|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What is it about Virginity?
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
...nor am I denying the role that sex (and fidelity within marriage) plays in creating a lifelong bond. I just find myself increasingly puzzled by the fact that people think of their virginity as "a significant part of [themselves]".
And isn't that bond a large part of what is the "significant part of themselves"?
Huh? I'm talking about the bond that evolves over years of monogamous married life (which includes sex, but also many, many other things), and while I will admit that that does become part of oneself, it isn't intrinsically linked with offering up one's virginity. It wasn't in my and my husband's case and there seem to be a lot of other married shipmates agreeing with me.
quote:
The thing is, once you've been "bonded" to one person in this way, it seems like it would be very hard to ever fully sever that bond, or ever fully recreate a similar bond with another person.
Excuse me, but I'm talking about the bond created over decades of married life, not the "bond" created with the person who took your virginity. I have lots of odd little sentimental bonds with some of the guys I slept with (some of whom I loved) before I got married. I also have lots of odd little sentimental bonds with lots of guys that I worked with, have been or am friends with, and never had sex with, both before and after I was married. None of these bonds have needed to be severed, and I have never felt the need to "recreate" them with my husband. My bond with my husband is unique (as were all the others, male and female) and I cherish it not because he holds the unique (by definition) post of having been the first guy to get his penis all the way into my vagina, but because he holds the unique (because I love and trust him that much) position of being the man I vowed to love and live with and forsake all others for. I don't say that lightly, because there was a rough period early in our marriage when I thought we weren't going to make it. Believe me, the thought of severing our marital bond was horrible and devastating. Working our way through the difficult times and continuing to love and accept one another is a far stronger bond than mere sex; sex is the icing on the cake, the cherry on the sundae, and yes, it can be a very transcendental experience. And virginity has nothing to do with it.
quote:
A friend of mine let her boyfriend take her virginity even though she felt rather iffy about him- but now she says that the thought of having sex with anyone else makes her want to vomit.
This girl needs some professional help. Regret over a mistake is one thing, but wanting to vomit is quite something else.
quote:
If sex can create such a bond with "iffy boyfriends,"
That was in no way a bond! Get real.
quote:
I wonder what it could do for a well-thought-out marriage committment!
I trust you aren't actually implying that because my husband and I (and so many others) weren't virgins when we married and have no regrets about that fact, that somehow we don't have a "well-thought-out marriage committment"?
Waffle real fast, Gmix, or I'll be asking for a personal apology.
quote:
PS- I am NOT saying that even in a marriage is sex somehow the miracle glue that keeps a couple together forever- (there's a lot more that MUST go into a marriage than just that)- but I do think it can help significantly in creating an intimate bond between husband and wife. Thanks for your thoughts, all. It's nice to have some honesty.
Well, duh.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[Edited rogue UBB bold in quote.]
[ 20. January 2004, 22:55: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
A friend of mine let her boyfriend take her virginity even though she felt rather iffy about him- but now she says that the thought of having sex with anyone else makes her want to vomit. If sex can create such a bond with "iffy boyfriends," I wonder what it could do for a well-thought-out marriage committment!
Or perhaps the experience was so bad with the chap in question that the thought of repeating it made her feel sick. It may not have been the "bond" at all.
Just a thought.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
A friend of mine let her boyfriend take her virginity even though she felt rather iffy about him- but now she says that the thought of having sex with anyone else makes her want to vomit.
This whole concept of the "taking" and "giving" of virginity is quaint, but ridiculous. There's nothing to give or take. It's just a name for someone who has never had sex. Doing it for the first time can be daunting, and probably often is pretty awful, because it hurts, or you don't really want to do it, or you have a partner who has no idea what he or she should be doing, or it's rushed or whatever.
This big myth about sex for the first time - that the first time should be magical and spiritual etc etc - probably causes more grief than anything else. And that's all tied up with the "virginity is a precious thing - give it only to someone you love" stuff. By all means, sleep only with someone you love, but if you think that it will always be good, think again.
And if it was so bad that you want to vomit, you need help. Because it wasn't the sex that's causing you problems, it's psychological.
[Edited mystery UBB]
[ 20. January 2004, 22:56: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin:
Or perhaps the experience was so bad with the chap in question that the thought of repeating it made her feel sick.
Hmmm... potential thread topic for TnT:
"Sex That Makes You Go ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) "
--------------------
Lord, fill my mouth with worthwhile stuff, and shut it when I've said enough. Amen.
