Thread: "Stop staying pure until marriage" Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=028842
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by pimple (# 10635) on
:
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.
Posted by toadstrike (# 18244) on
:
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.
Posted by venbede (# 16669) on
:
As a gay man, I find it very encouraging that Christ was born without heterosexual being involved.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
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.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
Tortuf ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Quotes file
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
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 ]
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by churchgeek (# 5557) on
:
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?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
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.
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
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.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
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.
Posted by Pomona (# 17175) on
:
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.
Posted by Moo (# 107) on
:
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
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by Pancho (# 13533) on
:
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?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
Me too, in spades.
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
That does make better sense of the article.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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. )
Posted by Highfive (# 12937) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.)
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on
:
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.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
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.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
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.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
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.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
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...
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
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.
Posted by irish_lord99 (# 16250) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
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)
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
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.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
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.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
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.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
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.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
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.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
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.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
[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 ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
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.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
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.
Well, but be fair. Given that what you did actually say was: quote:
virginity before marriage can have catastrophic results, as people discover that they're incompatible
(my emphasis) the natural reading is that you were talking specifically about sexual compatibility.
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
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.
I may be being overly literal here, but how does a virgin know that s/he can only do it wearing rubber??
Two virgins on their wedding night might be "ideal" but is not necessarily problem-free in the real world.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Do people really have absolutely no idea about what turns them on until they've actually had sex for the first time, when suddenly all becomes clear?
And you'll note I didn't suggest it was problem-free, which is where the expectation management, communication etc. comes into play. Virgin or otherwise, quite frankly.
[ 22. December 2014, 14:57: Message edited by: Snags ]
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Two virgins on their wedding night might be "ideal" but is not necessarily problem-free in the real world.
Which alternative is?
[ 22. December 2014, 14:59: Message edited by: Chesterbelloc ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Two virgins on their wedding night might be "ideal" but is not necessarily problem-free in the real world.
No, not problem free. And then - especially then - the church still manages to fuck it up.
This woman, quoted by Ann Voskamp, is particularly telling.
quote:
How all those years of no made her ashamed of when she finally said her marital yes. How she couldn’t be intimate after she got married because she still felt she’d be in sin.
The more you enforce purity, the worse it gets. Being a virgin should be the result of one of two reasons: lack of opportunity, or personal choice. That's it. That's all.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Two virgins on their wedding night might be "ideal" but is not necessarily problem-free in the real world.
Which alternative is?
A couple of people who trust each other might be a good one.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Two virgins on their wedding night might be "ideal" but is not necessarily problem-free in the real world.
Which alternative is?
A couple of people who trust each other might be a good one.
1. That's only an alternative if two virgins can't trust one another. You think they can't trust each other without having tried one another out in the sack first?
2. Two people who trust each other will necessarily have a problem-free wedding night?
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by JoannaP:
Two virgins on their wedding night might be "ideal" but is not necessarily problem-free in the real world.
No, not problem free. And then - especially then - the church still manages to fuck it up.
This woman, quoted by Ann Voskamp, is particularly telling.
quote:
How all those years of no made her ashamed of when she finally said her marital yes. How she couldn’t be intimate after she got married because she still felt she’d be in sin.
The more you enforce purity, the worse it gets. Being a virgin should be the result of one of two reasons: lack of opportunity, or personal choice. That's it. That's all.
That's a good point. I suppose it's the difference between want and should. I think the problems arise from feeling a should about purity, as that often links with shame and guilt. But this all back-tracks to so many issues about shame, going into the unconscious deeps of our society; very difficult to describe them in a short space.
Of course, people still feel shame in a secular society also!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Do people really have absolutely no idea about what turns them on until they've actually had sex for the first time, when suddenly all becomes clear?
And you'll note I didn't suggest it was problem-free, which is where the expectation management, communication etc. comes into play. Virgin or otherwise, quite frankly.
I would say that many people haven't a clue how intimacy works at first. And I'm including sex within that, as it's intimacy that often drives sex, and often blocks it, via lack of intimacy.
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Being a virgin should be the result of one of two reasons: lack of opportunity, or personal choice. That's it. That's all.
Agreed - so long as personal choice includes the choice to act in accordance with your own religious beliefs.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Do people really have absolutely no idea about what turns them on until they've actually had sex for the first time, when suddenly all becomes clear?
And you'll note I didn't suggest it was problem-free, which is where the expectation management, communication etc. comes into play. Virgin or otherwise, quite frankly.
I would say that many people haven't a clue how intimacy works at first. And I'm including sex within that, as it's intimacy that often drives sex, and often blocks it, via lack of intimacy.
Absolutely. My grandparents married when they were both virgins and it was a disaster Although their courtship had been very brief, they thought they knew each other well through a shared passion for politics. And here's the thing: a modern virgin-by-choice might be able to talk about intimacy, but in a society were virginity is supposed to be the default position for all young women, sexual ignorance abounds.
There probably were conversations they could have had which might have lit the warning beacons but I don't think they knew enough to know they needed to discuss this. And I don't suppose my grandmother would have known how to talk about sex. And whilst I agree with what was said upthread about generosity and graciousness and other personal qualities, I think there is quite a deal of difference between sexual/emotional generosity and more material kinds of generosity - and I'm not sure that's something every young person has worked out. And that's another thing: 'no sex before marriage' tends to result in people marrying young - often way, way too young. Maybe this only ever worked because parents tended to have a big say in the choice of partner - anyone keen to return to that world?
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Watched an expose TV prog a long while back which interviewed people married back in the 50s and earlier. It focused on the Honeymoon. The reality for many was a long long way from society's view of the ideal. As has been said above it wasn't so much the intimacy being the problem but the ignorance.
If couples wish to make an enlightened choice about staying as virgins until marriage in this day and age I can't see it's up to me, or anyone else, to say it's a bad idea.
It may indeed turn out to be a mistake. No different, I wouldn't have thought, from the mistakes by married couples these days who split after a year, despite having become fully acquainted in the nether regions.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
This woman, quoted by Ann Voskamp, is particularly telling.
quote:
How all those years of no made her ashamed of when she finally said her marital yes. How she couldn’t be intimate after she got married because she still felt she’d be in sin.
The more you enforce purity, the worse it gets. Being a virgin should be the result of one of two reasons: lack of opportunity, or personal choice. That's it. That's all.
The article is more nuanced than that. If you read the whole of her article, she's actually in favor of virginity till marriage (she calls it "a covenanted relationship."). what she's not in favor of is people who treat the whole virginity/sex thing as if it were about nothing but skin contact.
If you treat the question of sex-before-marriage as about nothing more than "who can touch whom where", you distort the whole thing terribly, regardless of whether you say "no" or "yes" to premarital sex. Because sex is so much more than just skin contact. She calls it soul contact. I'd call it whole person intimacy.
Obviously you don't want to cheapen or become numb to whole person intimacy, whether you do this by promiscuity or by breaking confidence or by betraying friends. Equally you don't want to be closing yourself off to whole person intimacy by refusing it outright--which seems to be the mistake this woman made. But it's very very possible to explore emotional, social, intellectual etc. forms of intimacy long before you go ahead with physical intimacy at the level of sex. In fact, I'd say it was the only prudent thing to do. Physical intimacy at the level of sex ought to be the capstone, not the foundation, of a developing relationship.
A little anecdata here. I was a virgin when I married in my twenties, and I did NOT have the problem of feeing embarrassed, ashamed, etc. on our wedding night--why? because I had grown up with the belief that sex was great, awesome, a gift of God, and a helluva lot of fun. When I said "no" before marriage, it was really "not yet." And I filled the gap in my relationships where sex could have been with other stuff--long conversations, working together on anything from homework to social activism, introducing each other to our different cultures, teasing, getting to know families, etc.
So when we got to sex (and yes, waiting was HARD), we were both of us very eager, and neither of us ashamed. And it didn't take long to gain the er, physical skills--I had read the books, after all, I knew what went where and the theory of various sexual techniques. I was also aware of the common problems that could crop up, just in case they did. And we had an awesome honeymoon.
But for both of us sex was a capstone, not a foundation. Not even a pitstop along the way. We had known each other four years by that time. If we had done it any earlier, I think we would have been cementing some of the conflicts it took us four years to work through. It would have been premature. As it was, though, it came at the right time, and it was great.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
If you treat the question of sex-before-marriage as about nothing more than "who can touch whom where", you distort the whole thing terribly, regardless of whether you say "no" or "yes" to premarital sex. Because sex is so much more than just skin contact. She calls it soul contact. I'd call it whole person intimacy. ... it's very very possible to explore emotional, social, intellectual etc. forms of intimacy long before you go ahead with physical intimacy at the level of sex. In fact, I'd say it was the only prudent thing to do. Physical intimacy at the level of sex ought to be the capstone, not the foundation, of a developing relationship..
Yet, if you look at societies where the virginity of women before marriage is mandatory, because that is believed to be in accordance with the laws of God, I think you'll find that young women are not usually allowed to be intimate with young men in any way at all before marriage. Because the idea that God's law is involved does distort the whole thing terribly. What you get is men interpreting the law very literally and imposing it on women in a way that is deeply unhealthy and unjust.
Before birth control came along, tolerance of such a system was (perhaps) a price worth paying for women - and some of the men who enforced it may have done so believing that it was in women's best interests - but it isn't any more. That is to say, not that woman (or men) can't choose to be virgins before marriage, but that they must have that choice.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
His foster father Joseph was sexually continent in his marriage to the BVM.
So, uhh, how to put this succinctly ... bullshit?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Innocent IV in 1208.
The pope 1198-1216 was Innocent III.
You are possibly confused by the fact that he convened the Fourth Lateran Council.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Qlib, I don't think anyone here is advocating removal of choice. Merely opining that the alternative to the bad old ways isn't assuming it's the virginity that's the problem in the equation, rather than education, culture and societal attitudes.
The relentless message to youngsters these days roughly equates to sex making the relationship, not the relationship making the sex. I don't consider that progress, just rearranging the wreckage.
Posted by Crśsos (# 238) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Innocent IV in 1208.
The pope 1198-1216 was Innocent III.
You are possibly confused by the fact that he convened the Fourth Lateran Council.
I'm sure it was an Innocent mistake. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
Qlib, I don't think anyone here is advocating removal of choice. Merely opining that the alternative to the bad old ways isn't assuming it's the virginity that's the problem in the equation, rather than education, culture and societal attitudes.
The relentless message to youngsters these days roughly equates to sex making the relationship, not the relationship making the sex. I don't consider that progress, just rearranging the wreckage.
And I'm opining that the idea that the physical virginity of people - and, in particular of female people - matters to God is the basis for a very unhealthy society and culture. But, yes, I agree that standing that on its head and saying that non-vrginity is a requirement is also a bad thing. We're social animals, so it's reasonable that choices we think are individual and intimate are actually in line with our culture. Christianity could help to make that culture a healthy one, but to do that, it needs to separate itself out from the patriarchal culture from which it arose.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Yet, if you look at societies where the virginity of women before marriage is mandatory, because that is believed to be in accordance with the laws of God, I think you'll find that young women are not usually allowed to be intimate with young men in any way at all before marriage. Because the idea that God's law is involved does distort the whole thing terribly. What you get is men interpreting the law very literally and imposing it on women in a way that is deeply unhealthy and unjust.
Before birth control came along, tolerance of such a system was (perhaps) a price worth paying for women - and some of the men who enforced it may have done so believing that it was in women's best interests - but it isn't any more. That is to say, not that woman (or men) can't choose to be virgins before marriage, but that they must have that choice.
Certainly it must. But as Luther puts it, humanity is like a drunkard riding a donkey. First he falls off one side, and then he gets back on and falls off the other.
Of course it must be a choice. And of course there are cultures that have totally fucked up when it comes to virginity, not least by making it a single sex issue. I prefer my own screwed up culture to that!
But what's frustrating me is the pressure put on people in my culture to have sex (or to lie about it) because anything else is "unhealthy" and simply weird. This concerns me more and more as my son gets into his teens. I remember what it was like for me, and I can't imagine things have improved.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pancho:
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?
Backing up the thread somewhat since I don't think anyone has got to this yet:
Steubenville has become a sort of short hand for response to a rape case. The initial incident was that a young woman, incapacitated via alcohol, was repeatedly raped by 2 youndg men, who were stars of the college football team. In some reports (I confess I haven't revisited it all in detail) she was driven around to various parties, where other men assaulted her. It is, to be frank, pretty fucking grim, which is why I didn't want to reread it all again.
What then happened was criticism of the reporting of the case - which seemed to give sympathy to the way that the 2 young men's lives were "ruined" as a result of their actions, with scant regard for the effect on their victim. A clip here from the wiki article on the case:
quote:
Criticism has also been placed upon media outlets themselves, especially CNN, for their biased coverage of the case.[10] During the course of the delinquent verdict on March 17, 2013, CNN's Poppy Harlow stated that it was "Incredibly difficult, even for an outsider like me, to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believed their lives fell apart...when that sentence came down, [Ma'lik] collapsed in the arms of his attorney...He said to him, 'My life is over. No one is going to want me now.'" Candy Crowley and Paul Callan were also criticized for their lack of focus on the victim and their sympathy for the rapists.[11][12][13][14][15]
Rape culture is the idea that rape is so widespread as to be normalised, as a result of the way society thinks about rape. That's clumsily put, but yswim. So it fits the Steubenville case because the young men obviously considered it OK to a) consider themselves a "rape crew" (classy, eh?) b) rape a woman without expecting criticism from their friends c) sexually assault a woman who was incapable of consent and so it goes on. I'm not particularly well versed in all the conversations around rape culture, but that's my impression of what it's about in this case.
I don't really like the phrase as I think it's clumsy and doesn't really communicate the size and shape of the problems. But as a shorthand, it's ok.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
If my sociology, anthropology and history classes were correct, virginity in most cultures, where it is asserted, is a property right. Generally controlled by men.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
Returning to the topic at hand, though - I was one of those who waited until marriage, GLE that I was. It was considered really important. And for me, it was a good thing - largely I suspect because of all my own hang ups. I was definitely considered weird (especially at university, where members of the rugby club would cheerfully offer to solve my virginity problem via an umbrella) but I wasn't pressured into sex.
There's a lot, in one's early sex life, about finding stuff out, and it does necessitate being vulnerable. It was good for me to do this within the context of a loving relationship, safe in the knowledge that MrJt9 was not about to go nattering to his friends in the pub that I was a "crap shag" - not that he would have done so anyway, as he's a very decent chap, but such was the uni culture. One of the benefits of being in that loving, trusting relationship is that it doesn't become about performance. I don't know that that necessitates marriage though.
Posted by OddJob (# 17591) on
:
For us middle aged chaps it’s easy to be sanctimonious and attribute our lack of sexual activity in early adult life to standing firm against temptation, when in reality a lack of opportunity was a major factor. Even if we had active and diverse social lives.
My experience when in the 18-25 age (living in four parts of the country, five jobs, six churches, four years at Polytechnic) was that both in Christian circles and in the general population, amongst single people my age not in a relationship, the male/female ratio was about 70/30. Obviously this changed by the late 20s, but by then it’s natural to be more cautious and to value virginity – or at least my wife and I did after we met.
These days the ratio seems nearer 50/50 for young adults in far more places, as imbalance declines in universities, many professions and in leisure activities such as outdoor pursuits clubs. The present day probably gives a better indication of how people want to behave, given a free choice.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
And here's the thing: a modern virgin-by-choice might be able to talk about intimacy, but in a society were virginity is supposed to be the default position for all young women, sexual ignorance abounds.
I think you're conflating chastity with prudery.
