|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Stop staying pure until marriage"
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
I discovered this blog post from a facebook friend. As a guy, it's doing my head in.
http://sarahisawriter.tumblr.com/post/105152515930/christians-stop-staying-pure-till-marriage
I WISH this were possible. When I think of weak theology, I think of the "turning the other cheek" sermon being taught as "let them hit you as much as they like". I don't know how "purity until marriage" can be treated as weak theology when the Bible is filled with language that uplifts virginity, not to mention the consequences described in King David and Bathsheba.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
It becomes irrelevant if sexual assault or abuse has already been the first sexual experience, an experience between 1 in 4 and 1 in 7. I'd dump everything about 'purity culture', and suggest that sex should be loving, avoiding of infection and unwanted pregnancy.
It's tangential, but also dump the silly idea of Mary being a perpetual virgin. As if there's something good or noble or holy to have never had sex, which is an obvious projection of some sex denying clergy. Better would be admission that she had rewarding and enjoyable sex.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
pimple
Ship's Irruption
# 10635
|
Posted
Or wonderful, innocent sex with a stranger - whom today we would undoubtedly lock up.
Or perhaps innocent, but not so wonderful.
The human possibilities are endless. The Myth is heartwarming, even if it is not literally true.
--------------------
In other words, just because I made it all up, doesn't mean it isn't true (Reginald Hill)
Posts: 8018 | From: Wonderland | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
toadstrike
Apprentice
# 18244
|
Posted
To be honest, one of the biggest regrets of my life is that I said that to myself and carried it out until I was well into my 30s and then realised what an idiot I'd been.
Posts: 24 | From: Welwyn Garden City, UK | Registered: Oct 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
venbede
Shipmate
# 16669
|
Posted
As a gay man, I find it very encouraging that Christ was born without heterosexual being involved.
--------------------
Man was made for joy and woe;
And when this we rightly know,
Thro' the world we safely go.
Posts: 3201 | From: An historic market town nestling in the folds of Surrey's rolling North Downs, | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Isn't it interesting that religious references to virgins all seem to concern women instead of women and men?
No?
Maybe not.
After all that is the way God wants it to be. Virgin women having only in a lust-less act of procreation after marriage.
Wait a minute. God wants women to have sex with their husbands whenever the husband wants.
Nope. God wants men to have several wives - just in case the rocky shores of one of their wombs will not allow purchase for the mans holy seed.
As long as all these things are what God wants it's all good. It could have something to do with men writing religious texts and perhaps - I dunno - projecting their desires into their own special vision of God.
Or, maybe - just maybe - God wants us to quit judging others and leave that to God so that we pay attention to our relationship with God instead.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
Tortuf ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) Quotes file
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
If there were equal emphasis on the total virginity of men as well, "Purity" culture might have a place.
Otherwise, it is pure power-tripping on the part of men, in the belief that women are simply objects for trade and lust.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Or, maybe - just maybe - God wants us to quit judging others and leave that to God so that we pay attention to our relationship with God instead.
Isn't it kind of judgmental to think that everyone who is interested in what God wants us to do regarding sex wants to know about it so they can judge others?
Our sex life is part of our relationship with God, as is every other part of our lives.
All my life I've found it hard to get answers or guidelines about this subject for myself, because the anti-legalism police (contradiction in terms intended) are so ready to swoop in.
Jesus seemed to think we shouldn't be fornicating outside marriage, or even lusting too much, and he probably wouldn't have told the woman at the well to go and sin no more if he hadn't thought she had been sinning.
I sort of suspect that the no sex before marriage rules were like the don't murder and don't steal rules -- they were put there for our own protection.
I, free-love 60's hippie that I once was, had quite a bit of sex before marriage and I think my marriage, and life, would have been better if I had waited. I agree that "virginity," per se doesn't mean too much and, like the 1 in 4 mentioned above, my first time was not by choice, but that didn't mean it was very wise of me to take the attitude I did, of oh well, can't un-ring a bell, might as well assume a blithe spirit attitude I really don't feel.
If I had it all to do over I wouldn't have been so casual about something that actually took more of an emotional toll than I was ready to admit to at the time. And that's for my own sake, I still don't care what anyone else does in the sense of judging them, but I do worry for them a little. So I think Jesus was right, as usual.
As for those, like Tortuf, who think the biggest problem with sex is people judging others. That's long over, you can relax. These days, in high-schools, the laughing and shaming is directed at the girls and boys who are rumored to be virgins. Teens are watching so much online pornography, starting at twelve, that they find the real thing very disappointing and quite a few choose to forgo any real life relationships because they prefer the autoerotic life. (See "He's No That Into Anyone," article.)About half of all births are to single mothers so lots of kids are growing up without fathers and having a greater chance of living in poverty and going to prison. Maybe you see all those things as improvements. I think they're kind of sad for all concerned and maybe that's what God knew and we didn't.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
ISTM, Twilight, your post reveals more about expectation than action.
