlbarth:
Is it possible to have a Christian sexual ethic for the 21st century? What seems to be the case at the moment is that the church kind of recognises many professing Christians are living together or engaging in premarital sex, but does not want to talk about it. Surely the choices are not restricted to: (1) a return to 18th century culture or (2) accepting the view of modern secular anything-goes in respect of sexuality.
quote:Mm. Well, it's certainly the position of most non-con-evo Anglicans I know. And most of them would consider themselves to be religious people.
Originally posted by saysay:
So yes, there are more options than "don't do it" and "anything goes." Although you may have to be ultra-liberal to find a religious person talking about them outside the Ship.
quote:How different things obviously are.
Originally posted by saysay:
In the US, the UUs (Unitarian Universalists - not usually considered Christian) and the UCC (United Church of Christ) have developed a sexuality curriculum called Our Whole Lives
(O.W.L.).
I think one of its main purposes is to counter the "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" message that students get in the public education system (at least, that was we were taught when I was in school; I have doubts about whether it's changed much).
quote:Since you give no clues in your profile, I don't know where in the US you are or how old you are, but my '50s/'60s public school sex ed didn't give the "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" message (it was 'just the facts, ma'am) and neither did our kids '80s cirriculum (which provided the facts, but laid heavy emphasis on thinking about relationships, consequences, and what you might do and why, encouraging the kids to think).
Originally posted by saysay:
In the US, the UUs (Unitarian Universalists - not usually considered Christian) and the UCC (United Church of Christ) have developed a sexuality curriculum called Our Whole Lives
(O.W.L.).
I think one of its main purposes is to counter the "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" message that students get in the public education system (at least, that was we were taught when I was in school; I have doubts about whether it's changed much).
quote:The point is, not everyone who is a Christian (for it is Christians we're talking about here, mainly) holds the same attitudes as you do, in fact most do not.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I am struck by your wording; you assume that this is a "problem" which requires handling. As far as I'm concerned, that I and the men I have slept with have had previous sexual partners is a fact, not a problem
quote:If your friend is a Christian, I'm not surprised he thinks that way. At least he's realising he needs to forgive and not hold it against such a (presumably hypothetical) person. It's better than not even bothering to take such things seriously, isn't it ? Or would you rather that he simply didn't hold to the traditional teaching at all ? At the end of the day, he's got every right to hold to the traditional teaching.
Originally posted by xSx:
I was also upset and quite shocked by a friend who said that he would be devastated if any future wife of his had 'sinned sexually' (i.e. had sex) with anyone else, but that he would try really hard to forgive her and not hold it against her. He thought this was a fairly tolerant attitude.
quote:I realize that. But they're wrong. And the following demonstrates how traditional Christian teaching about sex has created unrealistic and sometimes quite damaging attitudes toward sex.
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
quote:The point is, not everyone who is a Christian (for it is Christians we're talking about here, mainly) holds the same attitudes as you do, in fact most do not.
Originally posted by RuthW:
I am struck by your wording; you assume that this is a "problem" which requires handling. As far as I'm concerned, that I and the men I have slept with have had previous sexual partners is a fact, not a problem
quote:Of course he has that right. But it's led him to prioritize virginity in a way that seems extremely unhealthy to me -- does he feel this strongly about other virtues a prospective mate might have not upheld once or twice in her life? -- and it may mean that he'll miss out on considering women with whom he might be very happy.
quote:If your friend is a Christian, I'm not surprised he thinks that way. At least he's realising he needs to forgive and not hold it against such a (presumably hypothetical) person. It's better than not even bothering to take such things seriously, isn't it ? Or would you rather that he simply didn't hold to the traditional teaching at all ? At the end of the day, he's got every right to hold to the traditional teaching.
Originally posted by xSx:
I was also upset and quite shocked by a friend who said that he would be devastated if any future wife of his had 'sinned sexually' (i.e. had sex) with anyone else, but that he would try really hard to forgive her and not hold it against her. He thought this was a fairly tolerant attitude.
quote:This is not the assumption I am making. I think what really happens a lot of the time is that people who clearly oppose sex before marriage place far too much emphasis on this. And I think young people especially tend to do this, since young people tend to be more black and white in their views overall.
There seems to be an assumption here among some people that people who clearly oppose sex before marriage aren't really interested in other aspects of relationships. This isn't really true. Hardly any of the people I know who are traditionalists in this regard are like this.
quote:Unless she were to have sex with someone else while in relationship with said Christian man, what would he have had to forgive? Even by traditional mores she hadn't sinned against him when she had sex outside of marriage, unlike in a situation of adultery. She probably hadn't even met him at that point. Has a person who has had sex before marriage sinned against every potential partner? Seems a bit extreme to me.
If your friend is a Christian, I'm not surprised he thinks that way. At least he's realising he needs to forgive and not hold it against such a (presumably hypothetical) person. It's better than not even bothering to take such things seriously, isn't it ? Or would you rather that he simply didn't hold to the traditional teaching at all ? At the end of the day, he's got every right to hold to the traditional teaching.
quote:Me too. And I'd kind of wonder about a man my age (43) who had no sexual history at all. Though I don't automatically rule out virgins, I would prefer a man who has some sexual experience.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'd run for the hills if any man said he forgave me for my sexual history prior to meeting him.
It's so wonderful to read words like yours.quote:If I may, allow me to very strongly disagree. I have turned and found the nearest Christian male I know and he disagrees too. We don't think that either of those qualities are unappealing. I would say that if the dirty jokes are funny I would find both of those features to be quite positive.
Originally posted by koffshun:
Dirty jokes and a tendency to frank comments are not attractive features on a girl, especially to a Christian boy.
quote:I find a tendency to frank comments attractive features in a girl.
Originally posted by koffshun:
...Dirty jokes and a tendency to frank comments are not attractive features on a girl, especially to a Christian boy. ...
quote:Out of interest, do you think these would be attractive features 'on a boy', especially to a Christian girl?
Originally posted by koffshun:
Dirty jokes and a tendency to frank comments are not attractive features on a girl, especially to a Christian boy.
quote:Holy? Go back to pages one and two and read my posts, koffshun. Lots of us not-so-holy folks here on the Ship.
Originally posted by koffshun:
I've been following this thread for a while but never felt able to post on it, partly because it's so public but also because so many people have seemed so 'holy'!
quote:In view of your discomfort with the quasi-public nature of the boards, your feeling that others are holier, and this comment, let me attempt to break the ice a bit:
I am "damaged goods" ...
quote:Emphasis added
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
quote:If your friend is a Christian, I'm not surprised he thinks that way. At least he's realising he needs to forgive and not hold it against such a (presumably hypothetical) person. It's better than not even bothering to take such things seriously, isn't it ? Or would you rather that he simply didn't hold to the traditional teaching at all ? At the end of the day, he's got every right to hold to the traditional teaching.
Originally posted by xSx:
I was also upset and quite shocked by a friend who said that he would be devastated if any future wife of his had 'sinned sexually' (i.e. had sex) with anyone else, but that he would try really hard to forgive her and not hold it against her. He thought this was a fairly tolerant attitude.
quote:You really do have self-esteem issues. And possibly more baggage than Heathrow
Originally posted by koffshun:
I am "damaged goods" and although no man has been unwise enough to describe me as that, it's how I see it. I have huge self-esteem issues, which play a great part in my sexual history but also hold me back in terms of my relationship future.
quote:I'd be fascinated to see the empirical evidence The Lady of the Lake uses to support her statement. I can't speak for the UK, but every Barna poll issued in the U.S. in the past decade shows virtually no discernible difference in the rate of premarital sex among non-churchgoers and people who identify themselves as evangelical Christians. (The divorce rate, by the way, is higher among evangelical Christians.) Perhaps RuthW's opinion is at odds with The Lady of the Lake's circle of friends, but I don't see how that supports her sweeping claim.
The point is, not everyone who is a Christian (for it is Christians we're talking about here, mainly) holds the same attitudes as you do, in fact most do not. (emphasis added)
quote:Let's be honest, most men assume that other men's sexual instincts are the same as theirs. But they aren't. You just can't know what "most men" want, especially if you assume you know "whether they admit it or not". Speaking for myself, I've never wanted a virgin. I'd much rather have sex with a woman who is not a virgin and, although various tasteless images or analogies come to mind to explain why, I think I'll just leave it there.
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not
quote:Cobblers. Absolute cobblers. What the hell would I do with a virgin?
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not, right or wrong.
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:Let's be honest, most men assume that other men's sexual instincts are the same as theirs.
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not
quote:
Originally posted by da_musicman:
Wasn't that all about Children though? Younger women are more fertile than older women so if you're hoping for an heir then better to have a younger woman as your partner. And the virginal part is to make sure the child is yours and your property stays in your bloodline.
quote:Pah. I'm quite sure the 'moral and physical purtiy' bits came as justifications after the fact when people began to notice the points made by musicman.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It strikes me that such practices are far more about moral and physical purity than children.
quote:Quite possibly so.
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by da_musicman:
Wasn't that all about Children though? Younger women are more fertile than older women so if you're hoping for an heir then better to have a younger woman as your partner. And the virginal part is to make sure the child is yours and your property stays in your bloodline.quote:Pah. I'm quite sure the 'moral and physical purtiy' bits came as justifications after the fact when people began to notice the points made by musicman.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It strikes me that such practices are far more about moral and physical purity than children.
quote:Well it is rather difficult to prove it physically with a man.
Originally posted by Emma.:
Why is it that its a womans proof of purity thats demanded? Was it still expected of the man even tho it couldnt be prooved - or was it more that she would produce children for you alone? intact goods and all that?
quote:I'd like to state for the record that this wasn't based on my own personal preferences!
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:Let's be honest, most men assume that other men's sexual instincts are the same as theirs.
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not
I kind of suspected this.
quote:One of the set texts on my course is Joan Lluís Vives' De Institutione Feminae Christianae, which is a 16th century treatise on women's education. His "justification" is that it doesn't matter so much if a man is unchaste, because he can make up for it by being wise, bold, eloquent, or whatever - but nobody cares if a women is any of those things, so if she loses her chastity she has effectively lost everything.
Originally posted by Emma.:
Why is it that its a womans proof of purity thats demanded? Was it still expected of the man even tho it couldnt be prooved - or was it more that she would produce children for you alone? intact goods and all that?
quote:I don't recall ever having this silly idea. My wife is older than me, and I was a virgin, she wasn't. And yes, we had sex before we were even engaged. So far, at 22 years of marriage, it's worked out just fine.
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not, right or wrong. ...
quote:Well exactly. It was merely a tongue in cheek observation of cultures throughout the ages - I'm sure in this brilliant liberated culture we have here this is all completely to the wind and we have bucked the trend.
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Perhaps I move in circles too elevated to think such thoughts or too debauched to think them possible--it's sometimes difficult to tell--, but I have never heard of a male expressing a wish to marry or "possess" a virgin. Perhaps this is because of a general assumption that the virginal state is so rarely found among adults (indeed, a clerical friend of mine, discovering that a couple he was counselling for marriage were both virgins, was so startled by the anomaly that he sought out the rector who had supervised his curacy, to get some practical advice on how to deal with such a singular phenomenon). As well, much of the popular discussion we hear on the preservation of virginity takes place in a context where this refers to "technical virginity," which is rarely identifiable with a state of innocence.
quote:Not ignored, Tiffer, just not commented on. Postings need not address every thing said prior.
The fact that I went on to condemn that way of thinking seemed to be ignored by most of you.
Silly
quote:What you said was "most men want a virgin" which is probably not true but in any rate isn't really discernable. Whether or not you deplore this isn't the issue if someone is taking issue with whether or not it accurately reflects reality.
Originally posted by Tiffer:
And no, I didn't say "I want a virgin","you want a virgin" or even "you surely married a virgin".
quote:The problem is, people around here believe such a bizarre medley of things, there's no telling when somebody says something like "all men really desire a virgin, deep down, you know," whether they're making a tongue-in-cheek throw-away comment, or really serious. And after a while if you have treated somebody's serious comment as if it were tongue in cheek a couple of times, and been burned by it, you start to treat all opinions that appear off the wall to you as if they were serious.
Originally posted by Tiffer:
In which case simply a "I don't agree with that" or even better "I don't agree with that because of x, y and z".
It was a tongue in cheek throw away comment which did not need this much speculation!
quote:Fair enough - I never said I don't think it's true, I just wouldn't count it as one of my 100 most held on to beliefs.
Originally posted by Mousethief:
quote:The problem is, people around here believe such a bizarre medley of things, there's no telling when somebody says something like "all men really desire a virgin, deep down, you know," whether they're making a tongue-in-cheek throw-away comment, or really serious. And after a while if you have treated somebody's serious comment as if it were tongue in cheek a couple of times, and been burned by it, you start to treat all opinions that appear off the wall to you as if they were serious.
Originally posted by Tiffer:
In which case simply a "I don't agree with that" or even better "I don't agree with that because of x, y and z".
It was a tongue in cheek throw away comment which did not need this much speculation!
Which is not your fault, of course, but once the serious discussion started, a brief, "I'm sorry but that wasn't meant; I was being facetious" might have cleared things up before inordinate amounts of electrons were wasted on it. Having let it run so long, for you now to come back and say it wasn't serious looks like you're trying to pull a "gotcha" and does no credit to your reputation, I'm afraid.
quote:I don't think anyone is disputing the truth of that.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
There are still a good number of communities where there is a non-sexual contact before marriage ethic.
I really don't understand why anyone is disputing the truth of this
quote:Just out of interest, would these people feel the same way (in the sense of damaged goods) if the non-virgin in the marriage was the man? Otherwise surely this stinks of hypocricy - and furthermore I'll wager that it is far more common for the man to be sexually experienced and the woman not (as was the case when I married) than the other way around.
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Speaking as someone who feels like he has been around the block several times within the Evangelical wing of the Christian church, I'd say that Tiffer's observation is correct.
For most men from this community, marrying a non-virgin would mean taking on damaged goods. There are still a good number of communities where there is a non-sexual contact before marriage ethic.
I really don't understand why anyone is disputing the truth of this (if anyone actually is, I'm getting rather confused by the convoluted discussion).
C
quote:Far more common?
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
far more common for the man to be sexually experienced and the woman not (as was the case when I married) than the other way around.
quote:Sure, but the titles of spam also show that there is a market for pictures of women peeing, and I wouldn't claim on that basis that most men would prefer their sexual experiences to be accompanied by streams of urine.
Originally posted by quantpole:
It depends what is meant by 'want'. One only has to look at the titles of spam to see that there is a market in porn (or the spammers perceive a market) for supposedly virginal women.
quote:I was trying to point out that the desire for virginal women is not confined to evangelical Christians, which earlier posts seemed to be saying. That was probably in response to tiffer's somewhat blanket condemnation, so I can see why it has (imo) gone too far the other way. In my experience, many evangelicals are bothered about the sexual history of a potential partner, but I don't know any who insist on only marrying a virgin.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:Sure, but the titles of spam also show that there is a market for pictures of women peeing, and I wouldn't claim on that basis that most men would prefer their sexual experiences to be accompanied by streams of urine.
Originally posted by quantpole:
It depends what is meant by 'want'. One only has to look at the titles of spam to see that there is a market in porn (or the spammers perceive a market) for supposedly virginal women.
quote:I'd be curious if there was some sort of stat related to that, because it sure doesn't ring true in my experience of talking with friends and acquaintances. I think that those that have principles they are trying to stick to have a similar difficult struggle in the heat of the moment, be they male or female. Which is why is was constantly drilled into our heads in evo circles not to get to a moment of heat, because once you're there, getting out if it without getting on with it is a battle for either gender. I do think it's vaguely insulting to men to insinuate that they can't control themselves as well as women. But again, without seeing some sort of general statistic, we're just talking about our selected experiences.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
as females are perhaps better at sticking to their principles in the heat of the moment
quote:That's what I thought I was asking!