I will agree that in times past there was a profound ignorance about sex (at least amongst the wealthier classes) - women not understanding what would "be required of them" on marriage, men not understanding that women menstruate, and so on.
But those things are largely a consequence of prudery and patriarchal nonsense, not of a society that expects chaste behaviour from its members per se.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
For my own self, looking back, I wish I had no premarital sex at all (which I think would have been the ideal), or a hell of a lot more of it.
quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
As a gay man, I find it very encouraging that Christ was born without heterosexual being involved.
Quotes file.
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Marriage came to be seen as one of 7 sacraments which had been instituted by Jesus,
I don't know of anyone living or historical who considers matrimony to be a dominical sacrament.
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."
Ah, Wikipedia, that primary source of theological wisdom. I take it you are aware that (a) this is a contentious issue between low-candle (post-post-Reformation, since both Calvin and Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary) Protestants and more traditional Christians, and (b) Wikipedia's position on contentious issues has to do with the prejudices of the editors, and who was the last person to update the article, as much as it does with verifiable facts?
quote:
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.
This is simply Bulverism and unworthy of you.
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.
Suffice my ass. The fact is that it's not "the Roman church's party line" but the belief of all Christians up until some time well after the Reformation. It's an innovation and a prurient and not terribly healthy one.
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I know I'm only supplying anecdotal evidence at best, but I never felt there was a double standard enforced.
Agreed.
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
His foster father Joseph was sexually continent in his marriage to the BVM.
So, uhh, how to put this succinctly ... bullshit?
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And of course there are cultures that have totally fucked up when it comes to virginity,
You did that on purpose.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Crśsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Innocent IV in 1208.
The pope 1198-1216 was Innocent III.
You are possibly confused by the fact that he convened the Fourth Lateran Council.
I'm sure it was an Innocent mistake.
(Groan.) ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I will agree that in times past there was a profound ignorance about sex
There is profound ignorance now.
Having sex does not make one an expert any more than cooking a meal makes one a gourmet chef.
A relationship does not automatically make sex special. Nor does the lack of one make sex worse.
Yes, the emotional attachment people share can enhance sex just like any other experience.
But to say one will have their best, most fulfilling sex in a committed relationship is not inherently true. Relationships have enough false expectations without this.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But to say one will have their best, most fulfilling sex in a committed relationship is not inherently true. Relationships have enough false expectations without this.
True. One of my favorite sayings about relationships is that six people are involved; the two people we think we are, the two the other person thinks we are, and the two we actually are. I think that must also be true of every sexual encounter. Occasionally the ability to keep all those people in the air might be more easily juggled when there is less reality going on.
Posted by St Deird (# 7631) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chesterbelloc:
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?
Agreed.
My husband and I didn't have sex before we were married. If we had, we probably would have concluded that we were "sexually incompatible" and called off the wedding (owing mainly to some impotency issues). As it was, we had a month or so of not-very-compatible attempts at sex... followed by an AWESOME sex life that we both enjoy a great deal. Putting too much worth on that initial "test drive" would have been a really stupid idea.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I don't understand what the point of all these anecdotes is. It's very nice that someone didn't have sex before marriage, and now has an awesome sex life and a great marriage. But so what? Is this supposed to have some general implications?
I just find that arguing by anecdote does not really form an argument.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand what the point of all these anecdotes is. It's very nice that someone didn't have sex before marriage, and now has an awesome sex life and a great marriage. But so what?
The point is to counter the counter-narrative that has been presented here, also mostly thru anecdotal evidence. So your point is exactly it-- the fact that someone who was a virgin at marriage and had an awful time on their wedding night is no more generalizable than the fact that someone else waited until marriage and it was an orgasmic delight.
[ 23. December 2014, 16:20: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand what the point of all these anecdotes is. It's very nice that someone didn't have sex before marriage, and now has an awesome sex life and a great marriage. But so what?
The point is to counter the counter-narrative that has been presented here, also mostly thru anecdotal evidence. So your point is exactly it-- the fact that someone who was a virgin at marriage and had an awful time on their wedding night is no more generalizable than the fact that someone else waited until marriage and it was an orgasmic delight.
Well, I agree that a counterpoint of anecdote and anecdote isn't very useful!
I suppose the idea of 'staying pure' is an ought; that's what worries me. There is an equal and opposite ought, which is 'you must have sex now', which also worries me.
Both forms of ought ride roughshod over people, and they get hurt.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Anecdotes illustrate an argument, but they do not make one. This is true. Studies would be nice, but they are problematic due to the variables of culture and time and the changing perspective with which we view events. The holy book argument has its own problems, so what are we left with? I would proffer reason.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Anecdotes illustrate an argument, but they do not make one. This is true. Studies would be nice, but they are problematic due to the variables of culture and time and the changing perspective with which we view events. The holy book argument has its own problems, so what are we left with? I would proffer reason.
It's an interesting point, but I'm curious how you apply reason to human intimacy.
Well, here is an anecdote - my wife has tons of nephews and nieces, and I think all of them have at some time shacked up with somebody. Some of them later got married; some of them didn't. Some of the married ones got divorced, and then met somebody else.
Well, my point is that I struggle to extract any generalized point from this story. Should I go to them and say, 'you did it wrong'? That would be absurd; but also absurd, would be telling them that they did it right.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
To me, it is so simple as to be difficult to express, but I will try.
There is no perfect set of rules to an ideal relationship, but there are solid guidelines.
Know yourself as best you can.
Take off your tinted specs when viewing your partner.
Determine whether your goals for life are anywhere near theirs.
Know that every relationship Requires constant maintenance. "And they lived Happily Ever After" is the beginning of the story.
And bin the "We were matched by God", "It was Fate, brought us together", and the "Love at First Sight" bollocks.
Will this work? No. People hear what they want, especially in love. But for the few willing to listen, it will give them a better chance.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't understand what the point of all these anecdotes is. It's very nice that someone didn't have sex before marriage, and now has an awesome sex life and a great marriage. But so what?
The point is to counter the counter-narrative that has been presented here, also mostly thru anecdotal evidence. So your point is exactly it-- the fact that someone who was a virgin at marriage and had an awful time on their wedding night is no more generalizable than the fact that someone else waited until marriage and it was an orgasmic delight.
Well, I agree that a counterpoint of anecdote and anecdote isn't very useful!
Part of the point is to refute the universal. It needs but one counterexample to disprove a universal, not two, and those who have no dilemmas can yet die upon them. One black swan is all it takes to prove that "all swans are white" is not true. People I think are hearing "waiting until marriage is bad bad bad" and they have a black swan to disprove it: in their relationship they waited until marriage and it was good good good. Indeed better than it would have been had they not waited. Thus is the universal disproved.
You can't establish a rule with anecdotes, but you can break one.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To me, it is so simple as to be difficult to express, but I will try.
There is no perfect set of rules to an ideal relationship, but there are solid guidelines.
Know yourself as best you can.
Take off your tinted specs when viewing your partner.
Determine whether your goals for life are anywhere near theirs.
Know that every relationship Requires constant maintenance. "And they lived Happily Ever After" is the beginning of the story.
And bin the "We were matched by God", "It was Fate, brought us together", and the "Love at First Sight" bollocks.
In what way does reason support all this? Do you have arguments, and are they based on solid facts? If not, what in the world does it mean to say that your position is based on reason?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Another aspect of this topic is the ministering to the ~50% of people who live common-law and otherwise shack-up before marrying. How can the purity issue apply there? Is the relationship made pure if they marry?
[ 23. December 2014, 23:58: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on
:
If you define "pure" as "virgin", then, there is no such thing as making pure.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Well, in some circles, there are "reconstituted virgins" (like reconstituted orange juice)--they've had sex, but decided to go back to not having it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
If you define "pure" as "virgin", then, there is no such thing as making pure.
What's a virgin relationship? He said make the relationship pure, not the people.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose the idea of 'staying pure' is an ought; that's what worries me. There is an equal and opposite ought, which is 'you must have sex now', which also worries me. Both forms of ought ride roughshod over people, and they get hurt.
Compare: "I suppose the idea of 'stopping at a red traffic light' is an ought; that's what worries me. There is an equal and opposite ought, which is 'cross whatever colour the traffic light shows', which also worries me. Both forms of ought ride roughshod over people, and they get hurt." Obviously, that's nonsense. The former ought does not "ride roughshod" over anyone, even if it means that on occasion people end up waiting uselessly at a red traffic light. Whereas the latter ought is clearly a very bad idea. Where potential dangers are involved, the right oughts are just what protects people, and the wrong oughts endanger them. It is not that oughts are per se, just because they are oughts, right or wrong.
Obviously, this does not settle the question what "ought" (if any) might be the right one here. However, note that the ought in my example does not just protect individuals. It also protects the common good by organising people in a particular fashion. Likewise, I think we fall way short if we talk about this topic as if the prospective couple lives in splendid isolation from the rest of society. Indeed, since a large fraction (probably still the majority?) of people will marry, we have to ask ourselves how all these many couples should be socially organised for the best of society at large. Just like traffic rules occasionally inconvenience an individual driver, so our "couple rules" may occasionally inconvenience the individual love seeker. This does not necessarily mean that such rules are evil.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
But the rules are for people, not people for the rules. Whereas your assertion is that the rules for sex and marriage and relationships are for God.
The rule for red lights here allows turning right on a red light so long as you stop first (that'd be left in the UK and Australia etc). Further, some red lights allow for stopping first and then proceeding if safe regardless of direction. With safety being in the judgement of the person proceeding. This includes rail signals and some intersection lights.
The first consideration for traffic lights, signs and signals is for safety, not pleasing the police officers, traffic cameras and law makers, i.e., the enforcement parts.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But the rules are for people, not people for the rules. Whereas your assertion is that the rules for sex and marriage and relationships are for God.
The rule for red lights here allows turning right on a red light so long as you stop first (that'd be left in the UK and Australia etc). Further, some red lights allow for stopping first and then proceeding if safe regardless of direction. With safety being in the judgement of the person proceeding. This includes rail signals and some intersection lights.
The first consideration for traffic lights, signs and signals is for safety, not pleasing the police officers, traffic cameras and law makers, i.e., the enforcement parts.
Yes, I agree-- that's the proper way to look at biblical laws. They are there for our benefit, not for God's. Indeed, Jesus gave us a pretty good indication of that when he said of another set of laws, "Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath".
In practical terms, that doesn't really change things. The "rules" (whatever they might be-- obviously an area of debate) are still there. But the reason/ motivation is different. The reason for "staying pure" (again, whatever that might be) has nothing to do with the sort of shaming so prevalent in "purity culture"-- it's not to avoid becoming a "soiled rose" that no one wants. It's about us, and something that we trust will benefit us, our hearts, and our future relationships.
And that changes everything about how we respond when we fail to live up to the "purity standard". There may be regret, but not shame. We're able to move forward and seek a different life. Not by rewriting history ("reconstituted virginity" anyone?) but by accepting God's grace and the opportunity for second chances-- a theme that's been important in my own history.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To me, it is so simple as to be difficult to express, but I will try.
There is no perfect set of rules to an ideal relationship, but there are solid guidelines.
Know yourself as best you can.
Take off your tinted specs when viewing your partner.
Determine whether your goals for life are anywhere near theirs.
Know that every relationship Requires constant maintenance. "And they lived Happily Ever After" is the beginning of the story.
And bin the "We were matched by God", "It was Fate, brought us together", and the "Love at First Sight" bollocks.
In what way does reason support all this? Do you have arguments, and are they based on solid facts? If not, what in the world does it mean to say that your position is based on reason?
To be honest, mt, it simply makes do much sense to me that I had not gone much further than the logic posed above.
I tell you, I am truly nonplussed.
I do not have facts and figures, just basic psychology.
Knowing yourself and trying to see your partner as clearly as possible; how is that not reason?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not have facts and figures, just basic psychology.
Basic psychology is facts, or is at least based on facts.
quote:
Knowing yourself and trying to see your partner as clearly as possible; how is that not reason?
Because it's based in large part on hunches and "feelings."
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
....
God's grace is fiercely difficult to come by it seems for some people. The defect is always applied to the person who fails to detect that God is there for them. That their grace-detection ability is missing.
As I noted above, trauma seems to change the equation. It is very possible to take the innocent life, and to apply these ideas. But not so much to those who've experienced the opposite of innocence and purity at the hands and genitals of others. Within these histories, the whole concept of purity has to be rejected. IMO, this is the misapplication of the idea that we all have sinned and can be made pure via Jesus etc. The sin is not the sin of the sexual assault victim is it?
When the specific issue is sexual purity and the inability to claim this type of purity is no fault of the person, then it must be rejected as a concept completely, or the person who has been sexually abused and assaulted must necessarily consider themselves as at least somewhat responsible, which is the 'blame the victim' or 'I'm damaged goods' problem faced by so many. What seems to be required is a different model entirely. I am concerned further about anecdotes or personal claims to what seems to be discussed as the best or better mode of having waited until marriage to have sex. This creates a hierarchy of goodness of betterness I feel.
Which leads back to the basic question: is it inferior in some way to have had sexual intercourse prior to marriage? What about non-intercourse sexual contact, like hand-genital contact, kissing and mouth contact other than on the partner's mouth? i.e. the Bill Clinton type of claim that he didn't have sex because it was not intercourse.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Knowing yourself and trying to see your partner as clearly as possible; how is that not reason?
Because it's based in large part on hunches and "feelings."
I am not denigrating feeling or hunches as worthless. Just questioning the level of importance attached. For every love at first sight and they lived happily ever after there is a series of dysfunctional relationships that always end badly. Both are driven by hunches and feelings. Not that relationships should be an emotionless calculation of probability, but throwing in a little realistic contemplation can't hurt.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Knowing yourself and trying to see your partner as clearly as possible; how is that not reason?
Because it's based in large part on hunches and "feelings."
I am not denigrating feeling or hunches as worthless.
Indeed, no. My point is that you're calling them "reason."
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
When the specific issue is sexual purity and the inability to claim this type of purity is no fault of the person, then it must be rejected as a concept completely, or the person who has been sexually abused and assaulted must necessarily consider themselves as at least somewhat responsible, which is the 'blame the victim' or 'I'm damaged goods' problem faced by so many.
You are objecting to the virginity cult, and I agree with you. Classing the entire population (or at least, the female population - nobody seems so bothered about the men) as either virgin or whore is absurd.
But this has nothing whatsoever to do with whether chastity is a desirable thing. Ethics, including sexual ethics, are a continuous concern. Suppose you've had "bad" sex once - whatever "bad" means. It doesn't suddenly become OK to have that same sex a bunch more times because you've "lost" your purity or some similar virginity cult nonsense. Whatever ethical decisions attach to the first time you have sex also attach to the second, and to the third, and to the five hundredth.
Let's by all means get rid of the fetishising of virginity, and the sexual bias that demands different behaviour from men and women, but there's no need to throw chastity out along with the virginity cult bathwater.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Maybe we're into a word usage thing? Chaste has the connotation to me of 'purity'. If it is meant to responsibly have sex, with someone you love, with proper sensitivity to the shared relationship that sexuality brings with it, then we're in agreement. In no wise would I support promiscuity. Rather faithful sexuality with a loved other. (And masturbation, which is a different discussion.)
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe we're into a word usage thing? Chaste has the connotation to me of 'purity'.
The purity/virginity cult thing is a one-time deal. You keep yourself untouched, and if at some point you "lose it", you're a non-virgin: a slut, a whore, no better than you should be, and so on.
That is a harmful way of thinking. In the virginity cult, if you "slip up" and have sex, then you've lost "it", you can't get "it" back, and so you may as well shag all comers, because you're a whore anyway.
quote:
If it is meant to responsibly have sex, with someone you love, with proper sensitivity to the shared relationship that sexuality brings with it, then we're in agreement.