Sex, like every other human interaction, is affected by what we expect from it. And, like other human interactions, it need not fit only one catagory.
Think of it like food; simple because one might have sometimes eaten at a McDonalds doesn't preclude one from enjoying a 4star meal or intimate, candlelight dinner.
It isn't the waiting or not waiting, it is the concept that how you approach this one aspect of your life is supposed to define you as a person. That is bloody ridiculous.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
But Twilight, surely that just substitutes one set of judgements for another?
To my mind, what is needed is a universal outbreak of self-acceptance. We are all embodied, imbued/endowed with sexuality, physicality and many other traits which are very puzzling to truly accept and understand. That puzzlement makes institutions and other parties who relish control over others see sexuality as the ideal totem/vehicle for that control.
The only way out of this bind is for us all to accept ourselves as we are, and live from there. The desire to control will fall away if, as I believe, it comes from projection of the parts of ourselves we find unacceptable onto each other so that they can be objectified and indeed punished.
I'll let you know when I reach the state I have described. Not in this lifetime, I fear.
[ 20. December 2014, 15:30: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
I discovered this blog post from a facebook friend. As a guy, it's doing my head in.
http://sarahisawriter.tumblr.com/post/105152515930/christians-stop-staying-pure-till-marriage
I WISH this were possible. When I think of weak theology, I think of the "turning the other cheek" sermon being taught as "let them hit you as much as they like". I don't know how "purity until marriage" can be treated as weak theology when the Bible is filled with language that uplifts virginity, not to mention the consequences described in King David and Bathsheba.
Surely her point is that purity is NOT synonymous with virginity? Talking about "purity until marriage" implies that one becomes impure after marriage, whereas she is arguing that marital sex is still pure.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
But Twilight, surely that just substitutes one set of judgements for another?
What set of judgments are you reading into my post? I honestly don't know what you're talking about? Saying I wish I had done something different is not a judgment on anyone, whether it's wishing I had waited for sex or wishing I had worked harder in college. It's living and learning not "judgment."
quote:
To my mind, what is needed is a universal outbreak of self-acceptance.
Did you know that the average person in prison has higher self-esteem than most people? It's fine to accept ourselves and all our faults, so long as we admit that we do have faults, but pretending that everything we do is perfectly okay, simply because we are the ones doing it doesn't seem like the best way to go to me, particularly if we are doing something to hurt others. quote:
We are all embodied, imbued/endowed with sexuality, physicality and many other traits which are very puzzling to truly accept and understand. That puzzlement makes institutions and other parties who relish control over others see sexuality as the ideal totem/vehicle for that control.
I was speaking from my experience in the United States and I've never really found sex to be particularly puzzling. I'm sure it's a very different conversation if we're talking about some countries in the Middle East, but here I've never encountered an institution trying to exert control through sex.
quote:
The only way out of this bind is for us all to accept ourselves as we are, and live from there. The desire to control will fall away if, as I believe, it comes from projection of the parts of ourselves we find unacceptable onto each other so that they can be objectified and indeed punished.
I'm sure I have never tried to objectify, control or punish someone else through sex and I don't really find any part of myself unacceptable. I honestly don't know how you read all that into my post.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
ISTM, Twilight, your post reveals more about expectation than action.
Sex, like every other human interaction, is affected by what we expect from it. And, like other human interactions, it need not fit only one catagory.
Think of it like food; simple because one might have sometimes eaten at a McDonalds doesn't preclude one from enjoying a 4star meal or intimate, candlelight dinner.
It isn't the waiting or not waiting, it is the concept that how you approach this one aspect of your life is supposed to define you as a person. That is bloody ridiculous.
I sure didn't say that. At all.
I also don't think you have any idea what my expectations were or about the quality or variety I have experienced. Why would you assume that I had only ever experienced "McDonalds" and what in the world would that have to do with the subject of the thread?
My sincere post, which I already regret, was not intended as a Cosmo article about the quality of my sex life. It was about the place sex has in the life of a Christian.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
Hm, no one's addressed this bit:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
...not to mention the consequences described in King David and Bathsheba.
That's an ugly bit of Scripture, because Bathsheba was a rape victim, and David's "punishment" of losing the baby surely was a horrible thing for her, too.
From Bathsheba's perspective: her husband was killed and the king called her over - not something you could really say "no" to. We don't get any indication of whether she actually wanted any of David's attention, or wanted to marry him once her husband was dead. The story itself treats her like a commodity, especially Nathan's parable! So I wouldn't look to that story for guidance about what kind of sex life God wants us to have today. Basically, the gist of it is that David did something really terrible (something we probably think is worse than the biblical characters or author(s) did). And how could you think it was only about sex when he also abused his power as king, and had a man killed?
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There is a huge divide here, and discourse from the one side carries over with difficulty to the other. And that is birth control.
Yeah, virginity was important BBC. Because sex could result in pregnancy. All of the keeping women veiled, avenging my sister's rape, paying a price to the father after raping his daughter -- all of it comes down to the importance of proving fatherhood and the inevitable pregnancy that follows sex.