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Hang on - if women stick to their principles more easily, then who do all the unprincipled men sleep with?
quote:
These experiences would of course have been less likely to have involved evangelical women who wanted to 'stay pure', but instead 'normal' women who the man may have dated in the past before he met the evangelical Christian girl with principles.
quote:Then you are suggesting that unmarried non-Christian women are statistically more likely to sleep with unmarried men than non-Christian men are to sleep with women. Which sounds at least unlikely.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
...and what I answered when I saidquote:
These experiences would of course have been less likely to have involved evangelical women who wanted to 'stay pure', but instead 'normal' women who the man may have dated in the past before he met the evangelical Christian girl with principles.
quote:Right I will make one more attempt to explain what I meant, before giving up!
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Then you are suggesting that unmarried non-Christian women are statistically more likely to sleep with unmarried men than non-Christian men are to sleep with women. Which sounds at least unlikely.
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
...and what I answered when I saidquote:
These experiences would of course have been less likely to have involved evangelical women who wanted to 'stay pure', but instead 'normal' women who the man may have dated in the past before he met the evangelical Christian girl with principles.
You are also perhaps suggesting that Christian women are less likely to have sexual relationships with non-Christian men than are Christian men with non-Christian women. Which, as there seem to be far more Christian women in churches with non-Christian husbands than the other way round (tens of times more in my limited experience) seems even more unlikely.
quote:I find this impossible to unpack - to me it seems you are not comparing like with like as your categories appear to be
Then you are suggesting that unmarried non-Christian women are statistically more likely to sleep with unmarried men than non-Christian men are to sleep with women.
quote:I can understand your logic here, and cannot fault it as far as it goes. But it does not really cover the (probably fairly unusual) scenario that I was originally addressing, which was a marriage of evangelical Christians, where at the point of marriage one partner was still a virgin. If you recall, my original guess (for in truth that was all it was, and I was willing to be proved wrong) was that in these (very limited and perhaps nowadays unusual) circumstances, it was more likely that it was the woman who was still the virgin, than the man. (the background was that all the 'fuss' about 'damaged goods' seemed to be men complaining about women, but I simply wagered that it was more common for the man to be the one who was 'damaged goods', and if so, wondered why this wasn't also an issue for those for whom these things mattered)
You are also perhaps suggesting that Christian women are less likely to have sexual relationships with non-Christian men than are Christian men with non-Christian women. Which, as there seem to be far more Christian women in churches with non-Christian husbands than the other way round (tens of times more in my limited experience) seems even more unlikely.
quote:Puh-leaze, you've been on the Ship long enough to know better than that!
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
A poll would be interesting of course, but I wouldn't think there were many who would want to answer questions about the previous sexual histories of themselves and their current partners, just to settle a stupid 'argument'.
quote:Not really, it just requires some moderate number of women with modest number of male partners, serially.
Originally posted by ken:
...Then you are suggesting that unmarried non-Christian women are statistically more likely to sleep with unmarried men than non-Christian men are to sleep with women....
quote:This one?
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
Did you see the recently published study on the relationship map of a US high school? more than half the students were "sexually linked" into one huge grouping, but the maximum connectedness was fairly low. [/QB]
quote:Damn
Originally posted by Flubb:
This one?
. Why wasn't my high school like that?
quote:This one? [/QB][/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Flubb:
...
quote:Indeed. That's what prostitutes are for. I've read a few things which have suggested that a double standard (men should have experience, women should be pure virgins) has been quite common in a lot of history. This is acheived by having respectable and unrespectable women. So the men get the experience with the unrespectable women but marry the respectable ones.
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:Not really, it just requires some moderate number of women with modest number of male partners, serially.
Originally posted by ken:
...Then you are suggesting that unmarried non-Christian women are statistically more likely to sleep with unmarried men than non-Christian men are to sleep with women....
quote:*snort* Ok, I checked your profile and you're a student, and therefore presumably young. Trust me, this attitude is hardly "history". It was definitely alive and well when I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, and I'm quite sure still exists to varying degrees in a lot of cultures and communities around the world.
Originally posted by Carys:
Indeed. That's what prostitutes are for. I've read a few things which have suggested that a double standard (men should have experience, women should be pure virgins) has been quite common in a lot of history.
quote:Marvin - I don't know if you caught this bit, but that's only measuring sexual activity within the last 18 months.
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Damn
quote:wow *dads* would do this?! As a girly I could see the "advantage" to having an experienced man.... but to have him go for "lessons" before being with me does seem wierd. Even more so for a dad to encourage it!!!!
Originally posted by jlg:
While they would never have spoken directly to me about it (such were the mores of the time) I knew such men growing up and later worked with a lot of them. The type who might actually take their son to a prostitute. Even if they didn't, they would definitely approve of him using the local "slut" to get his rocks off (and gain some experience) while wooing and dating the sanctioned virgin that he might consider marrying.
quote:Huh. I've never had that happen.
Originally posted by craigb:
Its not much fun when in the middle of an intimate moment having other memories interupt ones mind.
quote:Yikes, that's pretty icky.
As a step dad, on my oldest stepsons 17th, his father came in for a birthday cake and told him it was about time he went and got a bit. Nothing about if you find a nice girl, or are in a long term relationship etc or wait for marriage.
quote:Obviously you know your stepson and I don't, but I would question the use of such scare tactics in trying to convince a 17-year-old to delay having sex. If the main reason not to have sex is to avoid pregnancy, some 17-year-olds will just figure that they should use birth control. It seems to me that outlining the benefits of delaying sex might be more persuasive. Though it would probably depend a lot on the teenager you're talking to.
I was able to say to him (Step son) that would he like to get a girl pregant and do the same thing to his child as his own father did to him?, which would most likely happen if he got someone pregant whom he was not willing to marry.
quote:Obviously our talk was a little bit more than what I wrote, however he knows first hand the difficulties of having no real father presence in his life, apart from every 2nd weekend, and the reference was too if he would want that to happen.
Obviously you know your stepson and I don't, but I would question the use of such scare tactics in trying to convince a 17-year-old to delay having sex. If the main reason not to have sex is to avoid pregnancy, some 17-year-olds will just figure that they should use birth control. It seems to me that outlining the benefits of delaying sex might be more persuasive. Though it would probably depend a lot on the teenager you're talking to.
quote:Does it strike you as weird that there were only two instances of same-sex sex?
Originally posted by Flubb:
This one?
quote:By `a lot of history' I meant up to and including the present day in all `all of human history' kind of a way but that probably wasn't clear from my post. I was allowing for there to have been some cultures at some points in history where it was less common. I think that in my generation in the west it probably is less common, because sex-before-marriage is culturally acceptable on the whole. Though I think women with multiple partners are probably looked down on more than men with a similar sexual history!
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:*snort* Ok, I checked your profile and you're a student, and therefore presumably young. Trust me, this attitude is hardly "history". It was definitely alive and well when I was growing up in the '50s and '60s, and I'm quite sure still exists to varying degrees in a lot of cultures and communities around the world.
Originally posted by Carys:
Indeed. That's what prostitutes are for. I've read a few things which have suggested that a double standard (men should have experience, women should be pure virgins) has been quite common in a lot of history.
quote:There are three: one blue/blue offshoot at the top far right of the large blob, one other blue/blue at the botton left of the main loop in the same blob, and a pink/pink as part of the central triangle in the network immediately to the right. It seems low to me too, but the chart does measure ‘romantic' relations, not just sex, which may imply that it is known, public, ‘dating' relationships that are being recorded. If homosexuality is at all stigmatised at this high school, relationships with equivalent levels of emotional investment might well self-identify as ‘dating' for straights but not for gays.
Originally posted by Sinisterial:
Does it strike you as weird that there were only two instances of same-sex sex?
quote:No-one - those are statistically identical samples. And would be if the sample size was ten times bigger (at a rough estimate - too boring to do the sums if I don't have to!) maybe even if it was a hundred times bigger.
Originally posted by Eliab:
If the dots had been orange and green, instead of pink and blue, who could say from those figures which colour represents which sex?
quote:There was certainly one guy like that in my penultimate school (age 17-18 or so). He wasn't lying and 9 would be on the low side for him for six months.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
There certainly aren't any pinks surrounded by a cluster of blues, but there is one blue Casanova in the upper right section of the big network who is connected to nine pink dots. There were guys like that in my high school, but I tried hard to believe they were lying...
quote:Methinks you say rather a lot in these short words. Nobody likes being told 'do what I say not what I do/did' least of all teenagers, especially after you'd just put down his father as useless (which could quite easily be true, just not really the best way to start a conversation on relationships IMO. But then, what the hell do I know?).
Originally posted by craigb:
as many conversations with teenagers are wont to do
quote:The numbers:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
As for clustering there are 21 pinks surrounded by 4 or more blues but only 10 blues surrounded by 4 or more pinks. Quite a few "popular girls", rather fewer guys who had the same enthusiasm for serial romance (or shagging) which also ties up with my memory.
quote:Like I said, I was going on memory. The most girlfriends I ever had in any 6 month period was 3 (and none of them were sexual).
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:The numbers:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
As for clustering there are 21 pinks surrounded by 4 or more blues but only 10 blues surrounded by 4 or more pinks. Quite a few "popular girls", rather fewer guys who had the same enthusiasm for serial romance (or shagging) which also ties up with my memory.
With one relationship (includes same-sex): 168 pink, 170 blue.
Two relationships: 65 pink, 75 blue.
Three relationships: 25 pink, 32 blue.
Four relationships: 18 pink, 12 blue.
Five relationships: 5 pink, 1 blue.
Six relationships: 1 pink.
Seven or Eight: none.
Nine relationships: 1 blue.
There's no significant difference, IMO. The numbers for those with up to 4 relationships are pretty comparable, and after that we are at the extreme end of the distribution.
Extrapolating general observations about male/female behaviour from these 8 unfortunate individuals with many failed relationships (let's put a negative spin on it for a change) is like concluding from this survey that there is twice as much male homosexuality as female homosexuality in US high schools.
quote:I'm sorry to read that. It's no surprise that you are hurt and confused by what happened.
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
But now I really don't know where I stand on the issue of sex before marriage. I used to think it had to be in the a loving, committed relationship, but now I just don't know - that didn't work before, so will it ever work? Sex just doesn't mean anything to me anymore. With my ex, it was an act of love, of commitment, and it was really special. Now it's lost all that, and it's nothing special anymore.
quote:Any philosopher will say that the difference between "universally" and "almost unheard of" is one of kind, not degree.
Originally posted by barrea:
It was almost unheard of when I was growing up
quote:Does this mean that you don't believe it?
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:Any philosopher will say that the difference between "universally" and "almost unheard of" is one of kind, not degree.
Originally posted by barrea:
It was almost unheard of when I was growing up
quote:Good questions Leila. Its a pity you didn't see the programme, as I can't remember too many details now.
Originally posted by Leila:
I have a couple of questions GR.
How do you know that none of these people in the report were Christians?
Are Christians not 'ordinary people'?
How many of the men were virgins?
quote:I was shocked tonight while wach the Inspecto Lyndley Mystery, that he questioned the victims sister as to why she was still a virgin and yet had a boyfriend. He took it for granted that she must have a hang up wuith sex because ' in this day and age -shrug of shoulders'!! Of course it turned out the sister he was speaking to had been abused and the victim hadknown this. Why is being a virgin in this day and age become such an unusual thing??
I don't find it astounding at all. It's just that sex outside marriage has become the norm in recent years to such an extent that people are shocked by people who manage to not have it before marriage.
quote:Because more and more people are having sex earlier and earlier, regarless of marital status.
Originally posted by Jante:
Why is being a virgin in this day and age become such an unusual thing??
]quote:Totally agree! It's more responsible too, not clogging up the NHS with all those virgo intacto appointments!
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
Perhaps LaHaye should get over himself and recommend a visit to Ann Summers instead of a doctor 'helping out'.
quote:They wouldn't do that - there's a minute chance such a diagram might turn you on!
Originally posted by Gill H:
I'm surprised it didn't come with a Powerpoint presentation you could show on the wall, so you could check the diagrams half-way through to see if you were doing it right.
)it seems to be that the main point is Respect for yourself and the other person. This seems a great message but then it sticks in all the dos and donts which undoes any benefit it may have done.
quote:You know, I once worked for a v. conservative pro-family values Christian organisation, and my boss there told me he needed me to go to Ann Summers on a factfinding mission. However in the next sentence he panicked and told me not to go there as there might be demons lurking inside...
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
Perhaps LaHaye should get over himself and recommend a visit to Ann Summers instead of a doctor 'helping out'.
quote:Josh Harris needs to get laid.
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Josh Harris has a lot to be responsible for as well.
THoughts?
quote:That 'advice' won't sort out anybody's issues with sex. Counselling might, as might a touch of humour on all sides of the argument...
Originally posted by RuthW:
Thus -- he needs to get laid.
quote:Looking at his website he got married sometime around 2001/2002 (it's not too clear) and wrote a book about the courtship experience. He's updated I Kissed Dating Goodbye to include responses to some of the criticism he's had. It sounds like he hasn't changed his basic position though.
Originally posted by FreeJack:
I thought Josh did get married and then wrote another book about how he might have been a bit wrong before?
quote:Honestly, I think for some people it would.
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
quote:That 'advice' won't sort out anybody's issues with sex.
Originally posted by RuthW:
[b]Thus -- he needs to get laid.
quote:Yes, but I wouldn't guess based on I Kissed Dating Goodbye that Josh Harris has a well developed sense of humor.
Counselling might, as might a touch of humour on all sides of the argument...
quote:I bet it would, quite a lot of people.
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
quote:That 'advice' won't sort out anybody's issues with sex.
Originally posted by RuthW:
Thus -- he needs to get laid.
quote:Nope. The first sounds greatly preferable.
Counselling might
quote:Sorry, I dip in the old nags derby from time to time and have just noted this post. Now my mind is a very dangerous thing but I can't help but wonder...
Originally posted by Edward::Green:
On Ordination these days one receives commercial cards.
Companies wishing you good luck with your future ministry, and please try or recommend our services.
This year I got them from Christian Dating Website and even better one from A Christian Sex Toy website for married couples.
quote:I'm trying to imagine how one might work a plug for 'Christian Sex Toys' into a sermon.
Originally posted by Edward::Green:
Companies wishing you good luck with your future ministry, and please try or recommend our services.
quote:Ah yes. Would this be the one who had a double-paged spread in Jezebel's Trumpet lately? I was all agog with expectation of Our Lady of Lourdes butt-plugs and such-like, but it was all remarkably tame - principally massage oils and 'sensual' fragrances, as I recall.
Originally posted by Edward::Green:
This year I got them from Christian Dating Website and even better one from A Christian Sex Toy website for married couples.
quote:I disagree with Nightlamp it is surefire way to mess up life but I also disagree with your analysis that 8 sexual partners by 18 is measured these days. Even the friskiest of people I know at Uni would have trouble meeting that figure so early in life. I'm making no judement call either way on whether its good or bad just fulling in what I know from my experience.
Originally posted by Not Too Bad:
Not sure I agree Nightlamp. 8 sexual partners at the age of 18 is quite measured these days and mmmerangue seems to have considered her stance on it fairly well.
quote:This line should give a clue as to how reliable those statistics are:
Originally posted by da_musicman:
In fact this site durex gives averages for most places round the world.I'm amazed China is so High compared to everyone else.
quote:Assuming they aren't talking about homosexuality that can't be true.