As it happens, I support not having sex outside marriage. But I'd agree with all that you say here.
I think you shouldn't steal, either. But let's say you do steal something. What does that mean for your response to future stealing opportunities? Nothing at all - you still shouldn't steal.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But the rules are for people, not people for the rules. Whereas your assertion is that the rules for sex and marriage and relationships are for God.
Well, actually I haven't said anything about that. In fact, I have explicitly deferred arguing about what "ought" is right. And that quite simply means that you totally missed what I was talking about, and instead listened to those voices in your head telling you what I must be talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To be honest, mt, it simply makes do much sense to me that I had not gone much further than the logic posed above.
I tell you, I am truly nonplussed.
I do not have facts and figures, just basic psychology.
Knowing yourself and trying to see your partner as clearly as possible; how is that not reason?
There was no actual logic involved in what you posted. You did not in fact reason at all there, much less formally to some strict standards of validity. There was also no basic psychology to be found in your post, if we mean by that the science psychology. Or at least I didn't see any discussion of new empirical data from properly designed experiment or argument based on reference to peer-reviewed, published work in psychology (or to textbooks, if we talk "basic" science).
That, I believe, was mousethief's point.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I didn't see any discussion of new empirical data from properly designed experiment or argument based on reference to peer-reviewed, published work in psychology (or to textbooks, if we talk "basic" science).
That, I believe, was mousethief's point.
Fair enough. How about this for a start? And this link with several articles on communication, which is most of what I was talking about.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose the idea of 'staying pure' is an ought; that's what worries me. There is an equal and opposite ought, which is 'you must have sex now', which also worries me. Both forms of ought ride roughshod over people, and they get hurt.
Compare: "I suppose the idea of 'stopping at a red traffic light' is an ought; that's what worries me. There is an equal and opposite ought, which is 'cross whatever colour the traffic light shows', which also worries me. Both forms of ought ride roughshod over people, and they get hurt." Obviously, that's nonsense. The former ought does not "ride roughshod" over anyone, even if it means that on occasion people end up waiting uselessly at a red traffic light. Whereas the latter ought is clearly a very bad idea. Where potential dangers are involved, the right oughts are just what protects people, and the wrong oughts endanger them. It is not that oughts are per se, just because they are oughts, right or wrong.
Obviously, this does not settle the question what "ought" (if any) might be the right one here. However, note that the ought in my example does not just protect individuals. It also protects the common good by organising people in a particular fashion. Likewise, I think we fall way short if we talk about this topic as if the prospective couple lives in splendid isolation from the rest of society. Indeed, since a large fraction (probably still the majority?) of people will marry, we have to ask ourselves how all these many couples should be socially organised for the best of society at large. Just like traffic rules occasionally inconvenience an individual driver, so our "couple rules" may occasionally inconvenience the individual love seeker. This does not necessarily mean that such rules are evil.
Are you really comparing traffic management with human intimacy? That seems odd to me.
Your question about how couples should be 'socially organized' raises a lot of questions. Who will determine the nature of the rules?
Also, I'm not really sure if your notion of rules here is a moral one, or a legal one (as with traffic management), or both.
Your point about couple rules 'occasionally' inconveniencing the individual again raises more questions - what do you mean by 'inconvenience' and 'occasionally'? I would say that shame and guilt over sex have done more than inconvenience people, and the rules were often reinforced via shame and guilt.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fair enough. How about this for a start? And this link with several articles on communication, which is most of what I was talking about.
Slate is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. And I'm sorry, but if you are doing the science thing now, then you need to actually reference specific primary sources (or data) for every individual proposition and claim that you make - not point vaguely to a commercial place aimed at selling me stuff, which editorialises freely on a lists of primary sources with unknown content. Yes, that sounds like work, and like a lot of reading to be done, but it is your work. In "science mode", it is not the reader who is supposed to figure out where in all the material could be some motivation for the claims being made. It is the author who has the duty of piecing together something akin to an actual argument. And patrolling this is pretty much what "peer review" is all about...
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Alright, my bad for choosing a POV based on rationality. (And common sense)
If you read the Slate article, it references a psychologist with like a PHD and everything. And the other link is also piled Pretty High and Deep with published psychologists.
I'll look for individual reports, I suppose. Feel free to post counter examples, if you wish.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And that quite simply means that you totally missed what I was talking about, and instead listened to those voices in your head telling you what I must be talking about.
I certainly don't mistake rudeness for manners.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
Mild Boxing Day comment. Boxing over perceived rudeness should head Hellwards. Boxing over meaning can continue unabated.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
(and still full of goodwill to all)
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
A clerical acquaintance in Toronto confessed that she is now concerned when couples coming for marriage preparation have not been sleeping together.
Posted by Paul. (# 37) on
:
Did she say why?
Posted by Chesterbelloc (# 3128) on
:
I think I can put myself in shoes from the wearing of which I can sympahise with your clerical friend, Augustine.
Given that she is a she, and therefore not a Roman Catholic priest, and given how widely divergent Catholic teaching regarding sexual morality is from are the views of society in general (and even from what seems to me to be those of the majority of western Christians), I can understand how your clerical friend would baulk at a couple who came to her for marriage who had not yet slept together.
Their continence must, from such a perspective, seem like a worryingly unhealthy aberation, possibly indicating a serious psycho-sexual problem which could potentially shipwreck the marriage. Depending on the couple's own background beliefs, it may even be such. Which is why Catholics (especially men) often feel these days that they will be thought weird (perhaps undatably/unmarriably so) if they want to keep sex for marriage.
Which all goes to show how far Catholic and non-Catholic views of sex have drifted from one another in recent decades. I wouldn't be 18 again for all the world.
Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on
:
Chesterbelloc -- One must always be careful of stereotyping!! The priest involved is celibate and a rosary rattler and, her gender aside, would blend into any Latin diocese in Canada quite easily-- she tells me that she uses J2P2's "Love and Responsibility" as her guide. I have heard comments similar to hers over the years from RC clerics and, if I can offer anecdotal and impressionistic evidence, I would say that continent engaged couples would be more frequently found in evangelical circles than in RC ones-- of my observant RC friends of whose personal lives I have any knowledge, I do not know of any who head up the aisle as virgins and most of them have been cohabiting with their fiancé(e)s.
One of my friends (Master's in mediaeval philosophy), whose own adventures must cause her confessor much trauma, said that a sacramentalist worldview is a factor in leading people into engaging with the world about them, and that sometimes this would involve other people's bodies. I think that this argument needs some (to use contemporary academic-speak) unpacking but it is intriguing.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
There are three problems with the notion of purity equalling being sexually untouched.
The first is that the whole issue of sex as being somehow sullying, dirty or shameful has caused (and is causing) untold harm in the lives of decent, continent people.
The second problem is that we are ignoring the massive changes that modern medicine and increased life expectancy have brought about.
The third is that by-and-large societies see enjoyment of sex as being a good thing - and a good thing for both sexes in a marriage.
If you insist on people ignoring any realistic exploration of their sexual compatability and further insist that one party (usually the female) be taught from childhood that anything 'down there' is dirty, you are deliberately setting up couples to have problems with sex. IMV that is unforgiveable and definitely unchristian.
All churches need to be honest about sex and their attitudes towards it. For one church in particular, this is going to be almost impossible since they have a clergy that is almost entirely without sexual experience - either good or bad - and who are the most likely to see sex as being dirty or shameful; they are also the least likely church to listen to, never mind take, any advice from people with direct experience of sex.
As for whether or not couples should explore sex together before marriage, I'd say it is irresponsible not to. For all the couples who marry as virgins and then go on to discover a world of shared delight, tenderness, etc, there are many more for whom there is always a problem on both sides that more honesty before the wedding might have stopped.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Maybe we need a new word, one that doesn't have "when it's gone it's gone" implications. One that inspires making wise choices in the present rather than mourning an irretrievable past. Then we could bicker about what constitutes "wise choices" but not shame people who maybe made some unwise choices in the past. "That's over. Regrettable, maybe, but forgivable. What matters is, are you making wise choices now?"
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you insist on people ignoring any realistic exploration of their sexual compatability and further insist that one party (usually the female) be taught from childhood that anything 'down there' is dirty, you are deliberately setting up couples to have problems with sex. IMV that is unforgiveable and definitely unchristian.
You are needlessly conflating two unrelated things here. I don't think anyone here would disagree that teaching that sex is "dirty" is not only bad theology but, yes, potentially damaging to the relationship and to the individual's spirituality.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you insist on people ignoring any realistic exploration of their sexual compatability...
...As for whether or not couples should explore sex together before marriage, I'd say it is irresponsible not to. For all the couples who marry as virgins and then go on to discover a world of shared delight, tenderness, etc, there are many more for whom there is always a problem on both sides that more honesty before the wedding might have stopped.
Again, I think the notion of "sexual incompatibility" ridiculous-- and that myth almost as dangerous as the one you're trying to correct for. It treats sex both as a commodity that can be quantified, evaluated, measured-- as well as a static event that either "is" or "isn't". In my limited experience, neither is true.
As noted above, sex will wax and wane over the lifetime for a whole host of reasons, from pregnancy to prostate problems. Whatever data you gathered from premarital "evaluation of compatibility" will be outdated very shortly, I expect. But all of those challenges to sexual frequency, positioning, etc. are surmountable-- if both partners are flexible (pun intended), compassionate, generous, and caring. It seems to me that's what you really want to evaluate pre-wedding-- those qualities, which are going to have much much more to do with the long-term viability of the relationship, including the sexual aspects of the relationship.
And, honestly, I find this consumerist approach to sex just as offensive and potentially patriarchal as the "madonna/whore" approach of the purity culture. Because you know it's the man who's going to be doing the evaluating, and the woman who's going to feel "on trial" to demonstrate her sexual "compatibility". If anything is a recipe for sexual disaster and heartache, that is.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For all the couples who marry as virgins and then go on to discover a world of shared delight, tenderness, etc, there are many more for whom there is always a problem on both sides that more honesty before the wedding might have stopped.
We've explored this already upthread, but it seems so far there's pretty much equal anecdotal evidence of both, with no hard (um, definitive) research data one way or the other. But it seems to me the ones for whom there is a problem it is either due to ignorance-- something easily fixed thru learning/ experimentation-- or thru the false teachings of sex as something dirty/shaming, which, again, we've all agreed is not a good thing.
Couples will make the decision of whether to be intimate before marriage individually, for a host of reasons both religious and personal. Research shows the vast majority will chose to be intimate. But there's no indication that those who choose otherwise are in for any more disappointment, heartbreak, or psychological trauma than those who do.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe we need a new word, one that doesn't have "when it's gone it's gone" implications. One that inspires making wise choices in the present rather than mourning an irretrievable past. Then we could bicker about what constitutes "wise choices" but not shame people who maybe made some unwise choices in the past. "That's over. Regrettable, maybe, but forgivable. What matters is, are you making wise choices now?"
I think so. I should like to have such a word.
I also find intriguing Aleut's introduction of the sacramental nature that involves physicality. This had been mentioned in conversation in my presence some years ago as an impediment to certain unions, with the implications of it argued well by a second bishop who discussed the extension of the argument to sexuality generally, but more importantly, the extended responsibility the Church has for the sexual welfare of Christians. Further sanctification of the flesh beyond my competence to reiterate involved the Word Made Flesh and sexual and physical implications of that. Along the lines of the separateness of the physical and spiritual realms.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For all the couples who marry as virgins and then go on to discover a world of shared delight, tenderness, etc, there are many more for whom there is always a problem on both sides that more honesty before the wedding might have stopped.
We've explored this already upthread, but it seems so far there's pretty much equal anecdotal evidence of both, with no hard (um, definitive) research data one way or the other. But it seems to me the ones for whom there is a problem it is either due to ignorance-- something easily fixed thru learning/ experimentation-- or thru the false teachings of sex as something dirty/shaming, which, again, we've all agreed is not a good thing.
I agree with what cliffdweller has said here. L'organist's claim about the potential danger of being a virgin at marriage needs evidence to back it up, I'd say. Does anyone know of such evidence?
I too find baffling the whole 'sexual compatibility' thing, as distinct from compatibility in the broader sense. Where's the evidence for the existence of specifically sexual compatibility?
Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
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.
Wasn't Paul originally in the Sanhedrin? He'd have had to have been married...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Wasn't Paul originally in the Sanhedrin? He'd have had to have been married...
Not that I've ever heard. It certainly doesn't say that in Scripture; I don't remember ever hearing about it from Orfy tradition. Nicodemus who with Joseph of Aramithea buried Jesus was in the Sanhedrin, if I recall. Not Paul.
[ 26. December 2014, 23:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Re Paul/Sanhedrin:
I just did a very quick rummaging online. Found a fairly short blog article that seems pretty level-headed: "Was Paul a member of the Sanhedrin?" (Smoodock's blog).
[ 27. December 2014, 00:36: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I too find baffling the whole 'sexual compatibility' thing, as distinct from compatibility in the broader sense. Where's the evidence for the existence of specifically sexual compatibility?
I would think it matters as much as any other kind of compatibility.
If you're (generic "you") around someone (spouse, friend, co-worker), and you can't stand something about them--laugh, sense of humor, smoking, hygiene, table manners, etc.--then it's really going to crimp your relationship, and you may not want to be around them at all.
Similarly, if you and your spouse differ on comfort levels with aggressiveness/gentleness, games, BDSM, talking during, particular methods, etc., etc., you're apt to have problems. And then there's whatever trauma and baggage each person brings. Hard enough to work out, if you both know that going in. But if you *don't* know, yikes.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I don't know that there should be a blanket policy for/against pre-marital sex. But, IMHO, the couple should *thoroughly* talk everything out ahead of time, at the very least.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hard enough to work out, if you both know that going in.
Heh. Heh heh. You did that on purpose.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Similarly, if you and your spouse differ on comfort levels with aggressiveness/gentleness, games, BDSM, talking during, particular methods, etc., etc., you're apt to have problems. And then there's whatever trauma and baggage each person brings. Hard enough to work out, if you both know that going in. But if you *don't* know, yikes.
Pre-marital thorough talking about sexual issues, definitely. But if both people marrying are virgins, then presumably they won't know much about their sexual preferences, in terms of the things you mentioned, Golden Key. So if there is mutual self-sacrificing love, then the people will discover together what floats their boat, yes?
And if one person is more experienced than the other, then the former can lovingly, considerately help the latter to learn what fulfils them sexually. While also learning and discovering together.
Finally, if both partners have plenty of sexual experience, then talking together would be particularly important, perhaps. And perhaps (completely speculating; I have no references to back this up!) there are more likely to be sexual compatibility issues, which means it's better to not have sexual experience before marriage. But that doesn't mean those in this situation are sullied, or spoiled or anything like that. I agree with others who have said such language is really unhelpful.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hard enough to work out, if you both know that going in.
Heh. Heh heh. You did that on purpose.
LOL. No, actually.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
And here's the thing: a modern virgin-by-choice might be able to talk about intimacy, but in a society were virginity is supposed to be the default position for all young women, sexual ignorance abounds.
I think you're conflating chastity with prudery.
I will agree that in times past there was a profound ignorance about sex (at least amongst the wealthier classes) - women not understanding what would "be required of them" on marriage, men not understanding that women menstruate, and so on.
But those things are largely a consequence of prudery and patriarchal nonsense, not of a society that expects chaste behaviour from its members per se.