We stand here on the other side of that divide. Virginity is now (assuming prudent condom and BC use) a life milestone something on the order of getting your drivers license, or the first time you water ski. Sex is still important. But it's no longer so much life-alteringly important, the driver behind stacks of Victorian novels.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
Twilight,
Don't regret your post. It was sincerely meant and therefore a valuable contribution to the discussion.
Your experience and your feelings are just as valid as the feelings and experiences of anyone else.
I was, BTW, not saying a culture that taunts anyone else about lack of promiscuity is acceptable.
My point is that religion is used by some to judge others (as are many other ideas and social expectations) and by some to gain what they want in life. For me, religion ought to be about following what God wants for you; recognizing that God loves you even as you are wounded and broken and that this love can enable you to love others who are also wounded and broken without having to judge them.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
My sincere post, which I already regret, was not intended as a Cosmo article about the quality of my sex life. It was about the place sex has in the life of a Christian.
And my equally sincere post was trying to suggest that the place of sex in a Christian's life is probably much the same as its place in anyone else's. That is to say, it's probably not quite where one would like it to be, recollection of one's history is difficult without a certain squick factor, and trying to establish that place exactly where one would like it is a labour that resists resolution.
Which is why I believe that a firm rule of "hands off each other's lives" is essential. All judgement to be reserved to God, please and thank you. This is not intended to place a ban on all exchange of experience, but it is intended to oppose directives of any and all kinds. Including, of course, the direction that sex much start as early and be practised as frequently as possible.
I will add one remark: those who use that quotation without starting with what comes immediately before it, i.e. "neither do I condemn you", always seem to do the same thing. Strange that.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
Twilight - the idea that there's no judgement of people enjoying sex and that only virgins are judged is utter nonsense. Take a look at Steubenville and other examples of rape culture - women enjoying sex is judged more than ever, and is seen as an excuse for rape. Also what do you mean by 'autoeroticism'? Asexual people exist, it's not a disorder caused by too much pornography.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight
Jesus seemed to think we shouldn't be fornicating outside marriage, or even lusting too much, and he probably wouldn't have told the woman at the well to go and sin no more if he hadn't thought she had been sinning.
{warning-pedantic remark}
It wasn't the woman at the well but the woman taken in adultery.
{/pedantic remark}
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Twilight - the idea that there's no judgement of people enjoying sex and that only virgins are judged is utter nonsense. Take a look at Steubenville and other examples of rape culture - women enjoying sex is judged more than ever, and is seen as an excuse for rape.
I think most rapists, rape because they hate women, not because they think their victims are enjoying it, and our society puts rapists behind bars not their victims. quote:
Also what do you mean by 'autoeroticism'? Asexual people exist, it's not a disorder caused by too much pornography.
They aren't the same things at all. Autoeroticism is the practice of masturbation to the exclusion of other forms of sex. Asexual people don't like sex with anyone, including themselves.
Moo. I stand corrected. Thanks for piling on.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pancho
Shipmate
# 13533
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pomona:
Take a look at Steubenville and other examples of rape culture
(Honest question.)
What do you mean by Steubenville and how is it an example of rape culture?
--------------------
“But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance;
we wailed, and you did not mourn.’"
Posts: 1988 | From: Alta California | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
For all the parsing and interpreting and judging that's gone on since, I still think there's a lot of wisdom in this:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Isn't it kind of judgmental to think that everyone who is interested in what God wants us to do regarding sex wants to know about it so they can judge others?
Our sex life is part of our relationship with God, as is every other part of our lives.
All my life I've found it hard to get answers or guidelines about this subject for myself, because the anti-legalism police (contradiction in terms intended) are so ready to swoop in.
Jesus seemed to think we shouldn't be fornicating outside marriage, or even lusting too much, and he probably wouldn't have told the woman at the well to go and sin no more if he hadn't thought she had been sinning.
I sort of suspect that the no sex before marriage rules were like the don't murder and don't steal rules -- they were put there for our own protection.
I, free-love 60's hippie that I once was, had quite a bit of sex before marriage and I think my marriage, and life, would have been better if I had waited. I agree that "virginity," per se doesn't mean too much and, like the 1 in 4 mentioned above, my first time was not by choice, but that didn't mean it was very wise of me to take the attitude I did, of oh well, can't un-ring a bell, might as well assume a blithe spirit attitude I really don't feel.
If I had it all to do over I wouldn't have been so casual about something that actually took more of an emotional toll than I was ready to admit to at the time. And that's for my own sake, I still don't care what anyone else does in the sense of judging them, but I do worry for them a little. So I think Jesus was right, as usual.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
Me too, in spades.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
That does make better sense of the article.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Isn't it interesting that religious references to virgins all seem to concern women instead of women and men?