Men have had more sexual partners than women - 12.4 compared to 7.2
quote:What MT said. There are women (the promiscuous and prostitutes) who are "servicing" large numbers of men. This is caused by the societal expectation that most women will remain (relatively) chaste, while men screw the few non-chaste.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Assuming they aren't talking about homosexuality that can't be true.
Men have had more sexual partners than women - 12.4 compared to 7.2
quote:That would screw the numbers the other way. A much more likely explanation is that either large numbers of people are missing from the samples, or thatmen and women are consistently misreporting in different directions.
Originally posted by the_raptor:
There are women (the promiscuous and prostitutes) who are "servicing" large numbers of men.
quote:But it comes back to the Murphy's Law commentary on the Kinsey report "Everyone lies about sex."
More than a quarter (27%) have had only one partner while 21% have had sex with more than 10 people
quote:I have a feeling you are disagreeing with me Musicman.
Originally posted by da_musicman:
quote:I disagree with Nightlamp it is surefire way to mess up life but I also disagree with your analysis that 8 sexual partners by 18 is measured these days. Even the friskiest of people I know at Uni would have trouble meeting that figure so early in life. I'm making no judement call either way on whether its good or bad just fulling in what I know from my experience.
Originally posted by Not Too Bad:
Not sure I agree Nightlamp. 8 sexual partners at the age of 18 is quite measured these days and mmmerangue seems to have considered her stance on it fairly well.
quote:Why do you assume that honesty raises the figure? When I was that age, I certainly recall people exaggerating both sexual activity and drug use whenever some person with a survey showed up. Bravado is a powerful motivation.
Originally posted by Not Too Bad:
For church young people the average number of partners will be 0-5 depending on how truthful they are (and if they've gone to uni, they tend to tell you less).
quote:Maybe the chinese are just more honest
Originally posted by da_musicman:
In fact this site durex gives averages for most places round the world.I'm amazed China is so High compared to everyone else.
although it surprises me too! a lot of willpower would have to be exerted for me to try that...
quote:I'd like to challenge that. It's something that a lot of my friends said to me before I was married ("You wouldn't buy a glove without trying it on, now, would you?") and I'm sure they meant it as well-intentioned practical advice, but I don't think they had really thought it through.
Originally posted by mmmerangue:
may i suggest to the really opposed people out there who have yet to consummate - wait till your engaged, fine, but dont fall into a marriage where you dont know anything about such an important aspect of your partnership.
) that long if we weren't married? I don't know. )
quote:Spot on.
Originally posted by Eliab:
It seems to me that the 'try before you buy' approach is a mass of fallacies.
quote:An odd analogy! Perhaps say rather it is like using a pop-up toaster in order to find out what a proper coal fire in the hearth is like?
Originally posted by Johnny S:
It's a bit like test driving a toaster to see what driving a car feels like!
quote:If you seek to join a religious order, you commit to one year, then to about 2 years as a novice and so on before taking full vows.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
If two people are "committed to each other," then why not have the guts to put their money where their mouth is and marry?
And if they don't have the courage to put their commitment in writing, are they really committed? And if so, to what?
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I was glad we waited, too, though it was damned hard. I think I'd worry if it WASN'T hard, though.
Damn those double entendres.
quote:You call that panic? I was just trying to figure out what the heck it was you were talking about! Trust me, I'll be sure to let you know if I ever really start panicking.
Originally Posted by amber.:
Meantime, Bullfrog panicked in case I was flirting with him (poor man, I think both of us would have been very confused if I had been...)
quote:Personally, I'm pretty sure there are exceptions. Someone posted one above involving trying to protect someone in Nazi Germany. I think the question would be whether the existence of exceptions utterly breaks the rule. If some people are allowed to have sex before marriage due to particular circumstances, does that make the whole no-premarital-sex thing meaningless?
and we later ended up wondering whether there is an Exception to the no-sex-before-marriage rule if there are disability-related circumstances, or whether it’s always a Jolly Bad Thing and Setting a Bad Example.
quote:Yeah. I think some would call that dating. The question seems to be at what stage one ought to engage in full sexual intimacy.
Originally Posted by leo:
Analogously, it might be a good idea if people committed to a relationship in similar stages.
quote:If you really want to take the analogy too far in my house you are not allowed to touch the presents before Christmas Day but you are allowed to blow the presents (to make the labels lift up so you can see if its for you, of course!)
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
Excellent post Gill
Thank you for being so honest also, I think that's very helpful.
AFZ
P.S. Can I take the analogy too far.... please!!!!
I was! I thought "oh my, what've I said to the poor chap...!"
quote:Well, I would take it as axiomatic in Christian ethics that every "rule" is just a special case of "love God and love your neighbor as yourself," as applied in some particular set of circumstances. So the question is whether abstaining is more or less loving (in that sense of agape, not just eros) than having sex--in the particular circumstances.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
Personally, I'm pretty sure there are exceptions. Someone posted one above involving trying to protect someone in Nazi Germany. I think the question would be whether the existence of exceptions utterly breaks the rule. If some people are allowed to have sex before marriage due to particular circumstances, does that make the whole no-premarital-sex thing meaningless?
quote:I always like to point out that the marriage ceremony between Isaac and Rebekah was apparently comprised of him taking her into his tent and making love to her - it was all about intent and not legalism, at least in that case (we could also argue that it's before the Law was given...).
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
A bad precedent? Eh, I wouldn't worry too much (not that I really know either of you and have any authority on the subject). If it's done, it's done, and realistically I think the relationship itself is more important than the legal marriage, especially once you're formally married (and congratulations on that front).
quote:"Co-fucker" - wow.
My concern with premarital sex is less that it's an unhealthy precedent or that God gets angry if people screw on the night before their wedding, and more that the dissociation of sex from marriage creates a sort of transactional or "me-first" approach to sex where it's all about personal gratification rather than sharing between two people. "I'll only marry you if you're good enough in bed." How good is good enough? How many fucks do you need before you determine that your co-fucker is a worthy fuck?
quote:Yup. It took me a long time but I finally came to recognize that God's direction about sex isn't because He's a killjoy (after all, He created us with the capacity and the desire and made human females orgasmic, unlike most of female creation) but it's protective, boundaries and fences to keep us safe and give us freedom to play with joy and abandon when our playmate does arrive.
In a way, I think having the standard of sex and marriage as a measuring stick of sorts is far more important than whether or not every single person abstains perfectly until they're married. You may not have to toe the line perfectly, but it is important to know and respect that line's existence and meaning. - Does that make sense?
quote:I think I'd have had to break off the engagement and get me to a nunnery
...Amber, interesting that being Aspie makes for different compatible issues - I hadn't thought about that, hmmmm. I am thrilled that it worked out well for the two of you - but what do you think your response would have been if it hadn't, if it turned out there really were insurmountable compatibility issues? ..
)
quote:Yes, a DID friend of mine reports the same thing, so I guess it's an extreme survival mechanism that just 'misfires' with autistic spectrum brain-wiring?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
There are some interesting correspondences with one of my multiple (DID) friends but the basis isn't purely neurological but (perhaps?) a neurological state created by the extreme PTSD developed in infancy/childhood.
quote:But surely in practice we do run our potential spouses through, as it were, compatibility tests? Of course being Westerners we're too polite to call them such*.
I am still reeling at the idea of checking somebody out like they were a piece of furniture.
quote:Caz, you ask if it should be ok for those who have been sexually abused to test out their responses to intimacy before signing up to a deal where their partner would expect that intimacy to happen? I’d say the humane answer would be “yes”. But sometimes our faith is less humane and more proscriptive. I’m not sure God said a lot about sex before marriage in the New Testament, to be honest, though we’ve inferred a lot. No doubt many finer minds than mine have considered that most carefully already, though.
Originally posted by Caz...:
What about people who have been sexually abused or similar? I can imagine them having similar responses in relation to sexual overtures. Is then also okay for them to have sex before marriage? And if it's okay for them, what about people who just find the idea of sex more nerve-wracking than others? Presumably it's okay for them too.... I'm just still not quite buying the "special cases" logic. I guess I'm thinking that, whatever the special issues, there are ways of gradually working those through and gradually increasing sensitisation, etc, that don't involve having sex before marriage. ....
quote:I figure everyone, in every circumstance, does what they think is right or best and then (hopefully) keeps short accounts with God. If amber has any qualms about the premarital sex, she is wise to take it to the cross and ask Jesus to forgive whatever sin might be there. We don't need to know whether there was sin in that situation or not; God knows and God is merciful - He gave His only begotten Son in order to make that mercy real. So personally I'm okay with there being a biblical standard which we choose to embrace or reject (or fail--
Originally posted by Caz:
What about people who have been sexually abused or similar? I can imagine them having similar responses in relation to sexual overtures. Is then also okay for them to have sex before marriage? And if it's okay for them, what about people who just find the idea of sex more nerve-wracking than others? Presumably it's okay for them too.... I'm just still not quite buying the "special cases" logic. I guess I'm thinking that, whatever the special issues, there are ways of gradually working those through and gradually increasing sensitisation, etc, that don't involve having sex before marriage. ....
) and letting God sort it all out. (but very funny-- ).quote:No, only that it seems, on the face of it, reasonable that sex should be included in such a "test-drive".
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Ricardus, speaking about time to check each other out to make sure the relationship as a whole is sustainable, are you saying that the final 'test drive' ought to be intercourse?
quote:This may sound harsh (it's not meant to) but I really don't see why this is a case for making an exception.
Originally posted by amber.:
Also on the Wrong Sex Acts thread, I had mentioned the tricky situation of me and hubby living together before marriage (with all that entails) and explained about autistic spectrum challenges re sex and why otherwise there wouldn't have been a marriage.
[...]
we later ended up wondering whether there is an Exception to the no-sex-before-marriage rule if there are disability-related circumstances, or whether it's always a Jolly Bad Thing and Setting a Bad Example.
quote:I think that's rather an inhumane answer. Because a sexual try-out necessarily works (or doesn't) in two directions.
Caz, you ask if it should be ok for those who have been sexually abused to test out their responses to intimacy before signing up to a deal where their partner would expect that intimacy to happen? I'd say the humane answer would be "yes".
quote:Well do you thing that "most recognised Christian practice" about pre-marital sex is morally binding?
I'm not saying what we had to do was "morally right according to the most recognised Christian practice", or that it should set a precent. I think I'm just asking God for a bit of compassion for the reality of how much of a never-ending assault-course life already is for me
That would be awful. Neither would he have been rejecting me. We would have just had to accept that it wasn't possible to marry.
quote:I think that's true of most marriages, arranged or otherwise. It's just that he was more honest and explicit about it.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
* I once had an acquaintance of Punjabi origin who was getting married by arrangement. The progress of his romance featured comments like "Well, I started off with a list of 23, but now I've got it down to 16".
quote:I don't know that it's necessarily selfish; I'm more inclined to think it's foolish. Consider: lovemaking is more than simple rutting and each couple is a unique and dynamic combination. No one has their best lovemaking experience the first time they have intercourse with a new partner (or their first partner); there is always a learning curve involved. Ah, he really likes it when I do that or Hmmm, that didn't work well - and the learning curve goes on for years, decades; it's part of why lovemaking with the same person over a lifetime can still be exciting and fulfilling instead of tedious, the opportunity to bring the whole of our mind and creativity to the act of physical passion.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:No, only that it seems, on the face of it, reasonable that sex should be included in such a "test-drive".
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Ricardus, speaking about time to check each other out to make sure the relationship as a whole is sustainable, are you saying that the final 'test drive' ought to be intercourse?
I'm not defending Angry Preacher's view that it has to be included. I just don't see how anyone who does include it is necessarily selfish.
quote:Or maybe you would have worked through it
Originally posted by amber.:
We would have just had to accept that it wasn't possible to marry.
quote:Not unless there's something about the laws of biology I don't understand.
Originally posted by Gwai:
quote:Or maybe you would have worked through it
Originally posted by amber.:
We would have just had to accept that it wasn't possible to marry.
quote:Eliab, I am willing to be corrected on this, but I understood the proscriptions on pre-marital sex were not Biblical, but traditional. I certainly know that in Hardy's time, the majority of the working class were married when the girl had become pregnant and hence proved she could breed. That's one of the things Hardy was bemoaning (along with the changes on the land). Just to clarify, where do these proscriptions on sex before marriage come from?
Originally posted by Eliab:
quoting amber saying:quote:Well do you thing that "most recognised Christian practice" about pre-marital sex is morally binding?
I'm not saying what we had to do was "morally right according to the most recognised Christian practice", or that it should set a precent. I think I'm just asking God for a bit of compassion for the reality of how much of a never-ending assault-course life already is for me
<snip>
If you do generally agree with the traditional teaching, then part of the reason for that teaching is that it protects people who are for any reason sexually vulnerable from being discarded after having reached the point of readiness for sexual intimacy. <snip>
quote:Mostly Leviticus and Deuteronomy...
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Just to clarify, where do these proscriptions on sex before marriage come from?
![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif)
).quote:None of those passages is about consensual sex between two adults neither of whom is married to anyone else.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Okay, for the serious answer:
quote:Maybe, but not for so-called "fornication" (in the modern English sense). The stoning in Deuteronomy is specifically for adultery - which in their terms would include adultery with a betrothed woman as well as one in a consummated marriage. She counts as an adulterer if she has sex with a man other than her betrothed during the engagement or if she marries without telling her husband about previous sexual relationships - clearly and explicitly the man only has a case in law if he doesn't know about the previous affair - so if she is honest with him the situation doesn't arise.
Originally posted by amber.:
Oh that's not made my day. It says I should be stoned to death.
quote:I'm not sure you can say it has a "whole purpose" which is to say I think (and I am not alone in this) that it has many. One of the chief, in this fallen world, is to help each of the partners to salvation and godliness ("theosis" in Ortho terms). Inasmuch as sexual intimacy helps that end (and the other ligitimate goals) it is a help. But it is not an end in itself.
Originally posted by amber.:
Unless there's something I really haven't understood about a marriage, its whole purpose is to form a close full sexual relationship with that one special person (and, for us, hope that life brought us the joy of children).
quote:"Maybe?"
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Maybe, but not for so-called "fornication" ...
Originally posted by amber.:
Oh that's not made my day. It says I should be stoned to death.
quote:Ah, thanks... but, (slight tangent) I would have guessed that we all have a duty as Christians to help each other to salvation and godliness? Perhaps that's why it's not occurred to me to mention it as a specific reason to marry? I was trying to work out what makes a marriage different from a close friendship, I guess.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I'm not sure you can say it has a "whole purpose" which is to say I think (and I am not alone in this) that it has many. One of the chief, in this fallen world, is to help each of the partners to salvation and godliness ("theosis" in Ortho terms). Inasmuch as sexual intimacy helps that end (and the other ligitimate goals) it is a help. But it is not an end in itself.
Originally posted by amber.:
Unless there's something I really haven't understood about a marriage, its whole purpose is to form a close full sexual relationship with that one special person (and, for us, hope that life brought us the joy of children).
quote:I don’t think that’s the point of marriage at all. Marriage is (for me) the formal and ceremonial expression of the commitment that is the proper aspiration of a person who is in love. As such it is, on the secular level, the most appropriate, romantic and secure setting in which sex can occur and children procreated. In Christian terms, it is also a sacrament and a symbol of Christ’s love for us, and (this being an important lesson from the Orthodox, church) an aid to holiness. But it is love that is fundamental, and it is love which makes it fitting that marriage should be taken into the service of both sexual desire and Christian sentiment.
Originally posted by amber.:
Unless there's something I really haven't understood about a marriage, its whole purpose is to form a close full sexual relationship with that one special person
quote:Not so. Not even under English law does a marriage require sex to take place.