I don't think I am conflating prudery and chastity - my point is that that conflation tends to arise when whole societies subscribe to the view that women should be virgins before marriage. In fact 'prudery' may be unfair: they weren't prudish in Jane Austen's day (at least, not when compared with the Victorians) but, with regard to negotiating the terms of marriage, the position of genteel young women seems to have been quite intolerable.
What a lot of people here seem to want is a liberal world in which sex before marriage is OK, but religious people can freely choose to remain virginal. Which is great, but doesn't go well with the idea that this is what God wants for us all. Irrespective of whether or not that's true, it doesn't make for a happy society.
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on
:
I love the way that some of you think the notion of people being sexually compatible ridiculous (thanks, Cliffdweller) and then accuse me of treating sex as a commodity.
As for the nostrum repeated by many of you - that couples who don't have sex before marriage should talk about it - how is this going to work: what you propose is two people who have never experienced something sitting down to talk about it, so in effect sharing their ignorance.
It is all too easy for those of us (you?) with a healthy sex life who have been able to sort it all out with your life partner to issue diktats about what should or shouldn't be possible, but life doesn't work like that.
And as many therapists would tell you, this is one area where people who perhaps need the most help, or who have suffered the most profound trauma, do not refer themselves or seek help for years (if ever), many of them preferring to (literally) suffer in silence.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
It is all too easy for those of us (you?) with a healthy sex life who have been able to sort it all out with your life partner to issue diktats about what should or shouldn't be possible, but life doesn't work like that.
But isn't this the point? That life did indeed work like that for some of us? And that there is no alternate 'us' to wonder what would have happened if we'd done it differently?
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I am not sure that talk, without experience, is helpful. Without a few turns around the track you may not know what you might or might not like. It is like lichee. I can describe the fruit to you, go into the cultural and artistic resonances of the fruit, show you paintings and recipes and the wikipedia entry, but you won't know if you like it until you eat it.
I have no difficulty in believing that God is sufficiently creative t have supplied a range of possible responses and life styles for us. If the humblest romance author can do it, surely God can.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am not sure that talk, without experience, is helpful.
You see, I'm not entirely convinced by this argument if the only experience we allow here is personal experience.
There are plenty of experts on subjects relating to human emotions and relationships who impart useful advice, whilst not having any experience in exploring those emotions or relationships personally, nor any wish to.
And - at least in this day and age - even 'chaste' Christian couples who hold hands, kiss, dance with each other, lie side by side under a starry night etc etc, will probably know whether or not the sexual desire for their partner is there. All without Putting That There.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
We knew perfectly well. Damnably well, even. It was a major struggle not to put That There.
If the major sex organ is the brain (followed to a large extent by the eyes and the skin), there's quite a lot you can know before having sex for the first time.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
As many difficulties as there are around sex, I think there are many more difficulties around child-rearing.
Personally I found that agreeing our priorities in child-rearing and our basic principles beforehand was very useful. It involved a lot of talk and almost no experience at all. I imagine it would have been trickier to work out on the fly. I can't see why sex wouldn't benefit from some discussion beforehand in the absence of experience.
I also think a little experience is not necessarily all that helpful. It might be great one night, not on another. My view is that what keeps the couple coping is how they deal with it when sex turns out not to be all that great on a particular occasion. Do they treat it as a death-knell for the relationship, pretend it didn't happen, or communicate about it supportively.
I don't think the likely response through thick and thin can necessarily be inferred from sexual experimentation (or from discussion for that matter), although it might be inferred from knowledge of character.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Any component of a long term relationship will be good, bad and indifferent. Whatever your previous experience, whatever your POV.
Understand and be prepared to deal.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I love the way that some of you think the notion of people being sexually compatible ridiculous (thanks, Cliffdweller) and then accuse me of treating sex as a commodity.
I realize the way I worded it sounded harsh. But honestly, that is the way it seems to me. The notion of "sexual compatibility" does seem odd to me, for all the reasons detailed above. Yes, people will vary in terms of their specific desires re frequency, initiation, positions, etc. But that doesn't seem to be any more of an "incompatibility" issue than, say, what you do on a Sunday morning or is it OK to read the paper at the breakfast table. The sort of stuff that, yes, needs to be talked about. Some of those sorts of things (both sexual and nonsexual) you'll know/ be aware of before the marriage, and some you won't-- regardless of how much "premarriage evaluation" one does. So some of that discussion will, by necessity, happen after the marriage simply because you won't know the issue until it comes up (wow is this thread prone to the double entendre). And, even more importantly, as discussed before, all of those sexual preferences are going to change over time-- so whatever "compatibility" there is before the marriage is irrelevant. So, again, what really matters is whether your partner is the sort of person who will approach the challenges of negotiating these sorts of differences with honesty, humor, compassion, and grace.
And, again, the whole notion of "premarital sexual compatibility" does strike me as commoditizing sex every bit as much as the purity culture does (which of course, it does as well). Having a premarital "compatibility test" strikes me as pretty much every bit as offensive as having to produce the bloody sheets as evidence of premarital purity.
I can think of all sorts of reasons why a couple might choose to engage in premarital intimacy, with desire being the most obvious. But evaluating "sexual compatibility" sounds-- horrible. I can't imagine anything more likely to raise a huge red flag for me than that.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And as many therapists would tell you, this is one area where people who perhaps need the most help, or who have suffered the most profound trauma, do not refer themselves or seek help for years (if ever), many of them preferring to (literally) suffer in silence.
Absolutely. And people who have suffered trauma need compassion, care, a safe place to share their struggles. What they DON'T need is the pressure of a premarital "sexual evaluation" test. Again, I can't imagine anything more horrible. Premarital sex may or may not be on the agenda for such a couple, again, for various reasons-- but NOT to evaluate "compatibility".
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Any component of a long term relationship will be good, bad and indifferent. Whatever your previous experience, whatever your POV.
Understand and be prepared to deal.
Maybe the issue is not "sexual incompatibility" (whatever that means? square dick and round vagina?) so much as unrealistic expectations concerning sex, love, and who takes the trash out. If you go into marriage with a bleary-eyed idea that love will make everything beautiful and only "those people" have marital difficulties, then when the difficulties arise (as they invariably do), you're not mentally prepared to cope, and perhaps fix the blame on something outside yourselves rather than buckle down and do the hard work to set the relationship back on an even keel and keep it there.
The idea that sexual experimentation before marriage (either with each other or with others) can prevent this strikes me as bleary-eyed idealism, no less absurd than the "love will conquer all" virgins entering into marriage with unrealistic ideas.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
my point is that that conflation tends to arise when whole societies subscribe to the view that women should be virgins before marriage.
I rather suspect that a great many of the difficulties arise from this double standard. If you begin with the idea that young women are not permitted (and need to be protected from) sex, whereas boys, naturally, will be boys, then you rapidly acquire a society where young women are not allowed to know anything about sex or their bodies, all in the name of "protecting" them from some marauding penis that's going to "ruin" them.
If, however, you begin with the assumption that chastity is desirable for both sexes, I don't think you necessarily acquire the same kind of secrecy around sex that leads to it being seen as "dirty".
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As many difficulties as there are around sex, I think there are many more difficulties around child-rearing.
Personally I found that agreeing our priorities in child-rearing and our basic principles beforehand was very useful. It involved a lot of talk and almost no experience at all. I imagine it would have been trickier to work out on the fly. I can't see why sex wouldn't benefit from some discussion beforehand in the absence of experience.
I also think a little experience is not necessarily all that helpful. It might be great one night, not on another. My view is that what keeps the couple coping is how they deal with it when sex turns out not to be all that great on a particular occasion. Do they treat it as a death-knell for the relationship, pretend it didn't happen, or communicate about it supportively.
I don't think the likely response through thick and thin can necessarily be inferred from sexual experimentation (or from discussion for that matter), although it might be inferred from knowledge of character.
Yes. This.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, even more importantly, as discussed before, all of those sexual preferences are going to change over time-- so whatever "compatibility" there is before the marriage is irrelevant.
Sure, if you wait long enough, the guy who wants to be tied up and spanked isn't going to be able to get it up because he's too old or has prostrate problems or whatever. In the meantime, you could spend 20 or 30 or more years waiting for that to happen.
In my experience, people like what they like, and while you can tout flexibility as a virtue in more ways than one, people only bend so far. I much prefer sex with people who like what I like. I challenge you to look up what "commodity" means and then explain exactly how wanting to have some idea of what sex will be like with someone before committing to that person for the rest of your life fits the actual definition of "commodity."
Also, as lots of people are now delaying marriage until they're well into their 30s, it's more than a little bit unrealistic to think lots of them are going to forego sex until marriage. Thus they will have experience and preferences. Upthread it was said that such people could have frank and useful discussions without the need for actually having sex, but given the wide gulf between how some people talk about sex and what they actually do in bed, discussing sex is not a substitute for having sex.
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on
:
No doubt. But then, premarital sex is no perfect substitute for marital sex either. There can be some pretty significant differences. In the end, you consider your beliefs and you make your choices.
Posted by QLib (# 43) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
my point is that that conflation tends to arise when whole societies subscribe to the view that women should be virgins before marriage.
I rather suspect that a great many of the difficulties arise from this double standard. If you begin with the idea that young women are not permitted (and need to be protected from) sex, whereas boys, naturally, will be boys, then you rapidly acquire a society where young women are not allowed to know anything about sex or their bodies, all in the name of "protecting" them from some marauding penis that's going to "ruin" them.
If, however, you begin with the assumption that chastity is desirable for both sexes, I don't think you necessarily acquire the same kind of secrecy around sex that leads to it being seen as "dirty".
Yeah. Are you actually familiar with any examples (historical or otherwise) of societies that have been as strong on male virginity as they have on female virginity? Personally, I'm struggling to come up with one.
Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe the issue is not "sexual incompatibility" (whatever that means? square dick and round vagina?)
Bwhahaha! Nice one.
The thing that alarms me about "compatibility" is that it might lead to fears of poor performance. (Fnarrr.) It would for me, anyway.
Why is incompatibility so different here than it is for money, for eg? MrJt9 and I have had far more fallings out about priorities around money and priorities around housework than about shagging. Because I was a virgin, and he was a chap of limited experience, we knew sex was something we would have to practice. And, let's face it, practice is hardly a hardship, is it? And as it happens, the things we both like have changed over time. No details necessary.
If we'd tried sex pre-marriage to see if we were "compatible", it would have been a disaster. Chiefly because I certainly (and probably MrJt9) needed the practice.
How much incompatibility would be a genuine deal-breaker, anyway? We differ in quite a few preferences, but we still make it work because it's nice and something we want to work out. Like lots of other things in a long term relationship.
I have a sneaky feeling this idea of sexual compatibility is one more thing dreamed up by the women's mags to make us feel crap about. It's not a very long way from "Are you sexually compatible?" to "How to please your man in bed?" If I were minded to read the things, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one headline appeared on the front page of Cosmo the month after another.
BUT.
This is all true of my own experience. I married youngish by today's standards. People marrying in their late 30s are likely going to have different experiences to me, just because they've been out and about in the world a bit longer. So much is about confidence.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
BUT.
This is all true of my own experience. I married youngish by today's standards. People marrying in their late 30s are likely going to have different experiences to me, just because they've been out and about in the world a bit longer. So much is about confidence.
fwiw, I married (for the 2nd time) in my mid-30s-- to someone with quite limited experience, also in his 30s, and my experience was very much like what you described.
ymmv.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, even more importantly, as discussed before, all of those sexual preferences are going to change over time-- so whatever "compatibility" there is before the marriage is irrelevant.
Sure, if you wait long enough, the guy who wants to be tied up and spanked isn't going to be able to get it up because he's too old or has prostrate problems or whatever. In the meantime, you could spend 20 or 30 or more years waiting for that to happen.
Yes. As in, "this impotency problem is frustrating as hell. But I remember 20 years ago when I was pregnant and bloated and felt about as sexy as a dishrag. I remember how kind and compassionate he was then. I remember how we worked around my low libido and awkward physique. So, yeah, we'll make this work too."
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
So much is about confidence.
I think you may well have put your finger on the problem, in our case at any rate.
I envy Lamb Chopped.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Statistic in newspaper reporting Canada and USA is more than one-half of children grow up in non-traditional families The second datum was poorer folk are more likely single.
Makes me wonder causation though that is not part of the report, being correlation.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Also, as lots of people are now delaying marriage until they're well into their 30s, it's more than a little bit unrealistic to think lots of them are going to forego sex until marriage. Thus they will have experience and preferences. Upthread it was said that such people could have frank and useful discussions without the need for actually having sex, but given the wide gulf between how some people talk about sex and what they actually do in bed, discussing sex is not a substitute for having sex.
Actually, most boys and I guess a lot of girls will be building up their experiences and preferences by ubiquitous, instantaneously and freely available porn. And that's before they ever touch the opposite sex, and - assuming that sex during teenage times is still a lot more talk than action - so all the time while their own activities are few and far between.
Society is nevertheless not going to crumble since our sex lives are in fact relatively robust. Somehow the most prudish Victorians managed to copulate, somehow we will, too. One of the biggest problems with modernity is the tremendous concern with perfecting individual lives in all aspects. The world does not end if some couple does not enjoy the most glorious sex thinkable, not even for that couple. I think we need to start thinking a bit bigger again. What role do we want sex to play in our societies, how do we want to social-engineer the framework within which individuals will operate?
And if we look at the question of late marriage from that "common good" angle, rather than from an individual one, then I think an interesting discussion can happen. For what it actually means to a particular individual to only marry well in their thirties, who knows? But that this may be a problem for society, that we can discuss more rationally.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
What would a societal role for sex look like? Is it something that can be enforced through laws? Or just propaganda? Does "society" have a right to tell me what role sex should play in my life? What's the relationship between the role of sex in society, and the role of sex in any given marriage? None of this is clear.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea that sexual experimentation before marriage (either with each other or with others) can prevent this strikes me as bleary-eyed idealism, no less absurd than the "love will conquer all" virgins entering into marriage with unrealistic ideas.
I agree. Caring about what pleases your partner will make sex with them better than it would be otherwise.
I think that is as much as one can definitively say.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Caring about what pleases your partner will make sex with them better than it would be otherwise.
I think that is as much as one can definitively say.
Makes sense to me.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What would a societal role for sex look like? Is it something that can be enforced through laws? Or just propaganda? Does "society" have a right to tell me what role sex should play in my life? What's the relationship between the role of sex in society, and the role of sex in any given marriage? None of this is clear.
Quite so, none of this is clear. That doesn't mean that it isn't happening now, as much as in any other age. Victorians were not genetically different people to Moderns, they just had a different upbringing. And just because it isn't clear what exactly one can (and should) do about any of this doesn't mean that one shouldn't raise one's gaze from the immediate concerns of one's own relationships a bit and look at the bigger picture of society.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Quite so, none of this is clear. That doesn't mean that it isn't happening now, as much as in any other age. Victorians were not genetically different people to Moderns, they just had a different upbringing. And just because it isn't clear what exactly one can (and should) do about any of this doesn't mean that one shouldn't raise one's gaze from the immediate concerns of one's own relationships a bit and look at the bigger picture of society.
To what end? What will it get me? Or society, for that matter?
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, even more importantly, as discussed before, all of those sexual preferences are going to change over time-- so whatever "compatibility" there is before the marriage is irrelevant.
Sure, if you wait long enough, the guy who wants to be tied up and spanked isn't going to be able to get it up because he's too old or has prostrate problems or whatever. In the meantime, you could spend 20 or 30 or more years waiting for that to happen.
Yes. As in, "this impotency problem is frustrating as hell. But I remember 20 years ago when I was pregnant and bloated and felt about as sexy as a dishrag. I remember how kind and compassionate he was then. I remember how we worked around my low libido and awkward physique. So, yeah, we'll make this work too."