Jesus Christ, a man, was a virgin. His foster father Joseph was sexually continent in his marriage to the BVM. Christ taught His apostles on making "themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 19:12) St Paul recommends sexual continence to all men, in preference even to marriage, and points to himself as one who keeps it (1 Cor 7:1,7-8), and he was likely a life-long virgin as well (1 Cor 7:8). And foregoing sex foreshadows heaven (Matt 22:30). In consequence of this, the most prominent organised case of ideally "being a lifelong virgin", or at least becoming sexually continent for the rest of their lives, is the RC priesthood, who are all men. (In no way I want to disparage the religious here, men and women, who of course also should be sexually continent. But the priesthood is the most publicly visible case.)
So, uhh, how to put this succinctly ... bullshit?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Jesus Christ, a man, was a virgin. His foster father Joseph was sexually continent in his marriage to the BVM. Christ taught His apostles on making "themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 19:12) St Paul recommends sexual continence to all men, in preference even to marriage, and points to himself as one who keeps it (1 Cor 7:1,7-8), and he was likely a life-long virgin as well (1 Cor 7:8). And foregoing sex foreshadows heaven (Matt 22:30). In consequence of this, the most prominent organised case of ideally "being a lifelong virgin", or at least becoming sexually continent for the rest of their lives, is the RC priesthood, who are all men. (In no way I want to disparage the religious here, men and women, who of course also should be sexually continent. But the priesthood is the most publicly visible case.)
So, uhh, how to put this succinctly ... bullshit?
These things are more complicated that the Latin church's present assertions and ideology. During the 11th and 12th century, the western Roman church gained more control over sexuality and marriage, using church councils convened as part of the Peace movement to garner more control over people's private lives. It managed to have marriage regarded as a sacrament, following the ideas of Augustine, with the thinking about it becoming much more precise.
Marriage came to be seen as one of 7 sacraments which had been instituted by Jesus, but that is a debatable point, and seems to be a rewriting of history to a dispassionate reader. It wasn't a sacrament before. Priests formerly witnessed a contract, not performing a marriage.
The celibacy of priests was a later idea as well, with an effort to stop church property from being inherited. Many clergy who weren't monks married and married priests and bishops could found dynasties. In 1139 a council declared all priest marriages invalid, whereas only higher-ups were prohibited after the 4th century. Yes, the RC church will assert authority on this and say it is right and the history is different. But that's not the history.
As for Mary and Joseph's sexuality, apparently they had other children. Wikipedia: "The New Testament describes James, Joseph (Joses), Judas (Jude) and Simon as brothers of Jesus. Also mentioned, but not named, are sisters of Jesus." There are political and psychological reasons that it is important to some that Mary was a virgin before Jesus and why also it is important to assert she also was after.
(Diamaid McCululloch's
Christianity, The First Three Thousand Years" is a good accessible reference for these issues. )
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Highfive
Shipmate
# 12937
|
Posted
Feel the need to speak up here
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Christ taught His apostles on making "themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 19:12)
"Others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven" Jesus didn't mean the disciples specifically, did he?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
St Paul recommends sexual continence to all men, in preference even to marriage, and points to himself as one who keeps it (1 Cor 7:1,7-8), and he was likely a life-long virgin as well (1 Cor 7:8).
When you write it like that, it's utterly terrifying, but I know Corinthians has the context behind this.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And foregoing sex foreshadows heaven (Matt 22:30).
Is that really what that means? I thought that meant that marriage is irrelevant in the resurrection.
Posts: 111 | From: Brisbane | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
These things are more complicated that the Latin church's present assertions and ideology. During the 11th and 12th century, the western Roman church gained more control over sexuality and marriage, using church councils convened as part of the Peace movement to garner more control over people's private lives. It managed to have marriage regarded as a sacrament, following the ideas of Augustine, with the thinking about it becoming much more precise. Marriage came to be seen as one of 7 sacraments which had been instituted by Jesus, but that is a debatable point, and seems to be a rewriting of history to a dispassionate reader. It wasn't a sacrament before. Priests formerly witnessed a contract, not performing a marriage.
First, nobody claims that there was an official pronouncement of marriage as sacrament from the RC magisterium before earliest Innocent IV in 1208. This does not mean that marriage wasn't a sacrament before. That's not how that works. The magisterium is largely reactive. For the most part it "lays down the law" of the deposit of faith only when and if it has to, usually because some heretic or the other is wreaking havoc among the faithful (in Innocent IV's case, the Waldensians). Second, it wasn't just Augustine, but also Ambrose, Tertullian, ... yet more importantly, there is a massive backlog of liturgy, both in the West and the East, from the earliest time which frames marriage with the same sort of ceremonies as other sacraments and indeed sometimes calls it a sacrament outright. This includes all the heretic branches, e.g., the Nestorians. Thus the early church was simply undivided in this regard. "Lex orandi, lex credendi" - the law of praying is the law of believing. For that matter, marriage is called a sacrament by St Paul in scripture (though with scripture as always one can debate the technical meaning of the term there): Eph 5:32. Finally, the sacrament of marriage is the "contract" between man and woman witnessed by a priest. The priest does not "perform" the marriage, the couple does through their vows. Your claim that something has changed there might sting a bit more in the East among the Orthodox, who I believe (at least now) assign greater importance to the priest in all this. In the West, to say that the priest witnessed a contract just is saying that the priest played his (passive) role in the sacrament. And none of this has anything to do with some kind of Vatican II / ecumenical whitewash of history. You can read it all in the Catholic Encyclopaedia from 1917, which obviously wasn't concerned with any of that.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The celibacy of priests was a later idea as well, with an effort to stop church property from being inherited. Many clergy who weren't monks married and married priests and bishops could found dynasties. In 1139 a council declared all priest marriages invalid, whereas only higher-ups were prohibited after the 4th century. Yes, the RC church will assert authority on this and say it is right and the history is different. But that's not the history.