If I physically could not (and I do mean the words "could not" rather than "not yet") have fulfilled my side of that marriage contract, surely the marriage would be a non-marriage, which is why they get anulled in court on those grounds?
quote:Nothing you have said suggests that you are unable to follow traditional Christian morality. If you can’t have sex, it can hardly be a sin not to. And you are not in the least forbidden from marrying simply because you have a disability that affects your sex life.
Maybe the dilemma for aspies is that Christianity is set up with a set of rules we actually cannot follow.
quote:On the contrary, a marriage in which both parties remained faithful and loving to one another, in spite of the temptations posed by the impossibility of full sexual fulfilment would be, in Christian terms, a triumphant one.
If we'd have got married first, that would have left us with a marriage that could never be a full one,
quote:Why would he deserve such a thing? Why does anyone deserve that? I think it is safe to say that any man who thinks he “deserves” the love of any woman almost certainly does not.
My point is that my husband would have deserved a wife who could be a proper sexual partner
quote:Amber used the phrase "most recognised Christian practice" - and I agreed with it - to convey the no-sex-before-marriage rule. I don't think either of us appealed to scripture.
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Eliab, I am willing to be corrected on this, but I understood the proscriptions on pre-marital sex were not Biblical, but traditional.
quote:But you could say the same about any of the criteria on which we effectively judge our partners before marriage.
Originally posted by Eliab:
On the other hand, I think the idea of using pre-marital sex to weigh a partner in the balance, and to discard them if found wanting, is profoundly immoral by any standard in which love is considered more important than sex - that is, by any standard that can possibly be called moral at all.
quote:Additional thought: it occurs to me that you're seeing this exclusively as a one-sided thing - one half of the couple saying "You don't satisfy me in bed! Back to the dating agency with you!" What if it's both halves of the couple saying "Oh dear, we seem to have different expectations of sex"?
Originally posted by Eliab:
On the other hand, I think the idea of using pre-marital sex to weigh a partner in the balance, and to discard them if found wanting, is profoundly immoral by any standard in which love is considered more important than sex - that is, by any standard that can possibly be called moral at all.
quote:I should think that expectations could be discussed without time in the sack?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Additional thought: it occurs to me that you're seeing this exclusively as a one-sided thing - one half of the couple saying "You don't satisfy me in bed! Back to the dating agency with you!" What if it's both halves of the couple saying "Oh dear, we seem to have different expectations of sex"?
quote:You're assuming that people already know this and are then having sex, but I think the more common scenario is that having sex happens before people have figured out that someone is this special and this important, and sex is one part of that process.
Originally posted by Eliab:
We are, after all, talking about life-long love and commitment here. The person is, one would hope, someone you find so special and so important to you that you want to be with them for the whole of your life.
quote:Exactly. I really don't understand why sex gets such a privileged place in so many people's thinking. And I totally don't buy the idea that talking about sex is going to do the trick, especially if the people involved are sexually inexperienced. Is such a person really going to say, "Hey, I've got really messed-up notions of sex"? Could they even know such a thing?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:But you could say the same about any of the criteria on which we effectively judge our partners before marriage.
Originally posted by Eliab:
On the other hand, I think the idea of using pre-marital sex to weigh a partner in the balance, and to discard them if found wanting, is profoundly immoral by any standard in which love is considered more important than sex - that is, by any standard that can possibly be called moral at all.
quote:I think he's saying that we all should. If you love someone fully enough then they're the one you want no matter what.
Originally posted by amber.:
Eliab, are you saying that people like us should lower their expectations and get married to someone with whom they could not enjoy a full sexual relationship that would hopefully lead to children of their own? Possibly not, but it reads like it to me. Please do re-explain.
quote:I think the middle one (Deuteronomy 22:13-21) may be, in the sense that we're dealing with a man who in some way isn't pleased with his wife and makes the accusation that she wasn't a virgin when he married her. It's interesting to note that her parents are charged with keeping the evidence of her virginity (the bloody sheet from the wedding night, as it were) and if they can't bring it before the elders and prove her virginity as of her wedding night, (vs. 21) then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father's house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
Originally posted by ken:
None of those passages is about consensual sex between two adults neither of whom is married to anyone else.
quote:I think you're applying our sensibility to a very different world. If you recall, Tamar did have to go back and live in her father's household until Shelah was old enough for her to marry (from the Genesis paraphrase thread) and it wasn't until she realized Judah was never going to provide her with the husband (and therefore the son) she was owed that she dressed as a harlot by the side of the road. At that point women didn't have any options beyond marry and bear children (preferrably sons) or turn to harlotry. Even the 'excellent wife' of Proverbs 31 who runs her own business does it within the context of marriage. Rahab is identified as a harlot and Ruth remarkably aligns herself with her mother-in-law and a new, unseen people rather than returning to her father's household. So for my money, you can't really make all the women living in their father's households the equivalent of dependent minors.
Also its talking about girls under the control of their parents. In our system that would be a legal minor. It says nothing about older women or women not living in their father's house. (So, sticking purely to the ancestry of David and Jesus, these rules don't apply to Tamar, Rahab, or Ruth)
quote:This isn't reality. I don't what what percentage of modern women bleed noticeably with the rupture of the hymen but it was a majority back then (some care was taken with daughters to make sure they weren't so rough-and-tumble as to endanger that valuable commodity). In the case of a marriage without first blood if the husband loves her and is pleased with her, no problem. There are also physical changes that take place in a woman's body after she has become sexually active; I remember going to the beach with my sister a couple of months after she married (she kept her virginity until marriage) and watching her run around in the surf in her bikini I was amazed to realize her body was different. She hadn't gained weight and she wasn't yet pregnant but there was a difference in her shape; it was bizarre to me at the time because I hadn't noticed it with anyone else but I don't know how many female friends I'd seen in minimal attire where I could do a before/after observation.
In practice it only works applies if the girl is pregnant (how else would anyone know?)
quote:I take it at face value, no pregnancy is mentioned: she gets seduced, he marries her, pregnant or no, because the valuable commodity of her virginity has been taken away. That's why he pays the father money equal to the dowry for virgins, if the father refuses to allow them to wed. I suspect such a refusal rarely happened; I can only imagine it in the case of a man known to mistreat his wives, concubines, or animals.
So the effect of the law is that if a man gets a girl pregnant, and she is not legally of age, then they should get married (i.e. the man must support his children) but that the girls father can refuse consent to the marriage in which case the man must pay them money. No stoning required.
) but simply giving some actual scriptures that show the value of virginity until marriage. quote:While it is true that scripture doesn't prohibit polygyny it's clearly not the ideal. Kings are warned not to multiple wives (wives and horses--!) and there is no example of happy polygyny provided in scripture.
There is a clear imbalance between the rights of men and women, which is the logical consequence of polygyny. As a man was allowed to marry more than one women, he can clearly have sex with women other than his first wife - at least if he is prepared to marry them.
quote:Coming to this conclusion requires that you read the scriptures in question in a very particular light - and it's not the only available light. I confess I haven't read the whole 15 pages of the thread so I'll take you at your word
But there is in the whole Bible not one specific law against unmarried women having sex with either unmarried men or married men...<snip>...If there was such a law in the Bible you'd think someone would have come up with a reference to it on the previous 15 pages of this thread - but no-one has.
quote:I actually know a couple like this (possibly more than one; only one I'm aware of).
Eliab said:Incapacity or wilful refusal to consummate gives grounds for an annulment, but only on the active suit of one of the parties. A couple who are both content to remain married without sex, are validly married.
quote:Do you equate the way a person chews his/her food with the intimacy and vulnerability of intercourse? In western culture by and large we don't have arranged marriages; we get to know a person and initially we're pretty free about rejecting folks (nope, couldn't handle that; eh, that's a deal-breaker, etc.) but as a person pleases us more and more and we allow love to blossom, it will take a larger problem to eliminate the person from consideration and, once we recognize that we love the person, it would take a very large problem (this is parenthetically why it's so important to not complicate a relationship with early sexual intimacy, thus triggering all those love hormones in what might be a very dodgy relationship). Or are you arguing that we should marry whoever we fall in love with, no matter what? "He's a pedophile but I can't help it, I love him, so I married him... yes, of course we're having children."
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:But you could say the same about any of the criteria on which we effectively judge our partners before marriage.
Originally posted by Eliab:
On the other hand, I think the idea of using pre-marital sex to weigh a partner in the balance, and to discard them if found wanting, is profoundly immoral by any standard in which love is considered more important than sex - that is, by any standard that can possibly be called moral at all.
quote:Yes, exactly - leading to a particular set of 'cart before the horse' problems.
RuthW said:You're assuming that people already know this and are then having sex, but I think the more common scenario is that having sex happens before people have figured out that someone is this special and this important, and sex is one part of that process.
quote:It's surprising how quickly one can discern that the other person has a seriously messed-up notion of sex when one spends some serious time talking about sex before taking one's clothes off... The messed-up person may not know they're messed-up but it's likely the other one will.
I really don't understand why sex gets such a privileged place in so many people's thinking. And I totally don't buy the idea that talking about sex is going to do the trick, especially if the people involved are sexually inexperienced. Is such a person really going to say, "Hey, I've got really messed-up notions of sex"? Could they even know such a thing?
quote:We all have a duty to help each other, but the circumstances within marriage make the way we help one another to salvation and godliness much different from even a close friendship (unless your "close friendship" is indistinguishable from marriage). It is far more intimate and (if done right) produces a bond of love and self-sacrifice that few friendships achieve.
Originally posted by amber.:
Ah, thanks... but, (slight tangent) I would have guessed that we all have a duty as Christians to help each other to salvation and godliness? Perhaps that's why it's not occurred to me to mention it as a specific reason to marry? I was trying to work out what makes a marriage different from a close friendship, I guess.
quote:Just wanting to reply to this point above--what's going on here IMHO is a protection of the woman, not so much her value as a commodity.
quote:I take it at face value, no pregnancy is mentioned: she gets seduced, he marries her, pregnant or no, because the valuable commodity of her virginity has been taken away. That's why he pays the father money equal to the dowry for virgins, if the father refuses to allow them to wed. I suspect such a refusal rarely happened; I can only imagine it in the case of a man known to mistreat his wives, concubines, or animals.
So the effect of the law is that if a man gets a girl pregnant, and she is not legally of age, then they should get married (i.e. the man must support his children) but that the girls father can refuse consent to the marriage in which case the man must pay them money. No stoning required.
quote:No, I'm not kidding, but neither am I sure that it feels like I'm being judged. Well, not any more than someone who (for example) can't walk would feel judged to be observing lots of people who can. This isn't quite the right way of looking at it, but it may help: It's more like turning up to a competition where walking is essential and realising that you don't have legs and can't do it. You can have all the people in the world saying to you "Well, you have to walk if you want to win the prize", and the best you can possibly do is say "Yes, I know, but I can't".
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
amber, I can't tell if you're kidding about feeling judged in all this; I hope you don't. God is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love. He sent His only begotten Son that you (and me and all of us) might have eternal life, not that you'd be held to an even higher standard of conduct. If you have any sense of 'having sinned' in your choices, simply confess and ask His forgiveness. But most of all, He's your Daddy in the very best sense of the concept. Even when we disappoint our Daddy briefly, He doesn't bear a grudge, He still wants 'His little girl' to have a great life, you know?
Now I realize there are probably a slew of buttons pushed by that image but I figure we've all got to get over being so grown-up and self-sufficient. We aren't grown-up and self-sufficient, not to God, and I don't think we ever will be on this earth plane.
quote:Do many couples split up because of the way one of them chews their food?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Do you equate the way a person chews his/her food with the intimacy and vulnerability of intercourse?
quote:But couples who have been going out for a long time do nonetheless split up.
But as a person pleases us more and more and we allow love to blossom, it will take a larger problem to eliminate the person from consideration and, once we recognize that we love the person, it would take a very large problem.
quote:I don't know that I'd call it an assumption (more the conclusion of a different line of reasoning)--but yes, I do believe that the value of virginity is socially ascribed rather than intrinsic (and the OT, at least, places no evident value on male virginity at all). That isn't to say that sex can't be problematic and harmful in the ways you describe--and our modern ambivalence about it may be just as harmful as older attitudes, with the pressure to be sexually "free" combined with prurient disdain for those "sluts" who are free in a too-public way (or, like Paris Hilton, have misfortune to be caught on video).
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Timothy, it appears you're assuming that there is no intrinsic value to virginity (for men or women) - I think that's a big assumption. I've seen so much damage done to humans (and I start by looking in the mirror) in the name of 'free love.' I started from a belief of "if you love each other it's okay" and devolved down into the "if it feels good, do it" mentality of the 60s-70s and crawled back out the other side to recognize that my capacity for joy in lovemaking hadn't been increased by my sexual exploits but instead had been damaged. I've come to a place of 'traditional biblical sexual morality' because I'm personally convinced it's protective in a good (non-oppressive) way and that it increases the likelihood we humans will have a rich and satisfying sex life; I embrace it personally because I believe God asks me to. I agree, the Church has been really stupid about sex - but that's the church and not the Bible; the Bible celebrates married love, at least the Hebrew scriptures and those were extant for the early church. I think the big problem comes in as the Church tries to distance itself from her Jewish roots.
I don't think virginity has monetary value; I think it's much more profound that mere money. But sometimes putting a price on a thing helps humans to value what they might otherwise ignore. I'm not advocating any such thing in this day and age, merely pointing out that even then there might have been more going on than meets the eye.
quote:Being expected to marry? That's a funny definition of not permissible! It would only make sense if marriage was a punishment.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Likewise the first example (Exodus 22:16) shows us that fornication isn't permissible because the fornicators are expected to marry as a consequence of the seduction.
quote:Yes, but we live in our culture, not theirs. We do not regard virginity as property. We do not see the sexual choices of a sister or daughtger as brining shame on a man. We do not - and haven't for a thousand years at least - have a legally enforceable right for parents to choose the marriages of their children. We do not require adult women to live under the tutelage of a man (and we haven't for centuries - most unmarried English women in the middle ages and early modern period worked for money outside their parent's homes and were free to travel around as they wished. We have nothign resembling purdah, or the patriarchal extened family. These rules and laws, insofar as they could possibly be of use to us, have to be interpreted into our situation.
I think you're applying our sensibility to a very different world. If you recall, Tamar did have to go back and live in her father's household until Shelah was old enough for her to marry (from the Genesis paraphrase thread) and it wasn't until she realized Judah was never going to provide her with the husband (and therefore the son) she was owed that she dressed as a harlot by the side of the road. At that point women didn't have any options beyond marry and bear children (preferrably sons) or turn to harlotry. Even the 'excellent wife' of Proverbs 31 who runs her own business does it within the context of marriage. Rahab is identified as a harlot and Ruth remarkably aligns herself with her mother-in-law and a new, unseen people rather than returning to her father's household. So for my money, you can't really make all the women living in their father's households the equivalent of dependent minors.
quote:How can we possibly know that? Much more likely that they faked it with sheep's blood if there was insufficient.
This isn't reality. I don't what what percentage of modern women bleed noticeably with the rupture of the hymen but it was a majority back then (some care was taken with daughters to make sure they weren't so rough-and-tumble as to endanger that valuable commodity).
quote:Doesn't matter because its the man who has to complain in this law. And its after the marriage is consummated, so virginity is no longer an issue. Once through the wedding night she is probably safe unless some external evidence is supplied - an advanced pregnancy, or some informer.