No, as in "thank goodness he's finally impotent because I was really, really tired of dealing with the spanking thing."
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
No, as in "thank goodness he's finally impotent because I was really, really tired of dealing with the spanking thing."
The problem then would appear to be not that the guy likes to be spanked, but that he is insisting on it for most or all sexual encounters, and isn't taking the trouble to discover and provide for his partner's desires.
Since his partner in your example is merely 'tired of' complying with his requirements (rather than finding them impossible or deeply distasteful) there's no inherent need for either of them to be perpetually frustrated: both might have to accept that on any given night, what they do will be more enjoyable for one than the other, but if it's the same person being catered for every single time, it's a case of selfishness rather than incompatibility. The couple are capable of having, if not the best sex imaginable (which might well involve more closely shared tastes), at least a sex life that they both get something out of. One of them is simply choosing not to do that.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for whether or not couples should explore sex together before marriage, I'd say it is irresponsible not to. For all the couples who marry as virgins and then go on to discover a world of shared delight, tenderness, etc, there are many more for whom there is always a problem on both sides that more honesty before the wedding might have stopped.
For me, the 'meaning' of sex was and is at least as important as its enjoyability. I have only ever wanted to have sex with one person, and I wanted it to be the expression of a promise to commit myself completely to her. I can't remember ever not thinking that from at least the age of first serious sexual awareness (about age 16 in my case). I care much more about that than I do about any (other aspect of) sexual fulfilment.
Which is to say, not everyone is like you. Not everyone shares your priorities and values.
The problems with 'try before you buy' sex seem to me (from my different perspective) to be:
1) It's not necessarily a good predictor of future problems anyway;
2) If it does result in problems being discovered, the choice the couple faces is either to work through it or split up. Married virgins also have the 'work through it' option, so the only real advantage is that it allows the couple to split up rather than divorce.
3) If the choice is to work through it, I'd rather do that with someone I am committed to staying with, and who is committed to me, rather than in an atmosphere of mutual evaluation.
4) Getting the opportunity to break up with them doesn't seem like much of a bonus to me. Frankly, I find the idea of dumping someone I love because they don't reach a standard of sexual competency to be odious. Doing it after actually having sex with them (and making the implicit promise that would involve for me) would be a betrayal of values I hold to deeply. I'd rather never have sex again than be that guy.
I'm intrigued (and a little offended) by your use of the word 'honesty'. Are you suggesting that people who don't explore sex before marriage are necessarily either prudish or dishonest? If so, I can assure you that this is not the case.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
As for the nostrum repeated by many of you - that couples who don't have sex before marriage should talk about it - how is this going to work: what you propose is two people who have never experienced something sitting down to talk about it, so in effect sharing their ignorance.
During my six year courtship with Mrs Eliab, we discussed where we would live, how we would manage money, how many children we wanted, what we would call them, how we would raise them, which of us would take paid employment while doing this, what sort of holidays we would want, which charities we would support, whether we would have one, two or no cars, how we would handle conflicts and arguments, what family traditions we institute ... and a whole lot of other stuff.
We were 19 when we started those discussions. We were ignorant of a lot of it. Our plans did not, in many cases, long survive contact with reality. Echoing what mdijon has said, child-rearing in particular revealed some real differences of attitudes and values that no amount of theoretical discussion would have discovered. Still, it helped overall to know where we were both starting from.
We also talked about sex. Being virgins didn't mean that we had no desires, expectations, ideas, fantasies and values. Talking about these was helpful in getting to know one another, and gave us a starting point for actual experience. Reality has been different (less so than for many of the other things we discussed), but having the first year or two's sexual experiences take place pre-marriage would not in fact have shattered any of our illusions about sex.
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
To what end? What will it get me? Or society, for that matter?
Perspective. And you never know, that might inform some choices you or society have to make better than habit and instinct.
(I also feel that it is mildly absurd that I have to defend this. If nothing else, in the West we are right in the middle of a major revolution of "marriage" carried out in the name of a specific perspective on how society should function. Not that I agree with that perspective, of course. But it should be obvious from this to the opposing party that they cannot deny the very approach that they are currently employing, just because others might point it into a different direction...)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
Since his partner in your example is merely 'tired of' complying with his requirements (rather than finding them impossible or deeply distasteful) there's no inherent need for either of them to be perpetually frustrated: both might have to accept that on any given night, what they do will be more enjoyable for one than the other, but if it's the same person being catered for every single time, it's a case of selfishness rather than incompatibility. The couple are capable of having, if not the best sex imaginable (which might well involve more closely shared tastes), at least a sex life that they both get something out of. One of them is simply choosing not to do that.
Exactly. And that's why learning those sorts of things about your partner is what's most important. All those sexual variables you're testing out premaritally can and most likely will change. If your relationship is based on the assumption that we're always going to have sex X number of times per week, and it will always be like Y using Z position, you're apt to be disappointed because all sorts of things can intervene to change that. But if you're expectation is that we will come together with generosity, humor, playfulness, compassion and respect, well, then, anything is possible.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
3) If the choice is to work through it, I'd rather do that with someone I am committed to staying with, and who is committed to me, rather than in an atmosphere of mutual evaluation.
4) Getting the opportunity to break up with them doesn't seem like much of a bonus to me. Frankly, I find the idea of dumping someone I love because they don't reach a standard of sexual competency to be odious. Doing it after actually having sex with them (and making the implicit promise that would involve for me) would be a betrayal of values I hold to deeply. I'd rather never have sex again than be that guy.
.
This.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
If one is to rule out 'dumping someone' because of sexual incompetence or incompatibility, this presumably also applies to married couples as well, doesn't it?
I mean, it's not just an argument against premarital sex, but against divorce, as far as I can see.
Well, fair enough, but I am finding the problem with this thread is that 'premarital sex' covers a huge spectrum, from a one-night stand by 17 year olds, to middle-aged couples, who have been together for 30 years, have kids, but have never married.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If one is to rule out 'dumping someone' because of sexual incompetence or incompatibility, this presumably also applies to married couples as well, doesn't it?
I mean, it's not just an argument against premarital sex, but against divorce, as far as I can see.
I know from personal experience that people divorce for a whole lotta reasons, and that "sexual incompatibility" does not hit even the top 10. So, no.
It is, however, an argument against ending a viable, loving relationship frivolously. Which is not to say that sex isn't important in a relationship-- it is. But rather that most sexual "incompatibilities" can be resolved with grace, compassion, flexibility (hmmm) and generosity.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, even more importantly, as discussed before, all of those sexual preferences are going to change over time-- so whatever "compatibility" there is before the marriage is irrelevant.
Sure, if you wait long enough, the guy who wants to be tied up and spanked isn't going to be able to get it up because he's too old or has prostrate problems or whatever. In the meantime, you could spend 20 or 30 or more years waiting for that to happen.
Yes. As in, "this impotency problem is frustrating as hell. But I remember 20 years ago when I was pregnant and bloated and felt about as sexy as a dishrag. I remember how kind and compassionate he was then. I remember how we worked around my low libido and awkward physique. So, yeah, we'll make this work too."
No, as in "thank goodness he's finally impotent because I was really, really tired of dealing with the spanking thing."
Yes, I understood that's what you're implying. But my point was that anyone is going into a relationship under the illusion they are the only one who will be making accommodations-- sexually or otherwise-- they are sadly mistaken. The fault of the inevitable marital breakdown, then, is not the "sexual incompatibility" but rather the lack of generosity, grace, and compassion we are advocating.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
My issue with the wait until marriage crowd is false expectation and misrepresentation.
Sex before marriage is not "try before you buy", it is living your life. Waiting or not is a choice, not a judgement. It is a choice that one should make realistically, not gazing through an ideological veil. Not pure pragmatism either, no. Romance is one ingredient, not the whole recipe.
ETA: It should be clear from my exchange with mousethief that I do not believe sex before marriage is the right answer either. There is no inherent right answer.
[ 28. December 2014, 15:35: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My issue with the wait until marriage crowd is false expectation and misrepresentation.
Sex before marriage is not "try before you buy", it is living your life. Waiting or not is a choice, not a judgement. It is a choice that one should make realistically, not gazing through an ideological veil. Not pure pragmatism either, no. Romance is one ingredient, not the whole recipe.
ETA: It should be clear from my exchange with mousethief that I do not believe sex before marriage is the right answer either. There is no inherent right answer.
A very good point. I suppose this is part of the shift in sensibility in the post-war era, at least in England; I'm not sure what name it has - is it relativism? Or maybe pluralism.
If you (impersonal) want to abstain from sex before marriage, go ahead, but please don't advise me what's best for me.
I also agree that 'try before you buy' is something of a simplistic caricature.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
My issue with the wait until marriage crowd is false expectation and misrepresentation.
Sex before marriage is not "try before you buy", it is living your life. Waiting or not is a choice, not a judgement.
I don't know if you are responding to the purity culture that everyone here is united in denouncing, or to something said here. But let me clarify: those of us who have talked about premarital "try before you buy" have been responding specifically to a repeated suggestion that it was important-- in fact, one poster specifically said it was irresponsible not to-- have a premarital evaluation of your-- their words "sexual compatibility". That IS "try before you buy."
I and others who have responded to that (IMHO deeply offensive and sexist) suggestion have also indicated that there are all sorts of reasons why couples engage in premarital intimacy, most of which are very much as you describe-- just "living your life", and yes, a choice-- one the majority of couples make. It is specifically the advocation of a premarital "compatibility evaluation" that we are responding to.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If you (impersonal) want to abstain from sex before marriage, go ahead, but please don't advise me what's best for me.
I think everyone here agrees. Indeed, it is the pro-premarital sex camp here that is claiming chastity as "irresponsible."
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I also agree that 'try before you buy' is something of a simplistic caricature.
Not when it is specifically advocated as a premarital evaluation of "sexual compatibility."
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
An article on this subject:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/should-the-duggar-girls-fuckfirst/Content?oid=20951878
(Apologies if this isn't in the right format, I am on a travel computer.)
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Yet people like the Duggars are rare, so unusual that TV audiences are willing to watch them with interest. What's much more common these days are young men like these.
The old joke used to be, "I have to marry a virgin. I can't stand criticism." Evidently, with many young men today, it's more, he has to marry a porn star because he can't perform with an amateur.
Maybe the world some of us are picturing with virgins, or not virgins, on the wedding night doesn't even exist much anymore. Just sad young couples trying to re-enact the things they've been watching on screens since they were fourteen.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't know if you are responding to the purity culture that everyone here is united in denouncing, or to something said here.
Kinda both.
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Yet people like the Duggars are rare,
The Duggars are freaks. I am not a massive fan of preachy fundamentalism of any kind, especially not one that is harmful to women.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But let me clarify: those of us who have talked about premarital "try before you buy" have been responding specifically to a repeated suggestion that it was important-- in fact, one poster specifically said it was irresponsible not to-- have a premarital evaluation of your-- their words "sexual compatibility". That IS "try before you buy."
Talk about offensive!
What experiences do you think are important for a couple to share before marrying? And how is saying those things are important different from saying sharing sex is important? Also you still need to go look up 'commodity' and show how it applies if you're going to continue to make this kind of accusation.
quote:
It is specifically the advocation of a premarital "compatibility evaluation" that we are responding to.
This is your caricature, not what we are saying. Re-phrasing to make it sound bad is not a strong argument for your point of view.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
Yeah. Are you actually familiar with any examples (historical or otherwise) of societies that have been as strong on male virginity as they have on female virginity? Personally, I'm struggling to come up with one.
I rather think that that is the way that we are called by God to behave. I will agree that we have not been notably successful at doing that, but don't see that as an excuse.
I will also note that, until very recently, the effects of pre-marital sex were rather more noticeable in the female than in the male. Which means that if you have any kind of external policing of the command to keep chaste, it's much easier to cheat as a man than as a woman.
In these days of reliable contraception, that's no longer true.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
ISTM that some people are saying that if you (gen.) really love each other enough, and keep doing that, everything will be ok. Differences that are known before marriage can/will be worked through, as can/will anything else that comes up.
Is that what you really mean???
While those might be good goals for some people, they're *goals*. ISTM that if you don't take into account what you know about the other person AND about yourself, you're asking for trouble. Kind of like someone who's 7' tall, buys a house knowing it has low ceilings, and figures it will all work out.
Getting out of the contract might be difficult. Getting out of a marriage contract would probably be easier; but if you take the apparent view of several posters here that divorce should be avoided...
I'm not necessarily saying "try before you buy". But you're entering into a contract, and ISTM you should take at least as much care in making your decisions as you would in buying a car or a house.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
ISTM that some people are saying that if you (gen.) really love each other enough, and keep doing that, everything will be ok.
Love is an intangible, love is not a constant. Love isn't enough.*
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Differences that are known before marriage can/will be worked through, as can/will anything else that comes up.
You should enter a relationship knowing that you and your partner will change, knowing that the work is never done, it is not ever a finished process.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm not necessarily saying "try before you buy".
Can we please drop this analogy? It is inaccurate.
*Hell, it is not even required. Though I do think it should be present.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
I'm not necessarily saying "try before you buy".
Can we please drop this analogy? It is inaccurate.
I have often heard (although not on this thread) the claim that people should have sex with their partners before marriage, because otherwise they might find themselves shackled to someone they weren't "sexually compatible" with, and that would be a disaster.
That attitude is precisely try before you buy.
The idea that sex need not be confined to marriage, but may be freely explored within any loving relationship, or indeed enjoyed as sport between friends, or even as a purely commercial transaction - isn't the same, and it would indeed be inaccurate to call these "try before you buy."
[ 29. December 2014, 06:13: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
lilBuddha--
I only used that analogy because I was addressing the people who insisted that it was accurate.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
LC,
"Sexual compatibility" is almost as problematic as the notion that the "right" person will make sex automatically special.
GK,
Sorry, just not in a mood to pander to either side. Not yelling at you, though.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
"Sexual compatibility" is almost as problematic as the notion that the "right" person will make sex automatically special.
Both notions are nonsense, I agree.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If you (impersonal) want to abstain from sex before marriage, go ahead, but please don't advise me what's best for me.
I think everyone here agrees. Indeed, it is the pro-premarital sex camp here that is claiming chastity as "irresponsible."
Well, I used the phrase 'you (impersonal)' to indicate that I wasn't referring to you or anybody else here.
But surely many churches have traditionally said that sex belongs in marriage; or sex outside marriage is wrong, sinful, and so on.
I think that the Church of England is now tolerant of premarital sex; it would be interesting to trace this development, and whether it has been led by secular opinion or not.
But I would think that many evangelicals (especially in the US), see sex outside marriage as a no-no, although maybe young evangelicals see this as more honoured in the breech/breach than the observance.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But let me clarify: those of us who have talked about premarital "try before you buy" have been responding specifically to a repeated suggestion that it was important-- in fact, one poster specifically said it was irresponsible not to-- have a premarital evaluation of your-- their words "sexual compatibility". That IS "try before you buy."
Talk about offensive!
What experiences do you think are important for a couple to share before marrying? And how is saying those things are important different from saying sharing sex is important? Also you still need to go look up 'commodity' and show how it applies if you're going to continue to make this kind of accusation.
I can't speak for cliffdweller, but my similar views were expressed as a response to L'organist's explicit argument that it is "irresponsible" not to have sex before marriage. That seems to me to be a highly objectionable view, but, unless I missed something, no one other than L'organist has argued for it. My response (and I think cliffdweller's) was not a general reply to everyone who's OK with pre-marital sex, but only to the one poster who appears to think it a positive moral duty to evaluate one's partner's competence and compatibility in that area before formally committing to them.