Posts: 8419 | From: Nashville, TN | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sheriff Pony:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
As a side note, perhaps, it seems that a lot of people think, at least subconsciously, that those who are virgins when they marry must have some sort of aversion to sex, and that even when they're married and it's finally OK, they couldn't possibly enjoy it very much.
Do "a lot of people" really think this? Or does it just "seem" that "a lot of people" really think this?
And if so, are they merely trying to salve their own consciences by assuring themselves that even if they weren't virgins, at least they had better sex?
Quite puzzled.
At any rate, it's an assumption I'd like to challenge. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
I think it has more to do with the current emphasis on self-fulfilment in society. Many people see the pursuit of pleasure through sex as a goal worth striving for, without all the baggage that comes with marriage.
It strikes me that the people who think like this would naturally assume that anyone who doesn't want to have sex before marriage (and thus not experience the pleasure) feels that way because of a natural aversion to it rather than any genuine moral or religious objection.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Ya. If I came onto the Ship and said "I had sex with three different women last week" I would probably get much fewer and less nasty comments that I'd get if I said "three women offered to have sex with me last week and I turned them all down and don't regret it for a minute"
If I said the latter, I'd likely get "You're probably lying about the women" and "Hope you feel righteous, ass!" and "What were you doing wrong to make them offer to have sex with you? Were you asking for it? Were you wearing tight pants?" and "You should wear a sign if you aren't going to put out"
I'd probably think you an idiot for boasting about either.
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sheriff Pony:
quote:
Originally posted by Kyralessa:
As a side note, perhaps, it seems that a lot of people think, at least subconsciously, that those who are virgins when they marry must have some sort of aversion to sex, and that even when they're married and it's finally OK, they couldn't possibly enjoy it very much.
Do "a lot of people" really think this? Or does it just "seem" that "a lot of people" really think this?
And if so, are they merely trying to salve their own consciences by assuring themselves that even if they weren't virgins, at least they had better sex?
Quite puzzled.
At any rate, it's an assumption I'd like to challenge.
I, for one, would not assume that bringing one's virginity to marriage automatically indicates an aversion to sex, nor does it automatically predict an unfulfilling sex life in marriage. I was a young woman during the "consciousness raising" '70s when women spent a lot of time talking about this sort of thing and over the years I've continued to compare notes, so to speak, with a lot of women and even with some men. Good sex is affected by a lot of factors, including such basics as one's personal anatomy (I well remember our college women's group where one of our friends was so surprised to discover that not everyone had orgasms from the very beginning of having missionary position sex and the rest of us chorusing "You do?!!").
Sex defintely falls under the heading of "Your Mileage May Vary". Isn't this obvious?
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the altar:
There's nothing to give or take.
Innocence?
Seriously, that was the first thing that came into my head when I read your post. Even though someone can be nowhere near innocent and still (technically) be a virgin.
Is that what the whole shebang is really about? Innocence (be it percieved or otherwise)?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sheriff Pony
Shipmate
# 3911
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Sex defintely falls under the heading of "Your Mileage May Vary". Isn't this obvious?
Yes! Which is why sweeping assumptions are so off-putting.
--------------------
If we're all going to hell in a handbasket, can't we at least have a nicer handbasket?
Posts: 382 | From: Space! | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
Well Marvin, I take your point, but since the emphasis here (not from me, but I'm seeing it) is on genital to genital contact, innocence is often long gone before virginity. There's just all this baggage associated with having conventional sex for the first time. I just think we'd be better to call a spade a spade, and get over the "giving of virginity" like it's some sort of prize for the victor.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
quote:
You have been saying that women all want to have sex with you, and you let them get intimate with you and then push them away.
Well, if I've been saying that, then I HAVE been lying.