Now you can't tell me that in a culture where virginity is highly valued that older women in the community wouldn't be looking for signs...
quote:Now there's a challenge! I can't think of one offhand.
and there is no example of happy polygyny provided in scripture.
quote:No, it just requires that you read the scriptures. There simply isn't an explicit law about it. Maybe its in the long-lost Book of Cats.
quote:Coming to this conclusion requires that you read the scriptures in question in a very particular light - and it's not the only available light.
But there is in the whole Bible not one specific law against unmarried women having sex with either unmarried men or married men...<snip>...If there was such a law in the Bible you'd think someone would have come up with a reference to it on the previous 15 pages of this thread - but no-one has.
quote:Yes, that is exactly the case. The "certificate of divorcement" the get, is written permission from the man for the woman to remarry.
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
I've heard a case that when jesus said "God allowed you to divorce your wife because of your hard-headedness," he clearly didn't mention husbands because for a wife to divorce her husband would've been plainly unthinkable, due to the patriarchy inherent in that culture
quote:More, if we can believe the New Testament
This might also raise the question of whether Jesus' expectations were less or more stringent than those of the Pharisees.
quote:I don't know that couples split up on that basis but I do know that people don't go on second or third dates on that basis - which was my point. You were equating "any of the criteria on which we effectively judge our partners before marriage" and I think that's simply not true; criteria escalate.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Do many couples split up because of the way one of them chews their food?
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Do you equate the way a person chews his/her food with the intimacy and vulnerability of intercourse?
quote:And many marriages end in divorce-- your point is?
quote:But couples who have been going out for a long time do nonetheless split up.
But as a person pleases us more and more and we allow love to blossom, it will take a larger problem to eliminate the person from consideration and, once we recognize that we love the person, it would take a very large problem.
quote:I find the Bible exists in tension: on one hand, I truly believe it's God communicating with humanity, across time - I also believe it's a snapshot of times and places, in many ways an historical document. The way I see it, the Torah does a disservice to men by assuming some of the values of the surrounding cultures when it comes to male sexuality (e.g., lack of emphasis on male purity). I do see an intrinsic value in virginity, both male and female, and I fear too many people (men especially) feel like I did: it was a burden and I wanted to get rid of it. But why did it feel like a burden if it wasn't something in and of itself? I don't expect anybody else to answer that question (or even to relate; I may be very odd) or to reason along the same lines I am; I'm just trying to explain how I get here from there, you know?
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
I don't know that I'd call it an assumption (more the conclusion of a different line of reasoning)--but yes, I do believe that the value of virginity is socially ascribed rather than intrinsic (and the OT, at least, places no evident value on male virginity at all). That isn't to say that sex can't be problematic and harmful in the ways you describe--and our modern ambivalence about it may be just as harmful as older attitudes, with the pressure to be sexually "free" combined with prurient disdain for those "sluts" who are free in a too-public way (or, like Paris Hilton, have misfortune to be caught on video).
quote:Perhaps "behaviorally specific" isn't the right way to label it but I do think we can extrapolate sound guidelines. I certainly agree that Jesus tried to tune us in to something bigger or higher than simple "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" - yet it is human nature to try and boil everything down to what is and isn't permitted, just where do I cross the line? How far is 'too far'? And because we're fallen and limited, because we're not highly instinctual and we're not born knowing everything, there are certain arenas in which we really do need some help, to know something is valuable or precious and needs to be treated with care. It's kind of like giving a 3-year old a collectible item (a porcelain baby doll or other amazing china doll or a valuable baseball card or a copy of Superman #1...
I don't agree that you can simply extract a behaviorally specific code of sexual conduct from the Bible that applies to a society in which women are equal to men. But then I believe that part of what Christ brought us is an ethics that is liberated from behaviorally-specific "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots." Those kinds of ethical models are like languages that consist of a finite number of words and sentences, which are learned by memorizing all the possible sentences--it could work well until you encounter something new. Of course, no human language is like that--any language includes an infinite number of sentences that are generated by a (relatively) few broadly applicable grammatical and semantic principles. Love provides such a generative grammar of ethics: the OT may provide an example of how it works in a society of nomadic pastoralists (though I think it also provides plenty of examples of the limitations of behaviorally-specific rule-based ethics, and I think Jesus pointed these out as well), but to conclude that we should behave as if we were nomadic shepherds misses the point. Because our circumstances are different, love may require different things from us (which is not at all the same as saying anything goes).
) - the child will damage it (if not destroy it) simply because the child isn't yet old enough to know how to treat it appropriately - so it's ultimately the parent (or aunt or grandpa or whoever) who should know better than to give a 3-year old something so far beyond their capacity to handle. While I don't think a strict set of rules is the most mature way to handle it I do think there's a time and place for rules, even within the context of gracious Christianity. Parents tell children "don't play with matches!" but one day that child will be mature enough to start the campfire or light the fire in the lounge, etc. It's simply our attempt to protect them in their ignorance, to allow them to safely grow old enough to apply wisdom. I think a lot of the Torah laws are like that and Jesus invites us into wisdom (let he who has ears to hear, hear--) so I think there's still a valuable place for both.quote:If you're only interested in fornication (and not marriage), then yes, the marriage is a punishment! Consider the bottom line: if you have sex, you get married. Isn't that a close equivalent of 'sex should only happen within marriage'?
Originally posted by ken:
quote:Being expected to marry? That's a funny definition of not permissible! It would only make sense if marriage was a punishment.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Likewise the first example (Exodus 22:16) shows us that fornication isn't permissible because the fornicators are expected to marry as a consequence of the seduction.
quote:Exactly. You can't take the laws as given within their culture and say, "this applies to minors living in their parents' home" because people lived in family settings until they married, however old they were. You're making my point.
quote:Yes, but we live in our culture, not theirs. We do not regard virginity as property.
I think you're applying our sensibility to a very different world.
quote:Not generally in Western Christianity but as Islam moves farther into the west you'll see more of it, again--
We do not see the sexual choices of a sister or daughter as bringing shame on a man.
quote:Really? Can you give me some citations on that? In the middle ages and since... that's a very different view than the one presented by feminists.
We do not - and haven't for a thousand years at least - have a legally enforceable right for parents to choose the marriages of their children. We do not require adult women to live under the tutelage of a man (and we haven't for centuries - most unmarried English women in the middle ages and early modern period worked for money outside their parent's homes and were free to travel around as they wished.
quote:I do think it's interesting that modern Islam equates a woman concealing her face with feminine modesty whereas the Judah/Tamar story equates it with harlotry--
We have nothing resembling purdah, or the patriarchal extended family. These rules and laws, insofar as they could possibly be of use to us, have to be interpreted into our situation.
quote:Well that certainly happened in Italy in the middle ages but in order to have the need to fake a situation, you need to have the original situation. You don't counterfeit that which doesn't commonly exist.
quote:How can we possibly know that? Much more likely that they faked it with sheep's blood if there was insufficient.
This isn't reality. I don't what what percentage of modern women bleed noticeably with the rupture of the hymen but it was a majority back then (some care was taken with daughters to make sure they weren't so rough-and-tumble as to endanger that valuable commodity).
quote:I've assumed this law could be called into place at some distance from the wedding night, but maybe not - in re-reading it does sound more immediate. But gossip can happen at the wedding (they took days, after all), a snide aunt or jealous party could wreak havoc, so even within that context it could be a problem.
its after the marriage is consummated, so virginity is no longer an issue. Once through the wedding night she is probably safe unless some external evidence is supplied - an advanced pregnancy, or some informer.
quote:Let me know if you do, okay? Seriously.
quote:Now there's a challenge! I can't think of one offhand.
and there is no example of happy polygyny provided in scripture.
quote:Yes, you're right, I'm reading for implied meaning, that which I think can be reasonably extrapolated, and you're speaking about specific laws. But I don't think you have to go to the long-lost Book of Cats (
But there is in the whole Bible not one specific law against unmarried women having sex with either unmarried men or married men
) to find a strong implication that sex is to be reserved for marriage.quote:Would such a change be an improvement?
Originally Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Not generally in Western Christianity but as Islam moves farther into the west you'll see more of it, again--
quote:Not in my opinion. I think it's possible for humans to value virginity and believe sexual activity is best preserved for marriage without falling into extreme or separatist views of the sexes; Jesus modeled this beautifully, treating women like (
Originally posted by Bullfrog.:
quote:Would such a change be an improvement?
Originally Posted by LynnMagdalenCollege:
Not generally in Western Christianity but as Islam moves farther into the west you'll see more of it, again--
) humans. I know; shocking.quote:I wonder how many of the couples who are virgins when they marry actually get "round to it" on the wedding night. I know that we were both far too tired - but neither of us was a virgin. We put on our own wedding, without parental participation, including most of the cooking.
Originally posted by amber.:
I knew that if I'd have waited until the honeymoon to try, I couldn't have got married because it would have pushed my coping skills for the wedding day beyond all possible boundaries...
quote:I meant that there is no moral difference - rejecting a partner on the grounds of eating disgustingly is no more moral than rejecting a partner for sexual incompatibility. In fact I should have thought the former would be more immoral (or at least finicky), since if someone dribbles down their chin you can just look away, whereas sex is a bit more noticeable.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:I don't know that couples split up on that basis but I do know that people don't go on second or third dates on that basis - which was my point. You were equating "any of the criteria on which we effectively judge our partners before marriage" and I think that's simply not true; criteria escalate.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Do many couples split up because of the way one of them chews their food?
quote:As far as I can see, you and Eliab are arguing that, if a couple are truly in love, then any sexual compatibility shouldn't matter, because their love will be strong enough to overcome it. My point is that a couple can be in love and still find some insurmountable incompatibility - hence the break-up of long-term relationships. (And indeed divorce, though I see divorce as a different issue.)
quote:And many marriages end in divorce-- your point is?
But couples who have been going out for a long time do nonetheless split up.
quote:I think it works on a deeper level than that, though. Subconsciously, perhaps we are still evaluating the physical fitness and co-ordination of our partners as if we are still hunter-gatherers. Are we relying on them to be co-ordinated enough to defend us/bring home a buffalo for tea/wrestle small defiant children with accuracy and protect them from danger. If someone is not able to tell if they're dribbling or not, or co-ordinate themselves not to, I think it does have a potential reproductive 'consequence' in many people's minds?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I meant that there is no moral difference - rejecting a partner on the grounds of eating disgustingly is no more moral than rejecting a partner for sexual incompatibility. In fact I should have thought the former would be more immoral (or at least finicky), since if someone dribbles down their chin you can just look away, whereas sex is a bit more noticeable.
quote:Lynn, this harks back to a Kerg thread you might remember from a couple of years ago (now in Limbo
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:Let me know if you do, okay? Seriously.
quote:Now there's a challenge! I can't think of one offhand.
and there is no example of happy polygyny provided in scripture.
) about the Biblical model of marriage. I championed David as a poster-boy for polygyny there, IIRC, but with the caveat that finding a perfect example of any model of marriage is doomed to failure, as the Bible is a book full of flawed people, and the only exception didn't marry at all.quote:Fair point. I'm making the assumption because the point I'm arguing against is that a couple who would otherwise wish to reserve sex until after making a formal commitment intended to be permanent, would be prudent to test the water first.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:You're assuming that people already know this and are then having sex, but I think the more common scenario is that having sex happens before people have figured out that someone is this special and this important, and sex is one part of that process.
Originally posted by Eliab:
We are, after all, talking about life-long love and commitment here. The person is, one would hope, someone you find so special and so important to you that you want to be with them for the whole of your life.
quote:Oh, come on. If we didn't think it ok to care about sex, we wouldn't be reading this thread at all.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
that this kind of discussion always seems to reflect a belief that it is wrong to care about sex.
quote:I don't think that follows at all. My love for my wife encompasses much more than my sexual desire for her, and I could very easily experience sexual desire for all manner of people whom I would not for an instant consider marrying. I certainly rate marriage as better than sex - even a marriage like my own which for years was anything but happy. That doesn't mean that I think sexual desire is inherently disordered.
To say that marital love can be separated from sexual desire is only intelligible if one assumes that sexual desire is inherently disordered
quote:Even if (some of) the reasons for the law were bad, it doesn't follow that the law is moot. I would, for instance, be prepared to defend the principle of virginity (male as much as female) on purely romantic grounds. I am under no illusions that ideas of romance are culturally conditioned, and I certainly don't suppose that Moses, for example, would have had any such common concept with me. That Moses would have defended the same principle on cultural grounds that I either could not understand or would reject is no surprise.
To take the most relevant assumption for the topic at hand, they assumed that unmarried women were the property of their fathers, that they could be sold to their husbands, and that their virginity was a particularly desirable feature, the absence of which would detract from their marketability. None of the prohibitions on premarital sex Lynn cited make any sense at all absent this assumption. Since I think we would all agree that this cultural belief was mistaken, and it follows that those laws are moot
quote:Well less immoral, obviously, insofar as the objection probably isn't to the fiancé's lack of competence or tempremental difference in such matters, but to a new and unflattering insight into their character - laziness, selfishness and lack of compassion in this case.
So suppose a couple in love lived together chastely before marriage, and one or the other said "I can't stand the way you leave the bathroom a mess every morning, I hate your cooking, you snore, you watch idiotic shows on TV and don't talk to me, you don't wash the dishes, you don't fill up the car and I have to drive to work on fumes, when I got sick you acted like I was just a whiner instead of taking care of me and comforting me... I don't want to marry you after all." How immoral is that, compared to discovering a mutual sexual incompatibility?
quote:Gwai has it right.
Originally posted by amber.:
Eliab, are you saying that people like us should lower their expectations and get married to someone with whom they could not enjoy a full sexual relationship that would hopefully lead to children of their own? Possibly not, but it reads like it to me. Please do re-explain.
quote:Yes.
If we'd have ordered things The Right Way (according to this thread) we would have been going into a marriage on the hopeful expectation of it working and us having children, then not found out that the reality was 100% different from that until the honeymoon night, which could have ended up as something more akin to a worst nightmare imaginable for me, (and consequently for hubby) not a loving sharing experience. Is that what anyone should hope a marriage experience will be like? Wpuld you choose that experience for yourself [...] ?
quote:A lot of men would. And all of them are unworthy of your love.
I suspect a lot of men would have been tempted to stray/give up and marry someone different, sooner or later
quote:Well, yes. Is there a happy marriage in the Bible at at all?
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:... I championed David as a poster-boy for polygyny there, IIRC, but with the caveat that finding a perfect example of any model of marriage is doomed to failure, as the Bible is a book full of flawed people
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:Let me know if you do, okay? Seriously.
quote:Now there's a challenge! I can't think of one offhand.
and there is no example of happy polygyny provided in scripture.
quote:For clarity, no, I didn't think that my husband had any intention at all of straying, nor has he ever suggested that he would (blimey, it's all we can do to cope with one person, let alone a string of them!). My thoughts are nevertheless reflective of my own concerns based on logic and statistics, and my understanding (imperfect as it may be) of the normal requirements of a marriage, not his specific behaviour or intent.
Originally posted by Eliab:
...I hope that you did not think that your fiancé was one such. Why would you knowingly marry a man who is an adulterer at heart, if not yet in deed?
quote:I don't accept this premise. There are all sorts of coping and desensitisation strategies for dealing with this sort of thing for people with ASDs right across the spectrum in all areas of life, not just the sexual. So I just don't agree that it would be the case that, if it had been difficult initially, nothing could have been done to gradually overcome that.
Originally posted by amber.:
...all the experts in all the world wouldn’t make any difference, nor all the time in creation, nor all the inventive alternative building-up-to-it processes people could think up. The “full works” from a partner feels like nothing else can possibly feel to us – the combination of texture, temperature, smell, sensation, proximity, pressure, speed, changes in reaction during the event. If the sum total of it after all due care and consideration still overloads our brains, then that’s the reality and there’s nothing we can do to change it. We're not in charge of the "off-switch".
quote:Which makes sense -- the auditioning scenario you and others here posit is pretty grim. But I think you're arguing against something that is pretty unusual. Chances are, anyone who is that big a jerk would have revealed his/her jerkishness far earlier in the relationship and would have been dumped by anyone with a shred of self-esteem.