I'm pretty relaxed about the fact that most people have sex before marriage. I think I can defend my contrary position on good grounds, but the important thing for me is that it was an expression of my own values and choices. I'd recommend my values to anyone - I've no interest at all in imposing them.
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
ISTM that some people are saying that if you (gen.) really love each other enough, and keep doing that, everything will be ok. Differences that are known before marriage can/will be worked through, as can/will anything else that comes up.
Is that what you really mean???
I'm not sure if that's a view being attributed to me, but if so:
In relation to sexual compatibility specifically, I think cases where a couple starting with a minimum of affection and mutual attraction are inevitably and unavoidably doomed to utter frustration will be rare. "Love" (understood as a quality encompassing generosity, selflessness, compassion, empathy, patience and consideration) ought to make MOST situations at least tolerable.
RuthW's example of one partner having a desire that the other does not share is not a problem that "love" can completely overcome - no matter how much the couple love each other, one of them can't get aroused by something that for the other represents ideal sex. "Love" probably isn't going to bring about a fundamental change of sexual taste. But "love" would be enough for them to decide that sometimes they will cooperate in meeting one person's needs, and sometimes it will be all about the other. "Love" would help them to find a compromise they can both live with. "Love" would mean that neither of them would be satisfied with a sex life that leaves the other completely cold.
I'm not saying that the problem would disappear if the couple only loved a bit more - I'm saying that if they love each other, the discovery that one has a kink that the other does not share will not inevitably break their relationship. They could still be happy together.
Also we're talking about specifically about marriage - and marriage in the Christian tradition. As I understand it, Christian marriage is not only "for better or for worse" but also has both sexual generosity and self-sacrificing love as key principles. Part of what we sign up for is to make at least some effort to give our spouses sexual pleasure. Another part of what we agree to is to stick to the committment despite difficulties or unhappiness.
There is (in my view, anyway) a real argument about what is enough to break a marriage entered into on those principles (I'm not saying that a Christian is morally bound to endure violence and betrayal from their spouse, for example) but on no view do I regard ordinary obstacles to sexual happiness as being sufficient to release me from a commitment willingly undertaken. That's a risk I took freely. Keeping sex for marriage was and is a sign of that commitment.
Mutual "love", in the sense described above, certainly won't make all my problems disappear, and may not even be enough to make me reasonably happy in my marriage, but it ought to be enough to make it possible for ordinary human fortitude to keep me true to my vows.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The reference to 'premarital' would misapplied to one half of the population as previously noted. Half of people are in non-trad families and relationships. Nonmarital also doesn't describe it. How shall these people be considered?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
When I was a teen, I read some book on Christian dating and marriage. Was by a counselor or minister. Anyway, he talked about counseling couples who were utterly wrong for each other.
He then said, "It's not enough to marry a Christian--you have to marry the *right* Christian".
Much of what's been posted here sounds like anyone can marry anyone, as long as they love each other. And that ignores whether they're well matched or not. Not just in the bedroom, but in every aspect of life together.
Neither being in love nor committing to "sacrificial love" means that two people *should* be together.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The reference to 'premarital' would misapplied to one half of the population as previously noted. Half of people are in non-trad families and relationships. Nonmarital also doesn't describe it. How shall these people be considered?
Considered to what end? I would expect that we could all agree that people who are in sexual relationships and whose values would not incline them to marry can't very well be expected to postpone sex until marriage. It's only when someone accepts an ethic in which marriage is (at least) the end to which sexual relationships ought to lead that the sex-before-marriage question begins to apply at all.
Have I misunderstood your point here?
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Much of what's been posted here sounds like anyone can marry anyone, as long as they love each other.
Possibly, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Obviously there have been and are cultures in which marriage partners are not chosen, and anyone might well end up married to anyone. Christian morality is indeed wide enough to specify rights and duties in such cases. If both partners are trying to love the other as much as they can, then yes, I think that can overcome all sorts of problems arising from differences in temperament. It won't magic away those problems. It doesn't mean that such a couple will be (or even could be) as happy as a couple who were as loving, but better matched.
I'm all for using discretion in deciding on a marriage partner, but it seems to me that once you've used that discretion, and made the choice, the ethic of marriage is that you are then committed to doing your best to make that work. Even if you made a bad choice. That's what the promises mean.
It's what I meant when I got married. I was consciously and deliberately saying that I would stick with this particular person and try to love her, whatever happens next. I was definitely promising this knowing that it might make me miserable. That is the commitment that I wanted to make.
I get that there are people who don't want to promise that, and therefore (in my view) they shouldn't have to promise that. I'm not making rules for those people. I'm saying what my marriage vows and values (which I take to me traditional Christian ones) mean to me, and arguing that 'no sex before marriage' is a good fit with those values in that context.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I'm all for using discretion in deciding on a marriage partner, but it seems to me that once you've used that discretion, and made the choice, the ethic of marriage is that you are then committed to doing your best to make that work. Even if you made a bad choice. That's what the promises mean.
To a point. Even the best of long-term relationships rarely unfold in quite the manner envisioned. But why would you want to keep a person you loved in a relationship that has turned bad? Why would anyone think God would?
Too many marriages end when the path becomes a little rocky, I agree. But when it wanders over a cliff, time to change paths.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get that there are people who don't want to promise that, and therefore (in my view) they shouldn't have to promise that. I'm not making rules for those people. I'm saying what my marriage vows and values (which I take to me traditional Christian ones) mean to me, and arguing that 'no sex before marriage' is a good fit with those values in that context.
I mean no judgement on the choice you and you partner made. But I do have a problem with associating abstinence before marriage as a higher level of commitment than other choices. It is as easy to argue that it is a blind choice, part of a pattern that risks a rocky marriage. It is not that I think sex before marriage will eliminate problems, but that the attitude that abstinence is a superior choice will more likely engender them. As is the proposition that good sex is a good indicator of a good relationship.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But why would you want to keep a person you loved in a relationship that has turned bad?
I would say that relationships do not simply turn bad like the weather or some other uncontrollable event. The relationship is a label thrown around the way two individuals treat each other. If the two individuals decide to treat each other well then any relationship can be rescued.
If one partner no longer wants to be married no matter what then that situation cannot be rescued as a result of their decision. But if both want to be married and work through the issues I don't believe that anything is insurmountable.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If one partner no longer wants to be married no matter what then that situation cannot be rescued as a result of their decision. But if both want to be married and work through the issues I don't believe that anything is insurmountable.
I tend to shy away from superlatives. But I would agree that many things can be worked through. But if the relationship has too much to work through, what is the point? A good hike is hills, flats and valleys, not uphill both directions all the time.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think my point is that the decision of both partners is what creates the hills/valleys etc. Hills can stop being hills very rapidly if both partners agree to compromise.
While facing a hill it is very difficult to retain insight into who is unwilling to compromise. I remember tclune quoting advice to the effect that if you both compromised to the extent of moving 90% of the way to the other's position you would probably meet somewhere in the middle.
Sooner or later any partnership will create a hill and if neither side compromises it will become a mountain.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Alright, analogies suck.
I think there are situations in which there is no point maintaining a relationship and saying it can always be worked out if you just both want to is unrealistic and far too simplistic.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
I think it depends what "want to work it out" means for each party. If it means provided I can keep x y or z then I agree. If on the other hand it means no matter what I might have to do or sacrifice then I think it is almost a tautology to say that if both partners think like that the relationship can be sorted out.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I would expect that we could all agree that people who are in sexual relationships and whose values would not incline them to marry can't very well be expected to postpone sex until marriage. It's only when someone accepts an ethic in which marriage is (at least) the end to which sexual relationships ought to lead that the sex-before-marriage question begins to apply at all.
Almost all the young people I know (in their 20s and 30s) live together until they decide to have children. Then they marry and have their children soon after. The marriage seems to be a commitment to the kids as much as to each other.
A good way to go about things imo.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But why would you want to keep a person you loved in a relationship that has turned bad? Why would anyone think God would?
Well, firstly, as I think mdijon is saying, "love" would tend to imply a desire to improve a bad relationship, and to make sacrifices in order to achieve this, rather than merely maintain both parties in misery. Love should be working towards mutual happiness, even if that isn't always a necessary consequence of love (as I think we are agreed it isn't).
But with that important point made, I think there are reasons to maintain a relationship that's gone bad.
1) Personal honour and ethics. It's a good thing to keep one's word. It's a good thing quite apart from any utilitarian considerations.
2) Utilitarianism. Quite apart from considerations of honour, I also believe that a permanent, committed, secure marriage is more likely to make me happy than anything else. And I know that to get that, I'll have to go through some times when things are bad (or, at least, less good) and still stay committed. I also know that I can't always trust my judgment in tems of misery and despair. So as a pragmatic measure, if I am to hold on when there is in fact still hope, that may be when the hope is there, but I can't see it. I might fail, but the advantages of a successful, life-long marriage seem to me to be sufficiently preferable to any alternative that its worth investing in to the hilt.
3) The social aspect. This is what IngoB's arguing for. I hold that committed marriage is good for society - good for men, good for women, good for Christians, good for non-Christians, good for straights, good for (here I may differ from IngoB) gays - a net generator of happiness to the human race. There's a reason why we dance at weddings. It's that love and sworn committment answer a deep need in the human soul, and when the enterprise is seriously undertaken its worth celebrating. So I have an obligation to try to make my own marriage work. Even if I am (as I may well be) one of the casualties in the struggle to make marriage work, I can still say that the cause is good, and worth living for.
4) Children. A special instance, and the most important one, of the social aspect generally. I can be a direct example to my children of love and commitment, because therein is their best chance of natural happiness. I can still try to be that even if my own marriage is failing.
Why would God want that? For all those same reasons. I actually think that the ideal of marriage that I believe in is fully defensible without any appeal to God, although I also think that the Christian tradition mandates it. I learned about marital committment from Christians, but I think they were right to teach it even if they were mistaken in their Christianity.
Believing in God strengthens the position - because God will vindicate the faithful husband or wife's commitment even if they fail to achieve any happiness in this life by their fidelity. God makes it not quite so much a desperate gamble to get married. But the principle's the same. It's still a good thing to keep promises.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do have a problem with associating abstinence before marriage as a higher level of commitment than other choices.
I don't make that claim. I'm sure there are many better husbands than me who never thought to remain chaste before marriage.
What I'm claiming is that keeping sex for marriage is a good fit with, and a good expression of, a high level of commitment. That's all. Clearly you can have commitment without that rule, hell, I know some very highly committed polyamorists.
I also think it's a Christian commandment, but not everyone's a Christian, and not every Christian agrees.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A good way to go about things imo.
Better than many of the alternatives, certainly.
But if you accept the premises that marriage and children are a 'good fit', and that it is appropriate to make that marriage commitment before having children, you are most of the way to understanding my position. It makes sense to say "I want to be married before I have children", because raising children benefits from taking seriously the sort of solemn promises made in marriage. I agree. I also think that having sex and living together fit well with marriage. I didn't want to have sex before I had that commitment in place, just like the people you know didn't want to start a family without marriage.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Eliab,
1. It it honourable to keep one's promises even when it is detrimental to oneself. It is dishonourable to keep one's word when it is detrimental to another.
2. & 3. A strong, committed relationship is a boon to society, I agree. And also concur that marriage, as a label, still has a connotation of permanence that exceeds not married.
That said, I think a poor marriage, a "we are staying together for the kids", we are staying together because God tells us to" or because "I said I would and so I shall" are detrimental to marriage and society.
4. For the children. Utterly fucked up reason.* It is very difficult to be a loving, reasonable parent whilst involved in a bad relationship. And the message you send to them by doing so may not be the one you intend.
Staying the course through the difficult bits of a journey is commendable.
But there There is no honour in a journey where suffering is the main experience.
*You are an very reasonable poster and appear to be a good person, so I wanted to phrase this more gently. But I think it needs that impact.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
4. For the children. Utterly fucked up reason.* It is very difficult to be a loving, reasonable parent whilst involved in a bad relationship. And the message you send to them by doing so may not be the one you intend.
I would tend to agree with Eliab. A divorce/separation can, and often does, have a huge detrimental impact on the children, even if only something like money is taken into account. Plunging your family into poverty because your marriage is crap is a bit of a two-edged sword - and who are the grown-ups here?
I've seen/been both sides of this. Of mothers of young children suddenly abandoned by their husbands who have taken their wage with them - yes, left them with a house they can't afford to keep, and have been the child in a family where the parents had repeated, horrendous rows throughout, but stayed together.
Yes. Very difficult to be a loving parent in both situations. But not impossible.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Eliab,
1. It it honourable to keep one's promises even when it is detrimental to oneself. It is dishonourable to keep one's word when it is detrimental to another.
You act like the decision to keep a marriage going is only made by one partner. If the other spouse finds the marriage detrimental, THEY can break it off. Thinking that it would be one partner's duty and not depend at all on the other partner seems to me to be infantalizing.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Doc Tor,
We can worst case/best case anecdote each other to death.
My point is that staying together is not inherently better. If the children were thought of more, whatever solution sought would be better than they often are.
mousethief,
That is not at all what I am saying. My point is that I feel the concept of honour is misused in this situation.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Doc Tor,
We can worst case/best case anecdote each other to death.
My point is that staying together is not inherently better. If the children were thought of more, whatever solution sought would be better than they often are.
Yes, of course we can anecdote until the cows come home. However, without holding up individual data points as exemplars, a broader "we have children for whom divorce would be enormously disruptive" approach seems to me a good thing.
A pair of grown-ups sacrificing their personal autonomy for the sake of their minor children sets, to my mind, a better example than many of the alternatives.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Couples who split but remain amicable and do their level best for their children seem a pretty good example to me.
It is not using the children as weapons or considering them as collateral damage that is important. Parents maintaining stability whatever the arraignment is the key.
It is situational and neither remaining together or separating is inherently better. The social stigma placed on children of divorced or non-married parents had been a very damaging thing. Losing that notion is naught but good.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is situational and neither remaining together or separating is inherently better.
As we were arguing on the Ferguson thread, you cannot take individual cases in isolation and see the broad statistical picture.
The Joseph Rowtree Foundation have done a meta-survey of the literature, and unfortunately, couples separating provides statistically significant worse outcomes for the children concerned.
Given that, of course there are certainly situations where divorce is better for children. But, statistically, there are more cases where it is worse.
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on
:
There may of course be some selection bias there in than families where the parents separated are probably on average families with worse problems than those who stayed together.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
There may of course be some selection bias there in than families where the parents separated are probably on average families with worse problems than those who stayed together.
It appears from the summary at Doc Tor's link that the comparison is between "separated or divorced" families and all "intact" families; presumably the latter group includes all families in which divorce or separation was never seriously considered as a possibility.
This makes the higher incidence of problems associated with divorce less compelling; it doesn't really matter to a couple facing such a decision that people not facing crises have good outcomes.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I'll take time to read the study, Doc Tor, but offhand I think Gwai has the right of it. At least in part.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm not posting stuff to score points or anything crass like that. And I genuinely wish that divorcing or separating parents first and last thought was for the welfare of their children, and that nothing untoward was going to happen to them because of the unhappiness of the adults' relationship breakdown.
But it genuinely looks like parting is more likely to have a poor impact on the children than a good outcome. I can't change that.
Now, whether it follows that "staying together for the sake of the kids", and the troubles that situation can bring, is better than divorce? That's going to be arguable.
Posted by saysay (# 6645) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Couples who split but remain amicable and do their level best for their children seem a pretty good example to me.