This is pure and simply libel, unless you can demonstrate that the RCC has falsified history in this manner. Go ahead, bring the primary sources. The RCC has never been shy about writing down its official teachings. Anyway, celibacy is a matter of discipline in the RCC, not a matter of doctrine. The RCC actually contains Eastern branches with usually married priests. For that matter, the requirement of celibacy can be waived for good reason also in the West, as regularly happens when married clergy from other denominations (typically Anglicans or "classical" Protestants) become RC priests. So yes, you can find a fair number of Latin rite RC married priests today. Here is one: Fr Longenecker with wife and kids. But as far as this discipline goes, it is nonsense to claim that it only arose in the 12th century. It had a long history in the West before that, and can be traced back in official documents to the Council of Elvira, about 300 AD, imposing celibacy on all the clergy (from deacon to bishop). If you are interested in a write-up of the actual history, once more feel free to consult the Catholic Encyclopaedia from 1917. And do tell us if you find any historical inaccuracies there... On the motivation for introducing this discipline, considering it as imitation of Christ and St Paul should do on a personal level. On an institutional level, unmarried men have obvious advantages concerning pay and risk taking.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
As for Mary and Joseph's sexuality, apparently they had other children. Wikipedia: "The New Testament describes James, Joseph (Joses), Judas (Jude) and Simon as brothers of Jesus. Also mentioned, but not named, are sisters of Jesus." There are political and psychological reasons that it is important to some that Mary was a virgin before Jesus and why also it is important to assert she also was after.
Seriously?! This one is so old and has been done on SoF so many times, that I'm just flummoxed to see it being "proved" by Wikipedia. In short, the words used for "brother" and "sister" can and were used to indicate cousins in Hebrew / Aramaic. See for example here for more detail (more or less random googled link, I just briefly glanced to see that it has the usual info). The Orthodox instead believe that Joseph actually had children from a prior marriage, so that we are talking about step-siblings there. (This is not so far-fetched, it gels with an entire theory that Joseph's marriage was a special arrangement to basically thereby become a male protector for a celibate religious woman - Mary - an arrangement obviously more favourable with an older man who had done the whole family thing already... Notably Joseph disappears earlier from the scene, which would fit the idea that he was already older. It also explains why Mary would be shocked at the idea of having a child in spite of being betrothed already.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
So, uhh, how to put this succinctly ... bullshit?
Ingo, you might wish to read this.
Or not as you please. You have an impressive mind. You may find what this site has to say to also be bullshit. There are others and you must be aware of legitimate theological study that links Sophia and the Logos. I read your stuff with an open mind and respect. Perhaps you could afford me the same.
I find I am closer to God when I don't close my mind to all of the possibilities of God.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Yes seriously IngoB. The main issue in such threads often becomes your motivation to defend your versions of things and your religious denomination. Suffice it to say, some of us disagree with you and there is history apart from the Roman church's party line.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I sure didn't say that. At all.
I apologise for offending you, it was not my intention to malign or degrade anything you shared. Your post sparked a thought, I used analogies to illustrate the thought, but the analogies I used were not directed at your experiences.
The intent was not there, but the result is, so I apologise.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
One thing that puzzles me is this: as the church developed, Christians came to understand that they were freed from all the old dietary laws and obligations of the Old Testament, though certain basic rules applied. These rules concerned spiritual practices such as fasting and warnings against over-indulgence which might be bad for us physically as well as spiritually. Perhaps the prime objection to over-indulgence in a world where there will probably also be hungry people might be that it offends against the basic principles of justice. And Justice was once synonymous with Righteousness; before Jesus came up with his two great commandments, there was already a recognition of the importance of this principle. quote:
“What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”
Yet, when it comes to sex, what do we have? A rigid sticking to the old laws which, curiously, just happen to coincide with the interests of patriarchal structures subsisting at the time. And this develops into such an obsession that ideas such as chastity and modesty take on an overwhelming importance, way beyond similar rules about diet, to the point where they dominate discussions about Righteousness, and Justice takes a back seat. Indeed, people who try to focus on Justice are accused of spreading some kind of 'social gospel' with the implication that this is not the real gospel. Bizarrely, the real gospel has become inextricably linked with the demand that the sexual behaviour of anyone who is either not heterosexual and/or not male has to behave in a way compatible with the injustice of heterosexual power structures.