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:Fair point. I'm making the assumption because the point I'm arguing against is that a couple who would otherwise wish to reserve sex until after making a formal commitment intended to be permanent, would be prudent to test the water first.
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:You're assuming that people already know this and are then having sex, but I think the more common scenario is that having sex happens before people have figured out that someone is this special and this important, and sex is one part of that process.
Originally posted by Eliab:
We are, after all, talking about life-long love and commitment here. The person is, one would hope, someone you find so special and so important to you that you want to be with them for the whole of your life.
quote:I think this is the real question, and I agree with what Timothy the Obscure said on the previous page:
It's an entirely different argument in other (more common) cases. My view on that is that as a matter of my own experience I would strongly recommend virginity before marriage, but I think the moral issue depends on whether one considers it a command of God.
quote:How people will apply the principle of love that Christ taught in sexual matters will depend on how they view sex. If you think sex is super special, the ultimate joining of two people, then it makes sense to reserve it for marriage. But if you think sex is an important but still ordinary part of life, it makes sense to apply the more ordinary ethical standards of treating people with respect and care to specific situations.
I don't agree that you can simply extract a behaviorally specific code of sexual conduct from the Bible that applies to a society in which women are equal to men. But then I believe that part of what Christ brought us is an ethics that is liberated from behaviorally-specific "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots."
quote:I think you're still working partly from the premise that I simply would have panicked/not liked it. That isn't what I meant, nor is it what happened. But these are very public boards and I'm all out of enthusiasm for explaining much further, except to add that my problems are also medical ones that have already taken a lot of surgery and medication and confidence-building to sort out. Me 'cutting out' and not being able to say or indicate "stop" isn't a question of attitude, but a response to a set level of sensory input where I simply DO cut out. Since it's the brain's wiring that's at fault, I'm still not convinced that therapy is ever going to rewire it. It doesn't for the other sensory overloads, though it can help for people who have anxiety/depression relating to it.
Originally posted by Caz...:
quote:I don't accept this premise. There are all sorts of coping and desensitisation strategies for dealing with this sort of thing for people with ASDs right across the spectrum in all areas of life, not just the sexual. So I just don't agree that it would be the case that, if it had been difficult initially, nothing could have been done to gradually overcome that.
Originally posted by amber.:
...all the experts in all the world wouldn’t make any difference, nor all the time in creation, nor all the inventive alternative building-up-to-it processes people could think up. The “full works” from a partner feels like nothing else can possibly feel to us – the combination of texture, temperature, smell, sensation, proximity, pressure, speed, changes in reaction during the event. If the sum total of it after all due care and consideration still overloads our brains, then that’s the reality and there’s nothing we can do to change it. We're not in charge of the "off-switch".
But even if I accepted your premise, I know several married couples who, for some reason or another cannot have a "full" sex life (or a sex life at all). Does this make their marriages any less meant or ordained by God? I don't believe it does, and nor do I think it an unfair burden / sacrifice to ask of your spouse.
I guess I feel similar to Eliab; that I think if you get to the point of saying you are committing to one person for life then it is for better, for worse etc, and that what that means in practice will be different for each of us - but that's part of the beauty of the commitment.
Anyway, I don't mean or want to make this about your particular situation and it's no criticism of the choices you in particular made. We all stand before God for our own choices, which we make with the circustances, beliefs, feelings and evidence available to us at that time. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't come out of that argument very well based on my own life choices! And I think God is plenty gracious and big enough to cope if we do make choices that fall short of what he would have ideally had us do.
But equally I don't think that should prohibit us from trying to wrestle these issues though.
)
) though hubby indicated that he'd quite like his tea first if that's alright? quote:Well, not entirely, because you're still putting in terms of one-sided rejection, as opposed to both sides deciding they're incompatible.
Originally posted by Eliab:
There is also the point that in the scenario under discussion, the assumption is that the couple are very close to permanent commitment, and would not otherwise be trying out sex at all. Rejecting someone for sexual incompatibility in such circumstances is to reject them after they have made themselves highly vulnerable by sharing their first sexual experience with you in circumstances where it clearly is highly important to them. Sharing your choice in TV shows with someone is not intimate in the same way.
(I think that answers Ricardus' point as well).
quote:So, basically, because of the unnecessary risks involved in the endeavor of "waiting until you're married," couples ought to not not have sex before marriage, based on the fact that there might be unforeseen consequences.
Originally Posted by Ricardus:
That said, I'm not saying that couples ought to have sex before marriage. But it seems to me that not having sex is introducing an unnecessary level of uncertainty to what is already a pretty risky endeavour. Granted, a loving couple should be able to work round any problems, but why should they need to?
quote:How interesting! So you'd as soon your daughter sleep with her boyfriend as share a meal with her boyfriend? I mean, if the activities are moral equivalents...?
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I meant that there is no moral difference - rejecting a partner on the grounds of eating disgustingly is no more moral than rejecting a partner for sexual incompatibility. In fact I should have thought the former would be more immoral (or at least finicky), since if someone dribbles down their chin you can just look away, whereas sex is a bit more noticeable.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't know that couples split up on that basis but I do know that people don't go on second or third dates on that basis - which was my point. You were equating "any of the criteria on which we effectively judge our partners before marriage" and I think that's simply not true; criteria escalate.
quote:I can't speak for Eliab but I am not arguing that sexual incompatibility doesn't matter if you love each other; my argument is that 95% of 'sexual incompatibility' can be discerned by means other than sexual intercourse and that if your love has met all your other criteria and you've not had any hint of sexual incompatibility and you go ahead and have intercourse and it's not good so you break up, that's pretty cold because it's not necessarily reflective of what would be reality in marriage. I've emphasized (repeatedly, I think) that there's a learning curve to good sex and that every couple is unique. I don't care if you've been a great lover with person A, you might not be a great lover as far as person B is concerned - you may have to change and adapt in order to please person B - and that change and adaptation takes time, as does learning in the first place - so I don't think it's a terribly reasonable position to essentially say, "okay, now for the road test." And I suppose part of that is simply the question, what will you do if your love doesn't 'measure up'? What constitutes 'measuring up' (and I'm not making rude size jokes although that can be a real factor--
As far as I can see, you and Eliab are arguing that, if a couple are truly in love, then any sexual compatibility shouldn't matter, because their love will be strong enough to overcome it. My point is that a couple can be in love and still find some insurmountable incompatibility - hence the break-up of long-term relationships. (And indeed divorce, though I see divorce as a different issue.)
) ??quote:Because it's the nature of life? Because there are always challenges to work through and we don't necessarily know what they're going to be before we make the commitment? I'm not arguing for going forward blind but I am trying to find a workable way to avoid mistakes I've made myself in the past, were I in that position in the future (yeah, because I'm such a hot grandma!
(from a later post)That said, I'm not saying that couples ought to have sex before marriage. But it seems to me that not having sex is introducing an unnecessary level of uncertainty to what is already a pretty risky endeavour. Granted, a loving couple should be able to work round any problems, but why should they need to?
). quote:What do you think the Bible tells us about the nature of sex? I'm genuinely curious, I'm not trying to set you up or anything.
RuthW said: How people will apply the principle of love that Christ taught in sexual matters will depend on how they view sex. If you think sex is super special, the ultimate joining of two people, then it makes sense to reserve it for marriage. But if you think sex is an important but still ordinary part of life, it makes sense to apply the more ordinary ethical standards of treating people with respect and care to specific situations.
quote:Yes, the changes in brain chemistry related to sex and love are really impressive, sexual intoxication, as it were... a person can set him/herself up for a lot of pain - and men get hurt this way, too-- it's not simply a female thing.
Gwai said Certainly many people find that sex makes them (more) in love with the person they have slept with. So, if the sex doesn't work, this may be a problem. Indeed, I know a couple who did something like this and when they broke up (for very good reasons) it was a serious problem for the woman.
quote:Well, I understand Eliab to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, Eliab) "you commit to marriage because you love someone, and if it turns out that that means 50 years of frustration, it really shouldn't bother you, because sex just isn't that important to a Christian marriage. You should be happy with whatever you get."
Timothy tO, if there's anybody putting forward a "it's wrong to care about sex" belief, they've escaped my notice and I thought I was reading pretty carefully (at least the new part of the thread).
quote:I would say that how one deals with a sexual problem is a very strong indicator of character--probably more so than any of the others I listed (except perhaps how one treats a sick partner). Most sexual problems between spouses can be resolved, given enough courage and willingness. A person who won't confront his/her own intimacy demons as they manifest in the sexual sphere is a bad bet for marriage in all kinds of ways. (Amber's situation is quite different from the usual, though I would say that the way she and her husband dealt with the matter demonstrates a level of courage and honesty that all couples should aspire to. Maybe they should write a book.)
(Eliab on other reasons for dumping a potential spouse):
Well less immoral, obviously, insofar as the objection probably isn't to the fiancé's lack of competence or tempremental difference in such matters, but to a new and unflattering insight into their character - laziness, selfishness and lack of compassion in this case.
Since their character is the thing with which one is in love, it is may not be wrong to re-evaluate one's intentions on learning of flaws in that character. (Whether and to what extent it is wrong clearly depends on the specifics).
quote:Interesting; that's not what I understand him to be saying.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Well, I understand Eliab to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, Eliab) "you commit to marriage because you love someone, and if it turns out that that means 50 years of frustration, it really shouldn't bother you, because sex just isn't that important to a Christian marriage. You should be happy with whatever you get."
quote:Having been devastated under both circumstances (
People have been devastated by breakups without ever having sex (see Jane Austen or any number of other 19th century novels).
), I can assure you it's worse if you've had sex. quote:I'm very much a Spirit-filled Christian but I also know that we humans are self-serving on a profound level, even though we don't mean to be ("The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9, God speaking). Therefore I listen-up when Jesus says, "if you love Me, keep My commandments." Jesus connects our love for Him with our obedience on many occasions "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love."
And I think the temptation to look for rules is a snare--a focus on rules leads to a focus on loopholes, or to a rigidity in which the letter kills the spirit. And as a Quaker, I do of course believe that we always have access to the perfect inward Guide and Teacher for any situation, if we will only listen...
quote:Well, in a way that's already happening, but that's another story and it's not exactly a book: It fits in with the national/Diocesan advisory work I do on disability for the churches, shall we say. Not too sure about the courage either - sheer determination might be closer to the truth, but thank you
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
...Amber's situation is quite different from the usual, though I would say that the way she and her husband dealt with the matter demonstrates a level of courage and honesty that all couples should aspire to. Maybe they should write a book.
quote:I didn't say the activities themselves were morally equivalent. I meant that rejecting someone on the basis of their dining habits is morally equivalent to - or, if anything, worse than - rejecting someone on the basis of their sex life.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
So you'd as soon your daughter sleep with her boyfriend as share a meal with her boyfriend? I mean, if the activities are moral equivalents...?
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What I mean is that, prima facie, the most reasonable course of action seems to me to be that couples should have sex before marriage.
quote:I (for one) would never, ever reject someone on the basis of their sex life (FWIW, I've had friends who were openly and enthusiastically polyamorous. While I think it's a profoundly risky way to conduct one's relationships, it's not something I held against them, especially considering where they're coming from and their lives.)
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:I didn't say the activities themselves were morally equivalent. I meant that rejecting someone on the basis of their dining habits is morally equivalent to - or, if anything, worse than - rejecting someone on the basis of their sex life.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
So you'd as soon your daughter sleep with her boyfriend as share a meal with her boyfriend? I mean, if the activities are moral equivalents...?
quote:Oh? And which feminists would they be then? Most of the ones I read are quite sussed on history!
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:Really? Can you give me some citations on that? In the middle ages and since... that's a very different view than the one presented by feminists.
Originally posted by Ken:
We do not - and haven't for a thousand years at least - have a legally enforceable right for parents to choose the marriages of their children. We do not require adult women to live under the tutelage of a man (and we haven't for centuries - most unmarried English women in the middle ages and early modern period worked for money outside their parent's homes and were free to travel around as they wished.
quote:Couples who live together before marrying are more likely to divorce, but the cause-effect relationship is far from clear, since those who won't cohabit are likely to have more negative attitudes toward divorce in the first place. So the correlation could well (IMHO probably does) arise from both being effects of a single cause, i.e. attitudes about marriage and sexuality.
Is there evidence that couples who had sex with each other before they married are more likely to stay married than are couples who didn't? I don't think that there is. TtO could probably provide the citations if I'm wrong, but I'm reasonably sure that I've read that studies show the opposite to be the case. In which case, premarital sex would increase risk of the marriage failing, not decrease it.
quote:This was the specific portion of your post that I questioned: most unmarried English women in the middle ages - I've not studied medieval England but this is assuredly not the stereotype presented (not over here, anyway!). I can see a significant number of early modern period women could be described this way; the governesses and servants probably had a good degree of freedom, although I don't know that it would apply to women of higher station?
Originally posted by ken:
most unmarried English women in the middle ages and early modern period worked for money outside their parent's homes and were free to travel around as they wished.
quote:Perhaps we've got an especially vitriolic strain over here; you'd be tempted think no woman has ever had any freedom over herself or her body or her life, ever in the history of humanity.
Oh? And which feminists would they be then? Most of the ones I read are quite sussed on history!
quote:Okay, I see what you're saying. I don't think that Jewish women were forced to marry, either; the traditional betrothal involved the man coming over with a bag of money and wine and sitting down to negotiate with her father (and brothers); they'd write up the contract and then she would come in and look at the contract and look at the money and if she felt it was acceptable, she'd drink the wine.
I'm not saying the women were not oppressed in northern European cultures, or that they are not now. I'm not saying that we are or were any less sexist or authoritarian than people in Syria or Egypt or wherever (we might have been but that's not what I'm saying). But that the relative unfreedom of women (relative because most poor men and working men were unfree relative to rich men, and to rich women) and the extra social constraints they experience compared to men, are different in different times and places. There are specific differences in our traditions of kinship and marriage and those of many other countries. The most obvious one being that forced marriage was never legally allowed (which is not to say it never happened). In the laws of England (and many other northern European traditions) women were legally free to marry whoever they wished.
quote:I think it's very hard for late 20th century western folk not to fall into that place of illusion and fantasy.
My dreams like nets were thrown
To catch the love that I'd heard of
In books and films and songs
Now there's a world of illusion and fantasy
In the place where the real world belongs
quote:Why do you think that is? (now I'm just curious) I've seen it most within Islamic culture and those places which at one time or another were under Islamic rule (e.g., chunks of southern Europe and the Mediterranean region).
We never had anything like harems or purdah, there were no "women's quarters" in traditional houses, there was never an expectation that women would walk around covered and never meet with or talk to men. The kind of patriarchal extended family that is common in some cultures where women on marriage go to their husband's fathers house and are routinely placed under the control of their husband's mother is more or less unknown in ordinary society in northern Europe. It exists in parts of southern Europe and the Mediterranean region and it existed among aristocrats - but not the poor.
quote:Unless the rules didn't originate from within the culture but were in fact of divine origin. That is my belief. So what I'm looking to do is to discern what aspects of the Law were meant to differentiate the Jewish people from the gentiles around them and what aspects of the Law reflect God's eternal values. I believe we're given great insight in this arena by Jesus, the gospels, the epistles, and ultimately the Holy Spirit. Obviously YMMV!