And yet in many cases, the couples who should split cannot remain amicable in their marriage, much less after it ends.
quote:
It is not using the children as weapons or considering them as collateral damage that is important. Parents maintaining stability whatever the arraignment is the key.
And how often does a divorcing couple not use the children as weapons? And continue to do so? I'm sure it happens, so everyone who has been through a divorce need not post. I'm just not sure how common it is as every child of divorce I know has at some point complained about wanting to stop being used as a pawn (even if it's only one parent doing it out of revenge or an unwillingness to let their ex have their way - likely the thing that led to the divorce in the first place).
quote:
It is situational and neither remaining together or separating is inherently better. The social stigma placed on children of divorced or non-married parents had been a very damaging thing. Losing that notion is naught but good.
I disagree that losing the notion that divorce is bad is naught but good. (I'm a child of divorce, and the first time I moved to an area with a large number of Catholics I kept asking people "wait, but your parents are married? To each other? in disbelief).
While I agree that are situations when a divorce is necessary, I've known far too many people who have hit a bump in the road or feel some vague dissatisfaction who have gotten divorced with no real understanding of how hard it is going to be either for them or their children.
I think most Americans view of marriage needs some serious revision, but I don't really think most people's stigmatization (or the lack thereof) of divorce needs much revision.
Of course, I have also have no idea why anyone would wage a campaign to "stop staying pure until marriage" as most people I know don't talk in those terms and I occasionally hang out in some fundie circles (not the types who have purity balls, but the types who expect you to save sexual intercourse for marriage).
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But it genuinely looks like parting is more likely to have a poor impact on the children than a good outcome.
Not according to your link, which says that "long-term adverse outcomes typically apply only to a minority of children experiencing the separation of their parents" and that even in the case of adverse outcomes, "it cannot be assumed that parental separation is their underlying cause."
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Couples who split but remain amicable and do their level best for their children seem a pretty good example to me.
And yet in many cases, the couples who should split cannot remain amicable in their marriage, much less after it ends.
Then the children are fucked regardless. But that bit you quoted was a counter example to one Doc Tor gave, not a statement of what all splits are like.
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
I disagree that losing the notion that divorce is bad is naught but good.
But I did not say that. I said the stigma especially for the children, is bad.
Divorce is an ending. Sometimes it is merely the recognition of something that should never have been, sometimes it is cutting off a gangrenous mass before it does more harm to the body.
I do not think the necessity of divorce is a good thing, but the availability is.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do not think the necessity of divorce is a good thing, but the availability is.
I agree with this. Sometimes it's the least bad option moving forward.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Couples who split but remain amicable and do their level best for their children seem a pretty good example to me.
And yet in many cases, the couples who should split cannot remain amicable in their marriage, much less after it ends.
But at least the kids won't have their parents fighting face to face, day and night, if their parents split.
[ 31. December 2014, 04:57: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Arminian (# 16607) on
:
I don't think King David is a good example of backing that theology. He had at least six wives that used to be Saul's which were given to him by God, and only got into trouble when he committed adultery (which under Mosaic law is taking another man's wife). Polygamy was ordained in Mosaic law as a valid form of marriage.
Most of the obsessive puritanical theology in the protestant church falls to bits when you realize God allowed polygamy, failed to condemn lesbianism in the OT, and that adultery in the OT is only concerning taking another's wife.
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
1. It it honourable to keep one's promises even when it is detrimental to oneself. It is dishonourable to keep one's word when it is detrimental to another.
Granted that (since I don't necessarily agree in all circumstances) my point is made strictly in the context of someone who is doing their level best to be loving, and therefore not detrimental to their partner. Further, as mousethief says, the other person has the right to end the relationship too, and if they decide not to, it seems odd to suppose I should know their interests better than they do.
There might be circumstances in which I am so toxic a partner that, knowing that my wife will not divorce me, but that her life would be immeasurably better if she did, I really ought to leave - I'm not ruling that out as a concept - but that situation is going to be very rare indeed. The chance of me kidding myself that my selfish choices are "in her best interests, really" seems several orders of magnitude higher, TBH.
quote:
2. & 3. A strong, committed relationship is a boon to society, I agree. And also concur that marriage, as a label, still has a connotation of permanence that exceeds not married.
That said, I think a poor marriage, a "we are staying together for the kids", we are staying together because God tells us to" or because "I said I would and so I shall" are detrimental to marriage and society.
Here I disagree. I disagree because the commitment that makes marriage work, that makes it stable and beneficial, has to be, at least to some degree, an over-commitment. You can't be sufficiently committed to a marriage such that it will survive all that is humanly survivable, UNLESS you hold on beyond the point where you can't see any hope. The reason is that in cases of desperate unhappiness and extreme temptation, the sign above the exit door WILL look like the only visible light you can see, and every other choice will look as bleak as all Hell. Even if there is still hope, still something capable of being saved, it won't look that way on the worst days. If you want a marriage that can survive desperate unhappiness and extreme temptation, and be re-built from that, then you need some principle that keeps you at your post when reasoned self-interest is telling you to quit.
Clarification to avoid possible misunderstandings: There are things that no one should be asked to endure - domestic violence tops my list - but those are, generally, things that happen when one person has given up on being a good partner altogether, rather than being cases of "the relationship" raking a bad turn. The habitual abuser or cheat has, essentially, already declined the role of husband or wife, as much as if they had already walked out. We're not talking about those cases, but of marriages where both parties retain substantial good will, but are nonetheless making each other deeply unhappy.
quote:
4. For the children. Utterly fucked up reason.* It is very difficult to be a loving, reasonable parent whilst involved in a bad relationship. And the message you send to them by doing so may not be the one you intend.
No, not fucked up at all. Again the condition on which I am arguing any of this is that of a loving desire to improve the relationship - the intention is not to just to "stay in" an unhappy home for their sake, but to make the home happier for their sake. That's worth trying for.
Of course I might fail at that. The point may be reached where it is better for them that their parents separate. I would still say that it is important to have tried. The children (who often, but not always, see and understand more than adults suspect) should at least have seen their parents try before they see them fail.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
1. It it honourable to keep one's promises even when it is detrimental to oneself. It is dishonourable to keep one's word when it is detrimental to another.
Granted that (since I don't necessarily agree in all circumstances) my point is made strictly in the context of someone who is doing their level best to be loving, and therefore not detrimental to their partner.
I do differ with you here. Trying is not accomplishing, intent does not automatically negate result. Not that I do not see the value of trying and trying earnestly, but ISTM one can reach a point where there is no point.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I disagree because the commitment that makes marriage work, that makes it stable and beneficial, has to be, at least to some degree, an over-commitment. You can't be sufficiently committed to a marriage such that it will survive all that is humanly survivable, UNLESS you hold on beyond the point where you can't see any hope. The reason is that in cases of desperate unhappiness and extreme temptation, the sign above the exit door WILL look like the only visible light you can see, and every other choice will look as bleak as all Hell.
Good gods, no. With as much respect as I can muster, no. All close, long-term relationships will have good and bad, some will have very bad. But none should be this extreme. The balance of a marriage should be well in the positive or what is the point?
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
the intention is not to just to "stay in" an unhappy home for their sake, but to make the home happier for their sake. That's worth trying for.
Of course I might fail at that. The point may be reached where it is better for them that their parents separate. I would still say that it is important to have tried.
I agree that trying is important. But if you are the type of people to consider your children's welfare before your own, this should persist in seperation as well.
[code]
[ 01. January 2015, 19:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Another issue here is that people's toleration of misery varies a lot. Then it seems very difficult to me to say to someone, that they quit too soon, when there was still some unhappiness to be wrung out of that marriage.
I am thinking of people that I know who had become pretty miserable, and then, there seems to be no alternative.
Possibly, there has also been some kind of compensation effect here - I mean that older generations did hang on, partly because there was little alternative, especially for the woman. So I wonder if today couples may think, sod that for a lark, bye bye.
[ 02. January 2015, 15:05: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
It seems to me that any discussion of changing attitudes to marriage and divorce needs to take account of the paradigm shift in the dominant view in society of an individual's purpose. It is now commonly agreed that an individual's principle purpose is to pursue his/her own personal happiness. When applied to marriage this principle leads to the focus being placed on the extent to which the marriage unit serves the individual rather than the extent to which the individual serves the marriage unit. This seems upside down to me. In order for a marriage to succeed both individuals must be serving the unit (or arch) if one or both are not the unit will fail. If people believe that the unit must serve them it will decline and this is in fact what we have seen (not only in marriage but also in churches and trade unions for example which have both declined). The decline of marriage will only be reversed IMO if there is a paradigm shift away from individualism.
[ 03. January 2015, 11:31: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I think Hallmark have found a new writer.
I think looking at marriage a "serving a purpose" is seriously wrong.
Marriage is a commitment and contract between partners. IMO, love and affection should be part of that.
There should be no commitment to the institution, but to each other, but this does not preclude ones own happiness. That is part of the relationship, not apart from it.
I would agree that excessive focus on self mars and ends relationships that could well bloom otherwise. The positive aspect of self is not being trapped in a loveless or abusive relationship.
Edited for emphasis.
[ 03. January 2015, 15:31: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think Hallmark have found a new writer.
I think looking at marriage a "serving a purpose" is seriously wrong. Marriage is a commitment and contract between partners. IMO, love and affection should be part of that. There should be no commitment to the institution, but to each other, but this does not preclude ones own happiness. That is part of the relationship, not apart from it.
I would agree that excessive focus on self mars and ends relationships that could well bloom otherwise. The positive aspect of self is not being trapped in a loveless or abusive relationship.
This is a very new (like, by-and-large since the advent of readily-available birth control) understanding of marriage. Marriage, or the functional equivalent when peasants didn't marry per se, has always been about serving a purpose. Stability, security, mutual aid, partnership for keeping the farm going and raising kids, etc., etc., etc. -- these things have been the purpose of marriage. When we moved from agrarian to urban/industrial, when readily-available birth control came into the scene, these old reasons for getting married became increasingly less important, and the institution became redefined. Love and having one's emotional needs fulfilled came to be the point.
The idea of a matchmaker, or one's parents, choosing one's marriage partner has gone from being the ho-hum way of the world, to being unthinkable and nearly horrific, at least in the industrialized "west." This is a huge shift in society's understanding of marriage. Your description of what marriage is for (however you want to put that) is soaked through-and-through with this new understanding, to where you think the older understanding is "seriously wrong." But it worked for humanity for the vast majority of recorded history. Why is it so wrong now?
[ 03. January 2015, 16:03: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it worked for humanity for the vast majority of recorded history. Why is it so wrong now?
It worked for men for the majority of recorded history. Now, with the advent of reliable birth control, we can make it work for women too.
Hallelujah!
Amen
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
mousethief,
I think you answered at least part of it in your first paragraph.
The "necessities" simply aren't anymore. Society has changed.*
First, and perhaps formost, women aren't property anymore, they are not merely a component of one's status/legacy/estate.
Second, the way in which we track and administrate inheritance and responsibility has changed.
Arraigned marriage, indeed marriage at all, was more important when it mattered to who tilled the field, managed the estate or inherited the title.
Marriage, and it's administration, has been used as a form of control as well. Is that a return we want?
That what was should inform what which is, not rule it.
*Terms, conditions and description vary by location. Please consult your local leaders for your level of oppression.
[ 03. January 2015, 16:36: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it worked for humanity for the vast majority of recorded history. Why is it so wrong now?
It worked for men for the majority of recorded history. Now, with the advent of reliable birth control, we can make it work for women too.
Hallelujah!
Amen
You're saying that women had emotional needs that weren't being met, but men did not? All men had were practical needs? I find this very insulting.
The thing is, nobody expected emotional needs to be met by a marriage partner. Neither men nor women. That wasn't what marrige was for. It may be that women got a raw deal; but it wouldn't necessarily have occurred to anybody they were getting a raw deal, because nobody expected anything better. When our ideas of marriage changed, and people came to expect better, then women could say, "I'm not getting what I need," and indeed when no-fault divorce came along, many women fled emotionally-unfulfilling marriages. But emotional fulfillment has only very recently become something we expect of our marriages.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Double post to say the focus on birth control, though important, is too narrow. ISTM, the reasons for a change in the view of marriage is much broader than that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
So, lilBuddha, you're saying it didn't used to be seriously wrong, but it is now? Because our understanding of marriage has changed?
I'd also add that women being property was probably more the case in the upper classes than the peasantry, where nobody even owned property so the idea of anything being their property, be it a woman or anything else, didn't arise.
ETA:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Double post to say the focus on birth control, though important, is too narrow. ISTM, the reasons for a change in the view of marriage is much broader than that.
True. Women being able to support themselves and their children without being married (sometimes referred to as "women entering the workforce" although that is a little simplistic) is also huge.
[ 03. January 2015, 16:42: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But emotional fulfillment has only very recently become something we expect of our marriages.
And this is a very good thing that we now consider it important.
As far as your response to Boogie re men's emotionsl needs. Yes, men have emotional needs. Society has always been focused on them. Their has always been an outlet for them, not so much for women.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, lilBuddha, you're saying it didn't used to be seriously wrong, but it is now? Because our understanding of marriage has changed?
No. IMO, it was always wrong, but had some practical reasons. Those are now gone.
True, as far as peasants were concerned, there was no property to manage. But marriage, whether it be a paper contract or a social acknowledgement, meant you had a woman to manage your home, prepare your meals and produce help to help you till the fields and take care of you and your duties when you could not. Again, the focus on the man.
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on
:
I am perfectly good with the idea that the purpose and goal of marriage changing. Clearly it has. Just as slavery has changed. It would not be possible to go back to an OT system of slavery. And it is not possible to use an OT marriage system either.
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it worked for humanity for the vast majority of recorded history. Why is it so wrong now?
It worked for men for the majority of recorded history. Now, with the advent of reliable birth control, we can make it work for women too.
Hallelujah!
Amen
You do appreciate that the vast majority (over 90%) of single parents are women? The new attitude towards marriage has left many women in poverty with a far greater burden of childcare than they ever had in the past.
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I think Hallmark have found a new writer.
There should be no commitment to the institution, but to each other, but this does not preclude ones own happiness.
The difficulty is that 'happiness' itself is now defined in individualistic terms. A person cannot, according to modern logic, be happy without a large degree of control over the outcomes that might influence their destiny. This directly conflicts with marriage which must involve surrendering to some extent our own control over our life outcomes.
If we define happiness as 'positive affect' and ignore individual autonomy there can be no doubt that the success of the marriage 'unit' increases this. Divorcees are more likely to suffer from depression than people who never married. By way of contrast people in successful marriages feel more secure and experience greater health.
However, to define happiness purely as positive affect is IMO incorrect. We are by our very nature social beings and it is thus natural that we should pursue collective goals. In view of this happiness in marriage may include autonomy but it is the autonomy of the unit and not of the individual that must prevail in order for happiness to be achieved in marriage. I say this on the basis that happiness is only one legitimate purpose for marriage there being a myriad of other potential purposes, not least of which is God's glory.
[ 03. January 2015, 19:24: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
What period (and where) are we talking about here? I can see some referent in many of the assertions, but I don't think many (any?) were universally true.
There has been no long gradual emancipation of women. Things have gone backwards as well as forwards and change has tended to be stepwise.
(X-posted with Makepeace)
[ 03. January 2015, 19:29: Message edited by: Honest Ron Bacardi ]
Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on
:
(er, Makepiece. Sorry!)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
As far as your response to Boogie re men's emotionsl needs. Yes, men have emotional needs. Society has always been focused on them. Their has always been an outlet for them, not so much for women.