The end result of this is that whether or not we want to be judgemental about others, we are obsessed with trying to work out what God wants us to do about sexual intimacy. God, made in this image, is not so much the ground of our being as an over-controlling parent with an unhealthy interest in the sex lives of consenting adults. S/He may watch everything we do, but His/Her main interest is what we do in the bedroom (figuratively speaking) rather than taking a special interest in the care of our teeth, our intake of refined carbohydrates versus dietary fibre, how much weight-bearing exercise we take, or any other intimate and important details that might materially affect our chances of a long and happy life.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I sure didn't say that. At all.
I apologise for offending you, it was not my intention to malign or degrade anything you shared. Your post sparked a thought, I used analogies to illustrate the thought, but the analogies I used were not directed at your experiences.
The intent was not there, but the result is, so I apologise.
Oh. Well then I'm sorry, too, lilBuddha. I should have given you the benefit of the doubt and asked a few questions before I came over all huffy, because I've only ever known you as a fair and considerate debater.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tortuf:
Ingo, you might wish to read this. Or not as you please. You have an impressive mind. You may find what this site has to say to also be bullshit. There are others and you must be aware of legitimate theological study that links Sophia and the Logos. I read your stuff with an open mind and respect. Perhaps you could afford me the same. I find I am closer to God when I don't close my mind to all of the possibilities of God.
OK, I've now read this rather lengthy article in full. I find not a hint of a smidgen of any relevance in it to your characterisation above that the bible just talks about virginity in the context of females. I'm in fact now rather stumped why I had to read that. So that I know that you have a specific Sophia-Christology? OK. Fantastic. You are now "Tortuf having a specific Sophia-Christology" to me.
FWIW, the only thing that is seriously wrong with that article is the entirely unwarranted conclusion it draws in the end. A conclusion that it actually refuted in the middle of the text when dealing with the (insane) feminist Sophia-Christology it rejects "But even Philo, who refers to Sophia as “the daughter of God,” recognized this distinction [between grammatical and biological gender] and explained that Sophia is also properly called “Father” as well." Exactly. The author should have stuck with that realisation. Thus nothing whatsoever follows from identifying the grammatically female Sophia with the biologically male Jesus Christ, as far as any potential religious symbolism of Christ's biological gender is concerned. Whereas "Father" and "Son" are semantically, not just grammatically, masculine - and a connection to Jesus Christ's biological gender hence can be meaningfully drawn if one wants to. The end.
But as I was saying, this actually doesn't have anything to do with the nonsense you claimed about virginity earlier.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Yes seriously IngoB. The main issue in such threads often becomes your motivation to defend your versions of things and your religious denomination. Suffice it to say, some of us disagree with you and there is history apart from the Roman church's party line.
The only thing "Roman" in what I said was the sociological fact that the most visible virginity in our society is male, namely that of RC priests. Other than that I simply pointed out that Tortuf's assertion about virginity in the bible was, well, bullshit. Because, well, it is. You don't need to toe the Roman church's party line to see that. You just need to crack open a bible.
As for the general ad hominem, I'm at least straight up about the lines that I consciously toe. If you don't like them, I seriously and honestly don't give the slightest fuck. And I haven't given a fuck about that for a decade on SoF, so maybe it is time to accept that that won't change? What you might want to do at some point though is to look down at your own feet. You may find that your own toe prints form strangely linear patterns in the sand that you weren't aware of. These things are generally easier for other to see from a distance. I could comment lots on the lines other people here toe. But I find that tedious and pointless - just like your comment.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
I don't know how "purity until marriage" can be treated as weak theology when the Bible is filled with language that uplifts virginity, not to mention the consequences described in King David and Bathsheba.
How did you manage to miss the writer's point so spectacularly? She was saying nothing against continence before marriage, but instead pointing out that using the phrase 'purity until marriage' implies that any and all sexual contact, including that sanctioned within marriage, contaminates a person, and THIS, in my view, is what she was referring to as weak theology.
And if you think the story of David and Bathsheba has any object lessons to teach us about virginity - well, the mind boggles, I have to say...
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
...I simply pointed out that Tortuf's assertion about virginity in the bible was, well, bullshit. Because, well, it is. You don't need to toe the Roman church's party line to see that. You just need to crack open a bible.
Ingo, I do wonder whether you and Tortuf might perhaps be talking past each other here. I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but the way I read his original post on this thread, (which seemed to be intended to be ironic, anyway), it seemed to be about people (whom he pointed out were male) utilising religion to either maintain the status quo or enhance their own opportunities for property acquisition/shagging - and I took him to be inferring that the 'purity movement' was the latest incarnation in this long and inglorious line. I didn't read it as being an assault on the Bible, which he doesn't mention, or the priesthood, which is unlikely to have been in his mind, if indeed he was aiming his snark at the modern purity movement.