Hard to see how the rules of that culture can be adapted to ours.
quote:Yeah but that happened because they'd been purposely detaching themselves from the Jewish roots of Christianity; if you know the Torah the meaning is clear.
The longest passage in the New Testament about marriage is Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians, especially chapter 7 (IIRC). His background is so different from ours that we now cannot tell when he talks about "a man" marrying "his virgin" whether he is talking about a father and daughter or a boyfriend and girlfriend. In fact that confusion existed even in the early church. The meaning must have been obvious to the original recipients of the letter yet had been lost by the time the Empire became Christian three or four centuries later!
quote:
Oh heck, just listen to the folk songs.
I loved the Childe Ballads with a fierce joy when I first learned to play guitar at the impressionable age of 12... In fact, as recently as a few years ago I wrote a song in the style... quote:But how does this reconcile with the idea that wisdom indicates we should "road test to insure compatibility" if, in fact, we prove incompatible? Then we're entering either the territory of multiple partners or 'get thee to a nunnery.'
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
However, there's one study(rather more carefully designed than most, I think) that suggests that it isn't premarital sex so much as multiple partners that correlates with divorce. If you only have premarital sex with your future spouse, your chances of divorce do not increase.
quote:For what it is worth, here is her response:
Originally posted by ken:
most unmarried English women in the middle ages <snip> worked for money outside their parent's homes and were free to travel around as they wished.
quote:[eta grammar]
Well, I would rather modify it. It was certainly common for unmarried women to spend a few years before marriage earning their dowry by working. Often, this meant working as a servant for a few years, or working for wages in someone else’s field, etc. Quite common. But even then, I wouldn’t want to exaggerate. It was rarely for more than 2-3 years, with dowry in mind. And since men always earned more than women (even if they did exactly the same work in the fields, and even if the woman was just as efficient), most families preferred to use males as wage-earners, and to work their own land. Thus, it was VERY common for families to rent more land when they had teenagers or young adults, and use female labor on their OWN land; the profits then went to fund dowries. Basically, a woman could make more money working extra family land and selling the crop, then she could for wages. So a lot of family’s pooled resources to rent (or get rights over) extra land.
Does this help?
quote:I don’t think that the attitude with values sexual satisfaction over continuing a relationship with someone you love becomes any more humane or reasonable just because one’s partner shares it. I accept that it might be less damaging.
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, not entirely, because you're still putting in terms of one-sided rejection, as opposed to both sides deciding they're incompatible.
quote:I don’t understand your point. In particular, I don’t understand why you say that not trying out sex before marriage introduces a level of risk or uncertainty. I don’t see that – if there are going to be problems, then why would the greater level of commitment in marriage make them less soluble? Pre-marital sex surely doesn’t reduce the possibility of sexual incompatibility occurring – if anything the opposite is likely to be true, because couples who wait at least know that both of them are capable of waiting and value something more than their own pleasure.
That said, I'm not saying that couples ought to have sex before marriage. But it seems to me that not having sex is introducing an unnecessary level of uncertainty to what is already a pretty risky endeavour. Granted, a loving couple should be able to work round any problems, but why should they need to?
quote:No, not really.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Well, I understand Eliab to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, Eliab) "you commit to marriage because you love someone, and if it turns out that that means 50 years of frustration, it really shouldn't bother you, because sex just isn't that important to a Christian marriage. You should be happy with whatever you get."
quote:Because the pain and the concealing of it will inevitably damage the relationship. But that's a complex argument that goes deeper into psychological theory than is warranted in a tangent.
a price worth paying for the relationship
quote:Well, it doesn't. Before conceding absolutely, however, I would clarify:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:But how does this reconcile with the idea that wisdom indicates we should "road test to insure compatibility" if, in fact, we prove incompatible?
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
However, there's one study(rather more carefully designed than most, I think) that suggests that it isn't premarital sex so much as multiple partners that correlates with divorce. If you only have premarital sex with your future spouse, your chances of divorce do not increase.
quote:Ah, I think that's the most clear statement (at least to me -
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:Well, it doesn't. Before conceding absolutely, however, I would clarify:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But how does this reconcile with the idea that wisdom indicates we should "road test to insure compatibility" if, in fact, we prove incompatible?
My argument was not precisely that we should test-drive our partners against sex, but rather that, since we in practice test them against everything else, why exclude sex? Most of the responses have simply been to say that it doesn't matter if we exclude sex, and since they come from people with more life-experience than me I shall assume they are correct, but that wasn't not quite my question.
). To me, the reason to exclude sex from the 'test' element of premarital relationship exploration is because of the holy aspect of it. I've alluded to it before (more than once, I'm sure; sorry, I don't like to be tedious), God uses marriage (specifically sex) as the model to help us understand our relationship with Him: the first appearance being And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived - God knows us, intimately (and how many of us react like Timothy's post, above, fearful of that intimacy? I know that I crave it and avoid it, almost simultaneously).quote:Maybe I'm misreading this, but if that's what being in love means, it sounds awful. To me a relationship isn't about giving up happiness if love demands it - it's about two people making each other happy. There are always problems, sacrifices and periods of unhappiness, but I can't fundamentally separate love from happiness like that.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I am saying that if you love someone you would rather be with them than not, and that you value them more than your own happiness (including sexual happiness). That’s what being in love means.
quote:No, I don't think that you have misunderstood me. I think that marriage is precisely about being prepared to give up your own happiness if love demands it.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
To me a relationship isn't about giving up happiness if love demands it
quote:I don't think there is any separation from love and happiness in that case. It's just that love isn't directly yoked to one's particular individual happiness.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Maybe I'm misreading this, but if that's what being in love means, it sounds awful. To me a relationship isn't about giving up happiness if love demands it - it's about two people making each other happy. There are always problems, sacrifices and periods of unhappiness, but I can't fundamentally separate love from happiness like that.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I am saying that if you love someone you would rather be with them than not, and that you value them more than your own happiness (including sexual happiness). That’s what being in love means.
[ETA: OK Martin, I give up. What WERE you doing in the park this morning??]
quote:And if your beloved develops early onset Alzheimers, as one of my aunts did? Or if, as the result of a head injury, your beloved goes from being a brilliant, capable, happy, and competent life partner to being of limited intellect, irritable, prone to angry outbursts, unable to hold a job, and needing someone to make all her decisions for her?
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:Maybe I'm misreading this, but if that's what being in love means, it sounds awful. To me a relationship isn't about giving up happiness if love demands it - it's about two people making each other happy. There are always problems, sacrifices and periods of unhappiness, but I can't fundamentally separate love from happiness like that.
Originally posted by Eliab:
I am saying that if you love someone you would rather be with them than not, and that you value them more than your own happiness (including sexual happiness). That’s what being in love means.
quote:Josephine,
Originally posted by Josephine:
And my uncle would shrug his shoulders and say, "When we married, we said 'for better or for worse.' So it's worse."
quote:That's what I used to think when I was in my late teens and twenties. But I seem to have grown out of it.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I've come to believe that happiness is far more internal than external
quote:This is the kernel of the only moral argument on the topic of sex I've ever heard. All the rest are pragmatical arguments disguised in moral language.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
... the holy aspect of [sex]. I've alluded to it before (more than once, I'm sure; sorry, I don't like to be tedious), God uses marriage (specifically sex) as the model to help us understand our relationship with Him:
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As a non-Christian, I'm fascinated by the Orthodox attitude (i.e. marriage as a path to holiness): it's powerful, but also very alien to me. And since I don't believe in the Kingdom, I'm curious how it translates into the here-and-now.
quote:
In many ways I agree with you. Many couples of my parents' generation stayed together despite long-term illness. It's very tough, and I wonder if my generation will be able to do similar without the social expectation? Possibly only rarely.
quote:Of course it's a different relationship. But even without severe illness, a relationship changes over time. You won't be the same person at 50 that you were at 20, nor will your spouse be, and so the relationship won't be the same, either. Illness just magnifies what is an ordinary fact of all relationships. But if you love your partner, the love continues even as the relationship changes. As William Shakespeare said,
Similarly, if one partner is utterly changed by an illness (severe Alzheimer's, say) there isn't a debate for me about whether or not the relationship can be ended: it already HAS ended. Or at least, it's changed so drastically it's become a different relationship, perhaps more like a parent-child.
quote:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
quote:I found Luther's Small Catechism extremely helpful, when I first discovered it. It's intended for children, so perhaps that says something about where I was spiritually at the time. It's very simple and accessible, and the section on the Ten Commandments in particular helped me to see my own inclinations and actions in a different light. I still refer back to it from time to time, although I've been Orthodox 20 years now.
Originally posted by EnglishRose:
I'd love to read more about this. Is Luther's Small Catechism a good place to start for a non-Orthodox person or would you recommend something else?
quote:If I can put this in secular terms, what should the world look like to you? What is your paradise?
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As a non-Christian, I'm fascinated by the Orthodox attitude (i.e. marriage as a path to holiness): it's powerful, but also very alien to me. And since I don't believe in the Kingdom, I'm curious how it translates into the here-and-now.
quote:I don't think so - the nature of the relationship has undoubtedly changed but it's not ended; there is still a covenant in place. That was the hardest challenge for me personally: I was there, God was there, 2 of the 3 involved in the covenant were there - but 2 out of 3 doesn't make it float.
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
Similarly, if one partner is utterly changed by an illness (severe Alzheimer's, say) there isn't a debate for me about whether or not the relationship can be ended: it already HAS ended. Or at least, it's changed so drastically it's become a different relationship, perhaps more like a parent-child.
quote:Frankly, most of life is comprised of situations in which we find ourselves rather than situations we created: we are born into an existing society at a specific strata within the society (which may or may not be very class oriented); we are born into a family with no choice about its character or nature or interests or values; we are born with an intelligence which is not of our own choosing and gifts which are not of our own choosing and we may or may not have the opportunity to rightly develop our gifts or educate our minds. So I'm not saying that our circumstances don't have a bearing but I think our reaction and mindset have a HUGE amount to do with how we handle it and whether we can have joy in the face of the storm or not.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:That's what I used to think when I was in my late teens and twenties. But I seem to have grown out of it.
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I've come to believe that happiness is far more internal than external
The more I see of the world the more I think that people make each other happy or sad and that most problems are not your own fault and the solution is rarely in your own hands.
quote:I don't think it's as straightforward as an A/B setting: DO talk or DON'T talk. I think there are some things about which talking never helps because they are inherently hurtful and unchangeable; I think there are things which we must risk talking about, if we're looking for deep intimacy - and vast terrain between the extremes. And I suspect every relationship has unique dynamics at play - probably the dynamics change over the years, so that the way it worked in your 20s isn't necessarily the way it will work in your 40s or 60s, etc.
Also once upon a time I thought that we should talk about our personal and emotional problems and face up to them and work through them with others close to us. But now it seems more and more that that often makes them worse, and the very act of talking about them can be emotionally and socially crippling, and also ruing relationships. Its often better to just put up with bad things and keep going. Muddle through and stick together and maybe things will come out alright later. Over-examined problems ofen become intolerable and lead to unhealable breakups.
quote:My grandfather nursed my grandmother through 7 years of Alzheimer's. For the last few years, she no longer knew any of us, and she spent the day swearing, screaming, biting and kicking. I never heard him raise his voice to her. He showed the same patient love to her that he always had - and which was a hallmark of his character.
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:Of course it's a different relationship. But even without severe illness, a relationship changes over time. You won't be the same person at 50 that you were at 20, nor will your spouse be, and so the relationship won't be the same, either. Illness just magnifies what is an ordinary fact of all relationships. But if you love your partner, the love continues even as the relationship changes.
Similarly, if one partner is utterly changed by an illness (severe Alzheimer's, say) there isn't a debate for me about whether or not the relationship can be ended: it already HAS ended. Or at least, it's changed so drastically it's become a different relationship, perhaps more like a parent-child.
quote:Gotcha!
Originally posted by Nellie:
Nobody has posted on this one for a long while so this probably won't be read ...
quote:You do not understand what the word "repentance" means. Read the Bible more. Its not feeling bad about what you have done (that would be guilt, or shame). Repentance is turning away from what you have done wrong. If living together without being married is a sin then getting married IS repentance.
Originally posted by the coiled spring:... living together beliving if they get married it makes it all right, but if no repentance it is jsut a sham. Repentance is needed.
quote:I think you have got Christianity confused with some sort of pagan revenge cult. Mayeb your one-man crusade against bishops is confusing you. We worship Jesus Christ, not Moloch. If it is right to baptise children it is right to do it regardless of the sins of their parents. So its not compromise with the world at all.
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Does seem once again the Anglican management team seem to be compromising with the world in looking to have children of couple being baptised a the wedding.
quote:Surely a lot of Anglican teaching is pagan..
I think you have got Christianity confused with some sort of pagan revenge cult.
EEK! I didn't realise this thread would go to the top of the list if I posted on it.quote:
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:Surely a lot of Anglican teaching is pagan..
I think you have got Christianity confused with some sort of pagan revenge cult.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
quote:Blimeys, I truly hope and pray that life will offer you more than a dodgy bloke in a nightclub for a one night stand out of desperation. I suspect you might feel worse afterwards, though cannot be sure.
Originally posted by Nellie:
:...if I reach my late thirties and I am still single I will go to a nightclub/bar with the intention of picking up a man and getting it over and done with. In the meantime I will do everything I can to find a soulmate (dating sites etc). My view is that loveless sex with someone you barely know is better than no sex, at all, ever. Waking up in a strangers bed could not possibly make me feel any worse than I already do.
quote:No doubt you missed the bit of ken's post where he rightly points out that repentance is turning away from sin. So a person "living in sin" (a term which is, incidentally, meaningless, since we all, to a greater or lesser extent, live in sin) in your terms turns away from that sin when they marry. That is what repentance means! Quite how your analogy about drug-dealers fits this situation I'm at a loss to know. What do you suggest, they make reparation by sending the babies back whence they came? Sheesh
Originally posted by The Coiled Spring
Marriage does not make thing right if there is no repentance.
It is like a drug dealer who decides to give it all up once he/she has got what they want, makes claims of becoming a born again Christain yet keeps all the money made from drugs to find his life style
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:I gather you are spiritual blind to any form of paganism at the centre of the church
quote: I think you have got Christianity confused with some sort of pagan revenge cult.
Surely a lot of Anglican teaching is pagan..
[Snore] [Snore] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Snore] [Snore]
--------------------
Ken
quote:Assuming this is a reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury, do I take it that your position is that you expect Lord Coe to lead a widespread revival in the worship of Zeus as we approach 2012?
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:I gather you are spiritual blind to any form of paganism at the centre of the church
quote: I think you have got Christianity confused with some sort of pagan revenge cult.
Surely a lot of Anglican teaching is pagan..
[Snore] [Snore] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Roll Eyes] [Snore] [Snore]
--------------------
Ken
quote:I rather hope that she has some experience with extensive "snogging". Making it with an indifferent stranger would probably be awkward and unfulfilling sexually (forget emotionally) unless you know how to ask for precisely what you want. Otherwise it could turn into wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am. Totally depressing.
Originally posted by amber.:
quote:Blimeys, I truly hope and pray that life will offer you more than a dodgy bloke in a nightclub for a one night stand out of desperation. I suspect you might feel worse afterwards, though cannot be sure.
Originally posted by Nellie:
:...if I reach my late thirties and I am still single I will go to a nightclub/bar with the intention of picking up a man and getting it over and done with. In the meantime I will do everything I can to find a soulmate (dating sites etc). My view is that loveless sex with someone you barely know is better than no sex, at all, ever. Waking up in a strangers bed could not possibly make me feel any worse than I already do.
quote:I expect Lord Coe being the man he is to make even more millions of pounds at the revival of worship of Zeus or any other god that turns up.
do I take it that your position is that you expect Lord Coe to lead a widespread revival in the worship of Zeus as we approach 2012?
quote:Welcome to the ship!