Most women would rather tell me the gory details of their crappy relationships, and generally treat me like a eunuch. I am perhaps expressing frustration that most women treat me like a enuch, and then whenever my efforts seem to be getting me somewhere with someone, these (much rarer) women want to have sex with me and bolt when they know they can't have it. Usually, finding out in the first big conversation with me what my views on sex are does the trick. In a few cases (only a few) they felt that they could "cure" me. In most cases, I was not averse to some cuddling while watching a movie and was trusting them to respect that, as I'd been very clear about what we would and wouldn't be doing, and they simply pushed it farther and farther until I had to stop them and remind them of what I'd said. No way I can look cool or sauve while doing that. Pas de savoir faire de tout. I haven't yet fallen for a woman trying to tempt me away from my beliefs, and am a little proud of myself for not losing control of myself just because someone disrespected my views and was trying to tempt me to be untrue to my own conscience. It isn't easy and I did it. Sorry if I sounded like it happens all the time (it doesn't) and sorry if I sounded like I was bragging. That's not very cool.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Left at the altar:
Well Marvin, I take your point, but since the emphasis here (not from me, but I'm seeing it) is on genital to genital contact, innocence is often long gone before virginity. There's just all this baggage associated with having conventional sex for the first time. I just think we'd be better to call a spade a spade, and get over the "giving of virginity" like it's some sort of prize for the victor.
I agree. In fact I've said that as well ( ![[Biased]](wink.gif) ).
But then, as a twenty-something man, there's still that extra "thrill"* associated with being a girl's "first". Don't ask me why, maybe it is something deep in our subconscious...
* - not the word I'd have preferred to use, but the best one I can think of at this time
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Paul W.
Shipmate
# 1450
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
But then, as a twenty-something man, there's still that extra "thrill"* associated with being a girl's "first". Don't ask me why, maybe it is something deep in our subconscious...
I wouldn't say so myself, but then there must be a good reason why I get so many emails advertising sites showing "18yr old virgins doing it for the first time" and somesuch.
Myself, I probably will wait until I get married before I have sex. I've been following this thread all day and trying to work out why that is what I want, and I'm still not completely sure. It's a bit of a weird issue, as I'm pretty liberal about most other things, but not this.
I suspect there's a number of reasons, maybe partly because I do believe there's some sort of biblical basis to it that I should be following, maybe partly because I have some romantic notion of only ever having sex with one woman that I will spend the rest of my life with. I think mainly what it comes down to is just a gut feeling that this is the right way for me to go about it. So that's what I will (hopefully) do.
You may note the liberal use of the words "I" and "me" in the above paragraphs. Like jlg said, your milage may, and probably will, vary. I'm only speaking about myself.
Paul W
--------------------
"It's just a ride" - Bill Hicks
Blog
Flickr
Posts: 2835 | From: Leeds, UK | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Welcome to the Ship, HairyOrangutan and to Purgatory in particular. Do have a look around the boards and get the feel of the place. If you haven't already done so, please have a look at the 10 Commandments - the general posting rules of the Ship.
Pleasant voyage!
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
Hey all you repressed sex-crazed maniacs!!! (Just kidding.) Seriously, though, I have another thought which has come to mind.
I wonder if encountering the concept of sex in varying life situations can teach us a little more about how we 'really' feel about it. For those whom I may offend or hurt, please DO try to accept my humble apology... but I think my ideas may shed some light.
One example is in the case of adultery. If a wife/girlfriend/whoever walks in on her guy in bed with another woman, for instance, it is obviously not something she would take lightly- it is more likely the type of scenario that would tear her apart emotionally, through indescribable feelings of jealousy, anger, hurt, even hatred. Pardon my obvious question, but why would this woman react so strongly? Why is it that if one's partner has had sex with another somewhere in the past, it doesn't seem to matter, but if he has it during the marriage, it's such a completely different story? (I KNOW this seems like an outrageous thing to suggest, but please bear with me) Could it be that we really have a desire only to belong (sexually) to one person, ever? I think the verse in Kergymania cited from Leviticus is telling- that perhaps the act of sex in fact IS a marriage, and not wrong in itself, but any later sex act with another person would then become wrong. (Of course, polygamy was practiced in Bible times and is not consistent with this idea- sorry, am only throwing around ideas)
And what about in the instance of rape? I DO NOT mean to trivialize rape- I know that it is one of the very worst crimes one can be a victim of- but if sex in itself is no big deal, why then is it that rape is experienced as such a grievous violation of one's humanity?
Other crimes do hurt, of course- if someone steals from me, I do feel a much less severe sort of "violation," and anger, etc... if someone lies to me, similarly there are negative feelings of betrayal and broken trust. But any sexual violation- even someone grabbing a backside or what have you- seems somehow different than this. And the utmost of all sexual violations is, of course, rape. What is it that sets sexual things so apart from all the other offences?
(hoping no one has misunderstood me or thinks me to be utterly despicable)--Gmix
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Huia
Shipmate
# 3473
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
And what about in the instance of rape? I DO NOT mean to trivialize rape- I know that it is one of the very worst crimes one can be a victim of- but if sex in itself is no big deal, why then is it that rape is experienced as such a grievous violation of one's humanity?