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
That may be anoesis, but I can tell you from my experience growing up as a male in Evangelical circles (purity movement in full effect) that we boys/men were expected to keep ourselves chaste. Frankly, I think there was more pressure placed on us than on the girls/women because of the idea that we as the male were more responsible for what transpired in the relationship.*
Most Evangelical teenage boys/men's retreats that I attended had available classes/sessions to help the men control their baser urges not only with regards to pre-marital sex, but also with regards to pornography and masturbation.
I know I'm only supplying anecdotal evidence at best, but I never felt there was a double standard enforced.
----
*I know that's a bunch of patriarchal malarkey, but that's another discussion IMO. The fact remains that with regards to purity, we males were not given carte blanche to carry on as we wanted.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
It becomes irrelevant if sexual assault or abuse has already been the first sexual experience, an experience between 1 in 4 and 1 in 7. I'd dump everything about 'purity culture', and suggest that sex should be loving, avoiding of infection and unwanted pregnancy.
Culture (both Christian and other) needs to put forth the idea that that there's more than one kind of first time: first time of your own choosing; first time with a particular partner; first time after a major life change, etc. There's too much "I'm/You're ruined" after sexual abuse/assault.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
irish_lord99--
On that same theme: Oral Roberts University (Pentecostal) used to have a stricter curfew for women than for men, on the grounds that the guys would stay on campus to see the girls.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
In defence/support of Twilight, I think these discussions often generate more heat than light because they cover such charged ground. It's worth taking a step back and separating "What should be best, in the best circumstances" from "And I judge and deplore anyone who breaks this apparently arbitrary rule".
That issues of 'purity' are hedged around with gender imbalance and patriarchal balance doesn't help. That 'the church' has a long history (and strong media portrayal) of being very judgemental on sexual sin, rather than loving and supportive, doesn't help. That some Christians think it's better to keep folk ignorant thus building up huge unrealistic expectation whilst simultaneously denying the tools to even start to meet it, doesn't help.
However, I'd still side with Twilight. In an ideal world virginity of both partners on marriage, in a framework of love, trust, communication, respect and a desire to learn together how best to please each other and have sex as part of the relational glue is a 'better way'. BUT if that doesn't happen, if guns are jumped or backgrounds are different and one or more parties comes to the marriage bed sans virginity, it's not the end of the world. As long as the rest of it is there.
We do people a disservice by simultaneously elevating sex and marriage whilst devaluing it and putting it in a tiny box. The whole save it for the wedding night with no expectation management, and no teaching on love, respect, care and some more practical teaching on negotiating good sex in practice is counterproductive and facile, and leads to baby/bathwater situations.
For clarity, by "marriage" I'm referring to a genuine, life-long commitment between adults regardless of legal or even church recognition, lest that be seen to muddy the waters with "What about no SSM being available" etc.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
However, I'd still side with Twilight. In an ideal world virginity of both partners on marriage, in a framework of love, trust, communication, respect and a desire to learn together how best to please each other and have sex as part of the relational glue is a 'better way'.
The problem with setting up such ideals is that we all fall short.
I don't think feelings of guilt for falling short go well towards intimacy, love, trust and respect.
Better to admit that there is no such thing as the ideal experience - we are all different and come from completely different life experiences. So long as no one is hurt (including yourself) then no guilt should be involved imo. Of course, if your sexual life has caused pain or hurt to anyone else, in any way, then a re-think would be in order.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
But how do you do that, Boogie? Guilt free, no one was hurt sex, can be an unattainable ideal, too. One person's carefree one night stand is often the other person's dream come true, complete with an imagined future together.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
I agree with that, Twilight, and with what you said above, that sexuality is part of who we are, and God is with us and cares about us where we are. So I think there's a lot to be said about being prayerful when making decisions about our sex lives, but I'm not sure that antiquated rules help. if two people have sex and one is thinking it's just a one-night-stand and the other is thinking that this is the start of the greatest love of their life that's surely a mis-communication problem, rather than a morality problem, unless one of them lied.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
There's also the obvious point that virginity before marriage can have catastrophic results, as people discover that they're incompatible. Of course, some people can surmount this, but I don't see why they ought to, barring of course, religious rules to the contrary. I've just known too many people whose lives were wrecked by this for quite a long period to feel neutral about it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's also the obvious point that virginity before marriage can have catastrophic results, as people discover that they're incompatible. Of course, some people can surmount this, but I don't see why they ought to, barring of course, religious rules to the contrary. I've just known too many people whose lives were wrecked by this for quite a long period to feel neutral about it.
I've heard this claim before, but I'm not really sure what it means. I'm not sure what it means to be "sexually incompatible". Does it mean you have different libidos, or enjoy different sorts of sex, positions, whatever? Because if that's what is meant, I don't see how premarital sex is going to solve that. These are the sorts of things that wax and wane throughout a marriage. Libido will go up and down throughout their lifetime in both men and women for a variety of biological, situational, and relational reasons. "Adventurousness" as well is going to vary for a lot of reasons, primarily I'm guessing the degree of comfort/ safety one feels in the relationship.