Society has provided for men's needs? All of them? A loveless marriage meets a man's emotional needs but not a woman's? Come on. You can't believe that. And THAT was what I was talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
But marriage, whether it be a paper contract or a social acknowledgement, meant you had a woman to manage your home, prepare your meals and produce help to help you till the fields and take care of you and your duties when you could not. Again, the focus on the man.
Because that's what YOU are focusing on. Marriage meant you had a man to protect you, to keep income coming in from the farm while you were pregnant or nursing, to take care of you when you fell ill. It was of mutual benefit. I find it almost dishonest to pretend otherwise.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
mousethief,
Mutual benefit does not mean equal benefit. Nearly every system has the possibility of some benefit to all parties. This does not make them fair or equitable.
I did not say that society met all of men's emotional needs, just that it has been more focused on theirs than women's. Indeed, a women's needs have been secondary at best.
Makepiece,
Marriage, or any commited relationship, requires will entail the surrender of something from the individual to the relationship. But it should also give back to the individual as well. And the balance to the individuals, and therefore the relationship itself, should be positive. That is what I am saying. I do not accept that your definition of "modern" terms of happiness is necessary.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
mousethief,
Mutual benefit does not mean equal benefit.
Nor did I say so. You said that the benefits were all to the men and none to the women. That is wrong.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Marriage today ain't what it used to be. It used to be that people married in their mid-teens, and most were dead 15 years later. They had fleas**. They shat under the house, in the street, and so did the dogs, chickens, pigs and horses. They had expectation that less than half of the kiddies would survive, and everyone died young. So it wouldn't matter if Romeo and Julliet lived and gotten into marital difficulty, they would have been dead before they sorted it out. Not like with our expanded lifespans.
Yup, it's entirely different now, where we can expect to spend 50 or more years married if we figure out how not to kill each other. A large contrast from times of old. BTW, I'm an advocate for marriage; we're coming up on 35 years. But I don't expect my children to marry until they can make it on their own, which will be 30ish I think. And I certainly don't expect them to be sex-free. Far cry from when we were young when housing, education and all sorts of other things were far far cheaper and affordable given the wages.
Frankly, as much as I like the idea of aspiring to character-building moral fibre sexual abstention, it wasn't within my actual capacity either. I eventually thought perhaps it was moral vanity to make vows above my real level, and that in my soul I thought it might be better to be my authentic sex and pleasure-loving self, which you can label as cognitive dissonance if you want, but the fact remains, it isn't within most of our capacities as Kinsey told us in the late 1950s, before birth control was even legal. I'd had a rough go as a boy and young person, and found significant comfort in the compact universe of joined souls formed with the making of the beast with the two backs*** I see this now as wiser and less needful of any tut-tutting so long as it is mutual, loving and responsible. If you cannot cry together, discuss things with a table between you, you probably shouldn't be frotting your bacon against another's, so yes, there are lines. It isn't free love and eff everyone you might. There is an integrity to it.
** there's poem in the back of my head about how romantic it is to see a flea that has bitten me now bite my love, with the giddy joy at the mixing of lover and loved's blood in it's tummy - who wrote it and what is it? I cannot extricate it amid the snow and ice of my wintry brain.
*** link: Rabelais, ~1532, "Gargantua and Pantagruel, Book I", Chapter 1.III "These two did oftentimes do the two-backed beast together, joyfully rubbing and frotting their bacon 'gainst one another..." We should do the beastly things with joy shouldn't we?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Marriage today ain't what it used to be. It used to be that people married in their mid-teens, and most were dead 15 years later.
A common misunderstanding of life expectancy. The life expectancy wasn't low because everybody died in their 30s. It was low because most infants didn't make it past 2 years. This greatly skews the average. If you made it past 2 years, you could generally plan on living into your 50s or 60s.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
Also marriage in your teens was not standard (at least not in Europe). In most cases people did not marry until the couple could support themselves which meant later marriages (except for nobility/royalty). The lowest median age for first marriage in the US (with records dating back into the 1800s) was in the 1950s (about 20 for women and 22 for men); it was higher earlier.
Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on
:
Anecdote 1: marriage with no experience on either side, in church, lasted 11 years but never truly satisfactory, eventually crumbled into open infidelities, and ended.
Anecdote 2: marriage between experienced partners with no great idea (or at the time intention) of fidelity, immediately and sustainably successful, faithful these 34 years without any question of the marriage failing.
Moral: none.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
mousethief,
Mutual benefit does not mean equal benefit.
Nor did I say so. You said that the benefits were all to the men and none to the women. That is wrong.
I don't think I actually said "all", though one might infer that from what I said. I do stand by the statement that the benefits were well more in favour of men in the vast majority of circumstance.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A common misunderstanding of life expectancy. The life expectancy wasn't low because everybody died in their 30s. It was low because most infants didn't make it past 2 years. This greatly skews the average. If you made it past 2 years, you could generally plan on living into your 50s or 60s.
I generally agree with this point, but think the numbers a little high.
The BBC offer this: quote:
However, by the time the 13th-Century boy had reached 20 he could hope to live to 45, and if he made it to 30 he had a good chance of making it into his fifties.
I would think your higher longevity figures relate more to those of whom we have greater record, the wealthy.
[ 04. January 2015, 05:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I do stand by the statement that the benefits were well more in favour of men in the vast majority of circumstance.
Which is just to say, men ruled the world. And of course still do. Actually to be more accurate rich men rule the world. The rest of us dance on their strings, to greater or lesser extent.
quote:
I would think your higher longevity figures relate more to those of whom we have greater record, the wealthy.
Fair enough. I was pulling a number out of my admittedly-faulty memory.
Posted by Tulfes (# 18000) on
:
The flea poem was by John Donne.
Posted by Gracious rebel (# 3523) on
:
<aside> Anyone else thinking that its threads like this where we particularly miss Ken, with his mine of information and analysis of the history of social institutions like marriage ....? ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
</aside>
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
<aside> Anyone else thinking that its threads like this where we particularly miss Ken, with his mine of information and analysis of the history of social institutions like marriage ....? </aside>
Ken was in his element on this type of topic. A great loss ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by agingjb:
Anecdote 1: marriage with no experience on either side, in church, lasted 11 years but never truly satisfactory, eventually crumbled into open infidelities, and ended.
Anecdote 2: marriage between experienced partners with no great idea (or at the time intention) of fidelity, immediately and sustainably successful, faithful these 34 years without any question of the marriage failing.
Moral: none.
Excellent. I suppose one can draw out moral points from various marriages, including one's own, if one likes, but the danger is imposing them. I take the point that no-one on this thread appears to be doing that, but traditionally the churches did, I think, and still do.
I suppose the C of E has it both ways, on the one hand, by saying that sex should be kept within marriage, and on the other hand, not overtly condemning people who have sex outside it. Well, maybe the evangelical wing do, I'm not sure.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
** there's poem in the back of my head about how romantic it is to see a flea that has bitten me now bite my love, with the giddy joy at the mixing of lover and loved's blood in it's tummy - who wrote it and what is it? I cannot extricate it amid the snow and ice of my wintry brain.
John Donne, "The Flea"
Posted by JoannaP (# 4493) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Marriage today ain't what it used to be. It used to be that people married in their mid-teens, and most were dead 15 years later.
A common misunderstanding of life expectancy. The life expectancy wasn't low because everybody died in their 30s. It was low because most infants didn't make it past 2 years. This greatly skews the average. If you made it past 2 years, you could generally plan on living into your 50s or 60s.
Surely women had to make it thorough childbirth as well as infancy? I don't know the stats but a knowledge of literature from previous centuries and of history suggests that women did tend to die in their 20's or 30's more frequently in the past than now.
Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on
:
This page has numbers for white males and females in Massachusetts in 1850. Life expectancy at birth was 38.3 (m) and 40.5 (f), but it you made it to 10, you could expect to live to 58 (m) or 57.2 (f); if you made it to 20, you could expect to live to 60.1 (m) or 60.2 (f). Women don't regain their initial ~2 year advantage until the age of 40; that may be due to the effects of maternal mortality.
Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on
:
A nearby page has info on median age of first marriage. In 1890 in the US 26.1 for men and 22.0 for women. The age dropped in following years reaching a minimum of 22.8 for men in 1950/1960 and of 20.3 for women at the same time. Age as of 2010 is 28.2 for men and 26.1 for women.
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
All of this quantitative, statistical information can only take you so far. It is also necessary to consider qualitative information. What did those marriages that thrived have that those that didn't lacked?
John and Abigail Adams enjoyed a long and happy marriage in C18 (often noted for their puritan New England roots). Others had long marriages in C18 that were unhappy and adulterous. What is it about the Adamses that made them happy? IMO it was their strong common values. They both shared their faith, a strong work ethic and a belief in American Independence that complemented their republican belief in the independence of citizens. In their case at least the submission of the individual to the broader unit seems to have strengthened their marriage. When the Adamses went to France, to further the American cause, they were shocked by the pleasure seeking extravagance of the French and the lack of commitment in marriage was notable to them. It should be obvious that a commitment to one's immediate personal concerns- to maximise pleasure and to minimise suffering- is fatal to marriage. By way of contrast the Adamses willingness to make sacrifices for their country reflected their desire to make sacrifices for one another. The individual's submission to a greater cause than his/her immediate personal concerns will lead to a successful marriage regardless of the lifespan of the component parts.
Moreover if a longer lifespan is fatal to the existence of a unit, as purported, how could any unit survive? Why has Procter and Gamble lasted and why is it still so extremely successful? If longevitiy is fatal to survival then P&G should have died a long time ago. P&G themselves state that:
'Taken together, our Purpose, Values and Principles are the foundation for P&G’s unique culture. Throughout our history of nearly 175 years, our business has grown and changed while these elements have endured, and will continue to be passed down to generations of P&G people to come.
Our Purpose unifies us in a common cause and growth strategy of improving more consumers’ lives in small but meaningful ways each day. It inspires P&G people to make a positive contribution every day.
Our Values reflect the behaviors that shape the tone of how we work with each other and with our partners.
And Our Principles articulate P&G’s unique approach to conducting work every day.'
Strong, unifying values that transcend the concerns of the component individuals are IMO key to the survival of any unit.
[ 05. January 2015, 19:44: Message edited by: Makepiece ]
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Marriage today ain't what it used to be. It used to be that people married in their mid-teens, and most were dead 15 years later.
No, it didn't.
In the early 17th century in England, life expectancy was 35 years. This is not because most people died in their 30s, but because the infant mortality rate was around 65%. A person who had lived beyond the age of 4 could reasonably expect to survive into his or her late 60s or early 70s.
ETA : Sorry, I crossposted this with mousethief. Also, it seems pretty disingenuous to allude to a statistic and then claim (when shown to be wrong) that statistics aren't the point.
[ 05. January 2015, 20:52: Message edited by: Fr Weber ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Holy presupposition and false analogy, Batman!
This has to be the work of The Muddler!
Curse you! Fr. Weber! Foiled again with your x-post.
[ 05. January 2015, 20:57: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
A more serious response, Makepiece.
About the only salient point in your post is commonality. Most successful, non-forced relationships seem to have this.
The Adams, lovely couple though they may have been, are an anecdote. And, IMO, what makes their marriage relevant is that they shared values, not which those values were.
quote:
It should be obvious that a commitment to one's immediate personal concerns- to maximise pleasure and to minimise suffering- is fatal to marriage.
You do realise those are two, completely separate, issues?
A "commitment" to one's personal needs over one's partner's is generally harmful to a committed relationship. I think that a better statement.
A relationship is not a separate entity to the individuals which compose it. Needs and wants of individuals in a relationship should be subject to but not separate from the health of the relationship. Because they are the relationship.
Maximise pleasure and minimise suffering. Hmmm. If there are crimes committed by Christianity to the health of its members, the elevation of suffering is surely one of them. Suffering is not a virtue. Enduring suffering without compromise of virtue is. But when it is necessary, not for its own sake.
Nor is pleasure a vice. It is seeking pleasure without thought of consequence that is a vice. It is the desire of sensual pleasure that can be a distraction. It is not the experiencing, or the enjoyment of, pleasure that is wrong.
And comparing a company to a relationship is wrong beyond words.
[ 05. January 2015, 22:34: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
Moreover if a longer lifespan is fatal to the existence of a unit, as purported, how could any unit survive? Why has Procter and Gamble lasted and why is it still so extremely successful? If longevity is fatal to survival then P&G should have died a long time ago.
Well, there's a long-running urban legend that P&G serves the devil. (Check Snopes, etc.) I'm not at all saying it's true. But I'm ROTFL that you picked P&G to prove a point that actually fits the legend!
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is seeking pleasure without thought of consequence that is a vice. It is the desire of sensual pleasure that can be a distraction. It is not the experiencing, or the enjoyment of, pleasure that is wrong.
And comparing a company to a relationship is wrong beyond words.
Yes, I don't disagree. I didn't say that experiencing or enjoying pleasure is wrong I said that 'maximising pleasure' is wrong. As you say it can be a distraction. A distraction from what precisely? Well it is difficult to be precise because it could distract from anything that is important to building the relationship, as you say any values that a couple has in common. Maximising one's own personal pleasure can never be a shared value by its very nature. That is why I contrasted pre-revolutionary French culture with Puritan New England culture- not because I think that Puritan values are essential to marriage but because I think this contrast illustrates my point. Indeed hedonistic French society, in spite of its perceived immortality came to a sudden, crashing halt. Why? Because it didn't have a sense of purpose beyond pleasure seeking. It didn't have fraternity, equality or liberty. I can't help but feel that our own hedonistic society cannot last for more than a century.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Not very versed in French history, but even I know the revolution was not triggered by hedonism.
Fraternity, equality or liberty. Perhaps you mean liberté, égalité, fraternité? Possibly, just possibly, a slogan might not accurately represent motivation. Oration does not equal causation.
None the less, hedonism is not completely incompatible with those concepts.
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not very versed in French history, but even I know the revolution was not triggered by hedonism.
'Let them eat cake'?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not very versed in French history, but even I know the revolution was not triggered by hedonism.
'Let them eat cake'?
sigh
Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, the original phrase, was attributed to her 50 years after her death. Strangely missed by the contemporary revolutionaries who might have wished to justify their actions.
Can we manage some proper examples? It is obvious I do not mind a debate, but I do tire of doing all the work.
Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not very versed in French history, but even I know the revolution was not triggered by hedonism.
'Let them eat cake'?
sigh
Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, the original phrase, was attributed to her 50 years after her death. Strangely missed by the contemporary revolutionaries who might have wished to justify their actions.
The phrase first appears in Rousseau's Confessions, written in 1765, when Marie Antoinette was 9 years old. She is not named; Rousseau attributes the quote to "a great princess," which leads me to suspect that he made it up.
Posted by Makepiece (# 10454) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Makepiece:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Not very versed in French history, but even I know the revolution was not triggered by hedonism.
'Let them eat cake'?
sigh
Qu'ils mangent de la brioche, the original phrase, was attributed to her 50 years after her death. Strangely missed by the contemporary revolutionaries who might have wished to justify their actions.
Can we manage some proper examples? It is obvious I do not mind a debate, but I do tire of doing all the work.
Well yes, the quote may have been misattributed but it has stuck because it is fitting. It seems obvious to me that when people are struggling with poverty they will be angry at the sight of the gross self indulgence of the rich. It is difficult to argue that the French aristocracy weren't extremely extravagant and thus it seems reasonable to suppose that this was one cause of the revolution.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
When people are struggling, they will be angry at the callous disregard by those who are not. This is not the same thing as saying hedonism caused the French Revolution.
The causes of the Revolution were multiple to the point of great debate even now. Have v. Have not was very likely a cause, yes. But your argument was loose regard to marriage was the cause. Not the same thing.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0