Gmix
I think that, for me it wasn't so much the sex itself that was scary when I was raped it was not knowing whether or not I was going to survive. It was the power the perpetrator had over me in that he could, at that point in time, do whatever he wished to me and that all I had to counter this was to use my wits the best way I knew how. I have never been so terrified in my life.
The violation of my self was far more traumatic than the violation of my body.
For other people who have been raped the situation may have been different.
I don't feel your question trivialised rape.
Huia
--------------------
Charity gives food from the table, Justice gives a place at the table.
Posts: 10382 | From: Te Wai Pounamu | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
One example is in the case of adultery. If a wife/girlfriend/whoever walks in on her guy in bed with another woman, for instance, it is obviously not something she would take lightly- it is more likely the type of scenario that would tear her apart emotionally, through indescribable feelings of jealousy, anger, hurt, even hatred. Pardon my obvious question, but why would this woman react so strongly? Why is it that if one's partner has had sex with another somewhere in the past, it doesn't seem to matter, but if he has it during the marriage, it's such a completely different story?
Because having had sex with someone else before you even met your current partner is no big deal, whereas having sex with someone else when you have promised only to have sex with your current partner is a huge betrayal.
quote:
Could it be that we really have a desire only to belong (sexually) to one person, ever? I think the verse in Kergymania cited from Leviticus is telling- that perhaps the act of sex in fact IS a marriage, and not wrong in itself, but any later sex act with another person would then become wrong.
But we don't really have a desire only to have sex with one person in our lives. If we did, a lot more of us would be trying to live like that.
quote:
but if sex in itself is no big deal, why then is it that rape is experienced as such a grievous violation of one's humanity?
Other crimes do hurt, of course- if someone steals from me, I do feel a much less severe sort of "violation," and anger, etc... if someone lies to me, similarly there are negative feelings of betrayal and broken trust.
Huh? Stealing and lying don't begin to compare to rape. Rape is an assault upon your body; stealing and lying aren't. Had you chosen some other kind of physical assault to compare with rape this would make more sense.
But let's re-phrase. Why is rape experienced as such a horrible thing if "sex is no big deal"? For many people, sex is a big deal, even for those of us who don't put a premium on virginity. And for every woman, forced sex is a big deal.
To try to use your stealing comparison: Why does it matter if someone steals from you? Money leaves your hands all the time. Oh, wait - you didn't want to give that money to that person? Guess that's why you're upset.
quote:
But any sexual violation- even someone grabbing a backside or what have you- seems somehow different than this. And the utmost of all sexual violations is, of course, rape. What is it that sets sexual things so apart from all the other offences?
No one ever thinks having a knife stuck between her ribs is a good thing that's going to feel pleasurable and help sustain emotional intimacy with a man. But that's pretty much what most women think sex is going to feel like and do. So the general difference between rape and other assaults is that sex is the weapon in rape, and sex is fundamentally different from guns, knives, baseball bats or even fists.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
But we don't really have a desire only to have sex with one person in our lives. If we did, a lot more of us would be trying to live like that.
RW- you've challenged my thinking with some of your answers on this topic... I guess I just feel that if sex is a big deal, then so is virginity- and likewise, so is the rest of the "continuum" of physical intimacy, to varying degrees. (And just to squelch any suspicions, I will reiterate that stuff like oral sex obviously counts as sexual intimacy-- I am not one of those folks who believes that everything before marriage is ok, just so long as the penis doesn't enter the vagina- such a concept is utterly absurd.)
Re your above paragraph- I don't think it is our human nature is very consistent. Part of me wants to be able to give my (future) wife lots of things that I have not given anyone else, including my virginity, but like most human beings I can also be in a state where I really want a good romp in the hay. My more pervasive urge, however, is to wait it out, for someone whom I can wake up next to and enjoy knowing "she ain't leaving me any time soon."
Gmix
(MAN this place is a hub! It's great)
[fixed UBB for quote]
[ 21. January 2004, 07:21: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
One example is in the case of adultery. If a wife/girlfriend/whoever walks in on her guy in bed with another woman, for instance, it is obviously not something she would take lightly- it is more likely the type of scenario that would tear her apart emotionally, through indescribable feelings of jealousy, anger, hurt, even hatred. Pardon my obvious question, but why would this woman react so strongly? Why is it that if one's partner has had sex with another somewhere in the past, it doesn't seem to matter, but if he has it during the marriage, it's such a completely different story? (I KNOW this seems like an outrageous thing to suggest, but please bear with me) Could it be that we really have a desire only to belong (sexually) to one person, ever?