Originally posted by Nellie:
I do not have any offers of casual sex. However, if I reach my late thirties and I am still single I will go to a nightclub/bar with the intention of picking up a man and getting it over and done with. In the meantime I will do everything I can to find a soulmate (dating sites etc). My view is that loveless sex with someone you barely know is better than no sex, at all, ever. Waking up in a strangers bed could not possibly make me feel any worse than I already do.
quote:That's not sex before marriage - that's sex with no intention of marriage.
Originally posted by Nellie:
... if I reach my late thirties and I am still single I will go to a nightclub/bar with the intention of picking up a man and getting it over and done with. .
quote:I fear you might be very wrong there. Is "bad sex" really better than "no sex"?
Originally posted by Nellie:
My view is that loveless sex with someone you barely know is better than no sex, at all, ever.
quote:Indeed. "Friends with benefits" is complicated, but it is a lot better (and safer) than meaningless sex with a drunk guy in a nightclub.
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
This is no doubt an un-Christian POV, but if you approach the dreaded late thirties unfulfilled, at least try to cultivate some male friends to like and trust and see about getting some "benefits". But don't have kids with them.
quote:Shock! Horror! Panic!
Assuming this is a reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
quote:Welcome to the Ship, Nellie! Reading your posts, I get a sense that you feel like you've missed out (deliberately or otherwise) on a fundamental part of the human experience, and you're consigning yourself to something you yourself identify as second-rate if you get to a point where you've spent "too long" without it. I'd encourage you to pick that apart a bit--it sounds to me like you're selling yourself short.
Originally posted by Nellie:
My view is that loveless sex with someone you barely know is better than no sex, at all, ever.
quote:Actually, I rather thought it was what you were hinting at. And, of course, as your link points out, the induction of Rowan as "druid" has as much of a link to paganism as the Olympics has to the Greek gods. I'm not sure what else you could mean, unless it is the borrowing of the word "Easter" or the fact that we gather for worship on a Sunday rather than "Dimanche"
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:Shock! Horror! Panic!
Assuming this is a reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Could this be what you are hinting at. I thought pagan activity in church went back centuries.
quote:Seriously, what on earth are you going on about? You're talking in riddles and not making any sense at all. Your link has nothing to do with paganism.
Originally posted by the coiled spring:
quote:Shock! Horror! Panic!
Assuming this is a reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Could this be what you are hinting at. I thought pagan activity in church went back centuries.
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:That's not sex before marriage - that's sex with no intention of marriage.You might as well use the yellow pages.
Originally posted by Nellie:
... if I reach my late thirties and I am still single I will go to a nightclub/bar with the intention of picking up a man and getting it over and done with. .
Sounds very uncomfortable, and the pages might be very creased afterwards.
quote:Thank you for educating me on druids/bards have nothing to do with paganism. One lives and learns something new every day.
Seriously, what on earth are you going on about? You're talking in riddles and not making any sense at all. Your link has nothing to do with paganism.
quote:Lamb Chopped - I'm putting that in the Quotes File! So tempted to change my sig - but I will resist.
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
"Getting it over and done with" is a far better approach to dentistry than to sex.
quote:A much easier problem than the reverse-polarity one most men get faced with.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Also, having close friendships of the opposite sex will help you to work out who is, and who is not, marriageable material.
quote:What possible relevance can the experience of the willingly celibate have for the unwillingly single?
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Speaking as someone [...] who's now been willingly celibate for several years .
quote:Not too far.
Originally posted by FreeJack:
[
How far away are you from the North West London
area, by the way? For research purposes only. [/QB]
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
quote:Nope. See my Avatar. It doesn't look anything like me but at least it's the right gender.
Originally posted by Nellie:
I assumed hawk was female!
quote:Interesting comparison. So the willingly celebate and the unwillingly celebate are as different as a snake is from a dog? Talk about placing too much importance on sex.
Originally posted by ken:
quote:What possible relevance can the experience of the willingly celibate have for the unwillingly single?
Originally posted by infinite_monkey:
Speaking as someone [...] who's now been willingly celibate for several years .
The snake gets by with no legs, but that's no consolation to a crippled dog.
quote:Well I'm male and I'm free! I've got a few friends who I am sure would be delighted to help you if it gets to that point.
Originally posted by Nellie:
quote:Not too far.
Originally posted by FreeJack:
How far away are you from the North West London
area, by the way? For research purposes only.
quote:This part of your post really caught my attention. What kind of situations are you thinking of, where sex would occur if we didn't stop it from doing so? It makes it sound like "sex" is this autonomous entity that has its own ideas and undertakes its own decisions, and we infringe upon its appetites at our own peril. I mean, aren't men encouraged NOT to think with the small head?
Originally posted by icklejen:
Especially if situations occur where sex would/could occur.
quote:Ever heard of "one thing led to another", or "nature taking its course"? We are evolved to replicate, and in the right conditions it can happen quite easily without having to think too much about it.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:This part of your post really caught my attention. What kind of situations are you thinking of, where sex would occur if we didn't stop it from doing so? It makes it sound like "sex" is this autonomous entity that has its own ideas and undertakes its own decisions, and we infringe upon its appetites at our own peril. I mean, aren't men encouraged NOT to think with the small head?
Originally posted by icklejen:
Especially if situations occur where sex would/could occur.
quote:I alway thought a take away was a number 3 15 23 27 29 35 56 from local Chinese takeaway...is there another meaning, please tell
Is that the take-away message?
quote:Granted, but who thinks sex is the thing they want out of life? I mean besides 17 year old males.
Originally posted by icklejen:
I guess I'm thinking that people should think about what they want (or what they think God wants for them) out of life, and see where sex fits in to that, rather than think that sex is the thing they want out of life.
quote:Unfortunately getting married doesn't guarantee to solve that one. I got married at 28, I'm now 42, and children are looking increasingly unlikely. I'm not unhappy about it - I married my husband because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him, not because he was a potential baby-maker.
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
I've got to 45 and not met anyone and my chances of having children are almost certainly gone and that was very, very important to me.
quote:Hello Nellie and welcome to the Ship! I think whether the first time you (or anyone) has sex is brilliant or awkard very much depends on your character.
Originally posted by Nellie:
Thank you Icklejen, I think that is the reason why I am in this frustrating situation. I have hung on....and on....and on, and have managed to convince myself that sex is the best thing ever and my first experience (whether married or not) will be flawless and fantastic. I think I would have a far more realistic view of sex had I not decided to wait.
quote:Time to cancel your subscription to "Penthouse" - at least stop reading the letters section.
Originally posted by Nellie:
... I have hung on....and on....and on, and have managed to convince myself that sex is the best thing ever and my first experience (whether married or not) will be flawless and fantastic. ..
quote:And you are giving this advice based on... Your knowledge of the Penthouse letters section?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Time to cancel your subscription to "Penthouse" - at least stop reading the letters section.
Originally posted by Nellie:
... I have hung on....and on....and on, and have managed to convince myself that sex is the best thing ever and my first experience (whether married or not) will be flawless and fantastic. ..
quote:Gill that was beautiful and comforting. Honestly facing the fact that at 41, I am scared to give up my space. It is a delightful thought that maybe I could feel more "more myself" with somebody than without.
Originally posted by Gill H:
quote:Unfortunately getting married doesn't guarantee to solve that one. I got married at 28, I'm now 42, and children are looking increasingly unlikely. I'm not unhappy about it - I married my husband because I wanted to spend the rest of my life with him, not because he was a potential baby-maker.
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
I've got to 45 and not met anyone and my chances of having children are almost certainly gone and that was very, very important to me.
TiggyTiger, I'm not trying to be antagonistic here, but you seem to have a very clear idea of what you want out of a relationship (thus far and no further, staying independent etc).
Might I suggest that part of the joy of a relationship comes from abandoning your tick-list and being vulnerable enough to trust someone else, and find out what they want?
I was an only child and something of a loner, and was worried about giving up my 'space' initially. But I've found that I am never more truly myself than when I'm with my husband. We haven't morphed into some sort of indistinguishable blob - but the security of knowing I am loved for who I really am, and for the rest of my life, means that 'the real me' is safe to come out. We're not 'two halves who make a whole' but rather 'two whole people whose wholeness is enhanced by being part of a bigger whole'.
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
Yep, it was a big thing for me. Worrying that someone would find out about all those little weird things you do when you live alone, funny habits, bizarre fears etc. Well, he did, and he still loves me. And guess what? His are weirder.
No comment whatsoever here about weird things, funny habits, bizarre fears etc. Seconded re the "we still love each other anyway".
quote:I used to be a teenager.
Originally posted by John Holding:
quote:And you are giving this advice based on... Your knowledge of the Penthouse letters section?
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
quote:Time to cancel your subscription to "Penthouse" - at least stop reading the letters section.
Originally posted by Nellie:
... I have hung on....and on....and on, and have managed to convince myself that sex is the best thing ever and my first experience (whether married or not) will be flawless and fantastic. ..
John
quote:The secret is out. You only have to do somebody's ironing if you have a marriage certificate. If you're just shacked up, they have to do their own ironing.
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
I don't particularly want to do someone's ironing.
quote:Sounds much better then sex to me
Just hang them in the bathroom and stick the hot tap or shower on so the room steams up. Few minutes and all the creases have gone. In the Winter there are always the radiators of course.
quote:That's what I do when I am traveling on business - first thing is to hang the shirts in the bathroom and turn the shower on.
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
Just hang them in the bathroom and stick the hot tap or shower on so the room steams up. Few minutes and all the creases have gone. In the Winter there are always the radiators of course.
quote:For some people, the only ironing they get is what they do themselves.
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
I guess people get more ironing than sex.
quote:I was supposed to have root canal treatment yesterday, but the mega-antibiotics hadn't cleared all the infection, so the dentist drilled anyway, and put anti-biotic stuff into the tooth itself, and rescheduled the actual root canal stuff. In the big scheme of things, no big deal, but I was fed-up, and grouchy, and my face was sore. My husband was sweet and sympathetic, and even said he thought my foul humour wasn't unreasonable.
I was reading an interesting article this week in one of the daily blahs where they asked just under 100 people in very long-term relationships to keep a diary of their feelings re sex and their marriage/partnership. Nearly every person - men and women - reported that it wasn't the sex-amazingness or incredible handsomeness/beauty of their partner that was relevant. It was feeling loved and accepted for who they are, and feeling that warmth of mutual respect and mutual togetherness.
)
quote:Am I supposed to iron her clothes?!?! Mine don't get ironed, aj doesn't wear formal stuff to work, we don't iron
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
I don't mind ironing baby clothes because they're small and cute and easy to handle.
quote:You don't need to iron if you wear edible clothes!
Originally posted by Emma Louise:
quote:Am I supposed to iron her clothes?!?! Mine don't get ironed, aj doesn't wear formal stuff to work, we don't iron
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
I don't mind ironing baby clothes because they're small and cute and easy to handle.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
quote:Would you rather they lied and said they all hate each other?
Originally posted by Nellie:
Can someone please explain to me how I am supposed to enjoy being single when I hear so many stories from happily married people who are really loving and supportive of one another?
quote:Ignore them. The ones who are having a bad time aren't posting about it here, or talking about it in church, because its too embarrassing for them.
Originally posted by Nellie:
Can someone please explain to me how I am supposed to enjoy being single when I hear so many stories from happily married people who are really loving and supportive of one another?
quote:Cut their balls off. No-one should be inflicting such crap on a congregation.
Church leaders drone on about singleness being special...
quote:I think the NT way of expressing it would be to say that either one has been given the supernatural gift (and role) of celibacy, or one has not. If anyone is continually frustrated over not being able to get married/have sex/ etc., it's pretty clear they lack that gift and therefore that calling. Time to get on with the meet and greet, introductions from relatives, renta-yenta, or what have you. And for others around them to either help the process or keep hands off and mouth shut as the seeking person desires. The preacher should wise up.
Originally posted by ken:
[No-one would say that someone in a wheelchair was "called to be a cripple". So they shouldn't say that someone who would like to be married or have children or just be in a loving sexual relationship; but whose circumstances haven't come out like that, is "called to be single".
quote:Not...exactly...true...
Originally posted by ken:
...No-one would say that someone in a wheelchair was "called to be a cripple". ...
quote:Don't you know anyone who married their sibling's best friend (or indeed their best friend's sibling)? That sounds rather like introduction by relatives Western-style to me.
Originally posted by TiggyTiger:
introductions from relatives
Are you from an Asian culture or something? I can't imagine introductions from relatives being a helpful way to meet someone - but then I don't have any relatives.
quote:When were first got married, my wife and I seemed to be ironing all the time. We would spend all evening at it - regularly changing positions so that one of us was always ‘active' while the other sat back and relaxed for a bit - we could keep going like that for hours. And we thought nothing of doing the ironing several times a week. It seemed such an important part of our relationship.
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
There must be lots of married folks here...
...we started talking about sex and ended up talking about ironing!
quote:You iron that much?
We rarely iron now. Once a month, maybe.
quote:TMI
Originally posted by Eliab:
Oh, sometimes I can persuade my wife to give my shirt a quick press before I leave the house, but the results are rarely very satisfying for either of us.
quote:Yes. Though at least some preachers have claimed that being divorced or widowed is a sign that you are called to celibacy. (We could start with John Chrysostom and Saint Jerome and work on down)
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I think the NT way of expressing it would be to say that either one has been given the supernatural gift (and role) of celibacy, or one has not. If anyone is continually frustrated over not being able to get married/have sex/ etc., it's pretty clear they lack that gift and therefore that calling.
quote:But in practice there are millions of people who just because of their circumstances are never going to get married, or get married again, or find a sexual partner of any kind. Sometimes because of health or wealth or age or attractiveness. Sometimes things just don't work out. Very often things just don't work out. Bad things can happen to good people (or good things not happen to them). There are a lot of lonely people out there.
Time to get on with the meet and greet, introductions from relatives, renta-yenta, or what have you.
quote:
When I was a young boy
My mama said to me
There's only one girl in the world for you
And she probably lives in Tahiti...
]
quote:I don't hear that advice as sublimation advice. I hear it as advice saying that it's hard to successfully be in a relationship if you're not able to successfully be on your own. Relationship can't work if you (general you) are looking for it to make you happy in certain fundamental ways that are internal issues for you rather than issues for your partner to solve.
Originally posted by ken:
Maybe its because so many people are more emotionally hung-up about sex than about other things. A few posts ago someone wrote: "...you should look towards being happy with yourself before being happy with another." But if someone was complaining of being hungry I doubt if anyone would say they should learn how to be content with not eating before they ate. (Well there are some Buddhists who might I suppose but we can leave them out of it...)
quote:It certainly is more complicated than that, you're right.
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
..AR is right--people who have good, lasting relationships are the same people who do well when they aren't in relationships. People who can't cope with being alone get desperate, grab at the first remotely eligible human who comes along, and usually end up with disaster.
quote:I'm interested, but it's behind a subscription page -- can you post the author and title here?
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
(you could read this book if you're interested in the science.)
quote:I disagree.
Originally posted by ken:
And that leads to the number one most unhelpful thing to say which is to suggest that if you only bought a different kind of clothes, or went to the right parties, or lost weight, or wore less perfume, or more antiperspirant, or a different kind of makeup, or had your hair done, or took these pills, or joined our new sooper-dooper dating agency, or had a faster car, or went on holiday to the right posh resort, or just paid me lots and lots and lots of money, you would suddenly be more attractive and get that perfect partner.