From my admittedly limited experience, any supposed "incompatibility" can be resolved-- assuming there is love, compassion, grace, generosity, and good humor. Where the real "incompatibility" comes into play is when those qualities are lacking. So I would suggest it is more likely the lack of those things-- compassion, grace, generosity-- that would "wreck" a marriage, not "sexual incompatibility". Indeed, I suspect a "try before you buy" mentality that treats sex as a commodity is more likely to indicate a lack of some of those things-- a rigid expectation that sex will always be like this, and this is what I need and deserve to be happy. But that almost never happens-- for either gender. You sex life will wax and wane, if you don't have the inner and relational tools to navigate that, no matter how "compatible" you were sexually before marriage, you're apt to face some very rocky times.
But that's my somewhat limited experience-- perhaps there's more to it than I know.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
However, I'd still side with Twilight. In an ideal world virginity of both partners on marriage, in a framework of love, trust, communication, respect and a desire to learn together how best to please each other and have sex as part of the relational glue is a 'better way'.
The problem with setting up such ideals is that we all fall short.
I don't think feelings of guilt for falling short go well towards intimacy, love, trust and respect.
Better to admit that there is no such thing as the ideal experience - we are all different and come from completely different life experiences. So long as no one is hurt (including yourself) then no guilt should be involved imo. Of course, if your sexual life has caused pain or hurt to anyone else, in any way, then a re-think would be in order.
I rather thought that the rest of my post acknowledged that falling short occurs, and that guilt shouldn't attach.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Snags
Utterly socially unrealistic
# 15351
|
Posted
On the imcompatability front, I'm with cliffdweller, and I call bullshit in all but the tiniest number of cases.
If you're going for a no-sex-before approach then part of the before process has to include proper conversations, proper getting to know each other, proper understanding of the commitments you're making and what that may entail, and discussions of sexual stuff. Because frankly, if you haven't got good communication outside of sex, you're likely to have some pretty shitty sex when that bit does come into play.
So anything along the lines of "I can only do it wearing rubber and you're allergic" or "Once a month?! What about every half-hour?!!" should be able to come out in the wash before uglies are bumped.
Anything else you work through together in the whole love, communication, commitment and support framework. The sex Mrs Snags and I have now is not the sex we had many moons ago. And hopefully it will continue to develop positively over whatever remaining moons we have.
--------------------
Vain witterings :-: Vain pretentions :-: The Dog's Blog(locks)
Posts: 1399 | From: just north of That London | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
[Ha! x-p'd with cliffdweller, who said some of this stuff better...]
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
There's also the obvious point that virginity before marriage can have catastrophic results, as people discover that they're incompatible. Of course, some people can surmount this, but I don't see why they ought to, barring of course, religious rules to the contrary. I've just known too many people whose lives were wrecked by this for quite a long period to feel neutral about it.
I hear this kind of thing from time to time as a supposed objection to traditional Christian teaching on sexual ethics and it always leaves me scratching my head.
Suppose two people fall for each other in a big way and come to agree that they want to lead the rest of their lives together, having got to know one another well enough to make them think they could really make a go of it. Suppose also that they have both hitherto been careful not to have had sex until they reached this realisation - perhaps, say, having seen the emotional damage done to others they have known who have not made it as a couple after having been physically intimate for some time before.
In your opinion, should they now have sex with one another straight away just to test out their sexual "compatibility", before they commit to their mutually-chosen life-partner status, lest they shipwreck their whole relationship on that rock? What kind of pressure will that put them under, do you think - knowing, if they share your opinion, that this act of intimacy could make or break their future? Also, how many times should they do it to be sure they're really "physically compatible" long-term? If they do truly love each other and are sexually attracted to one another and all their bits function normally, isn't that a baseline sexual compatibility from which they - pretty much anyone - can work?
These are the sorts of questions which pop into my head when I hear that objection put.
[ 22. December 2014, 14:31: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
cliffdweller wrote:
I've heard this claim before, but I'm not really sure what it means. I'm not sure what it means to be "sexually incompatible". Does it mean you have different libidos, or enjoy different sorts of sex, positions, whatever? Because if that's what is meant, I don't see how premarital sex is going to solve that. These are the sorts of things that wax and wane throughout a marriage. Libido will go up and down throughout their lifetime in both men and women for a variety of biological, situational, and relational reasons. "Adventurousness" as well is going to vary for a lot of reasons, primarily I'm guessing the degree of comfort/ safety one feels in the relationship.
Well, you misquote me there; I didn't say 'sexually incompatible', but 'incompatible', as I don't isolate sex from other aspects of a relationship. In fact, one of my corny quotes to people is that the key sexual organ is the heart, but I think it's true.
I agree that pre-marital relationships don't solve any problems that may arise, but getting out of them tends to be less of a wreck.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