No, but while we are in a one-to-one relationship with someone, we want trust and exclusivity. If you walk in on someone you had a one night stand with last week having sex with another person, it would probably have little or no effect.
quote:
I think the verse in Kergymania cited from Leviticus is telling- that perhaps the act of sex in fact IS a marriage, and not wrong in itself, but any later sex act with another person would then become wrong. (Of course, polygamy was practiced in Bible times and is not consistent with this idea- sorry, am only throwing around ideas)
I doubt it. It's a marriage of bodies. And if there is emotion inolved, of spirits as well. It's what you make of it.
quote:
And what about in the instance of rape? I DO NOT mean to trivialize rape- I know that it is one of the very worst crimes one can be a victim of- but if sex in itself is no big deal, why then is it that rape is experienced as such a grievous violation of one's humanity?
Other crimes do hurt, of course- if someone steals from me, I do feel a much less severe sort of "violation," and anger, etc... if someone lies to me, similarly there are negative feelings of betrayal and broken trust. But any sexual violation- even someone grabbing a backside or what have you- seems somehow different than this. And the utmost of all sexual violations is, of course, rape. What is it that sets sexual things so apart from all the other offences?
Rape is not sex. It's one person forcing him or herself on another. Do not confuse the two. It is a violent act.
quote:
(hoping no one has misunderstood me or thinks me to be utterly despicable)--Gmix
Not offended.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
I guess I just feel that if sex is a big deal, then so is virginity- and likewise, so is the rest of the "continuum" of physical intimacy, to varying degrees. (And just to squelch any suspicions, I will reiterate that stuff like oral sex obviously counts as sexual intimacy-- I am not one of those folks who believes that everything before marriage is ok, just so long as the penis doesn't enter the vagina- such a concept is utterly absurd.)
Perhaps we need a more carefully defined phrase than "a big deal."
How important sex is varies widely from person to the next and may vary widely during one person's life. How important virginity is may also vary, I think, depending upon a lot of factors. The first time I had sex was certainly important to me, and I waited for the person and the situation I wanted. But while the first time was important, it wasn't as important as I had been brought up to believe that it was, and it didn't have the mystical qualities that some people ascribe to it.
quote:
My more pervasive urge, however, is to wait it out, for someone whom I can wake up next to and enjoy knowing "she ain't leaving me any time soon."
And if the urge is that pervasive, then you've got your answer.
But have a look at the divorce rate before you try to make any arguments based on the idea that waiting for marriage to have sex will ensure that your sexual partner will never leave you.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
To be honest, I felt more of a sense of taking a drastic action each of the three or four times in my life I have suddenly cut my hair (from thigh-length to above my chin) than I did when I lost my virginity.
Interesting. Again, rummaging in my recollections of ancient cultures, the practice of losing virginity by becoming (for the occasion) a prostitute in the temple of the goddess, was superceded in later times by offering the hair instead.
The attractive thing is that the woman is proactive in what she does with her virginity, rather than having it taken.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
...But have a look at the divorce rate before you try to make any arguments based on the idea that waiting for marriage to have sex will ensure that your sexual partner will never leave you.
Agreed. In fact, I never tried to make that argument. I know that even my dear wifey might get sick and tired of me and take off some day... but I also believe marriage can be what you are determined it should be. For a lot of people, I think they take the divorce option too early- and in my young, green, naivete, I will say for myself that divorce, except in the case of adultery, will not be an option. I KNOW this may be harder than I realize. But I think young, dumb, unfaltering commitment will actually help my (future) marriage.
In his (brilliant) book "True and False," David Mamet gives an illustration on commitment from a wedding ceremony he once attended. He talks about how the bride and groom rewrote their vows so that each one began with "I will try..." He says he knew from the start that this marriage was doomed. The vows they should have taken would have eliminated the "try" altogether. As Yoda says, "Do or do not. There is no try."
An exclusive sex life will help make this easier- it will strengthen the bond of marriage, but no, it is not the bond itself.
[Edited for quote UBB.]
[ 21. January 2004, 12:03: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The attractive thing is that the woman is proactive in what she does with her virginity, rather than having it taken.
Yeah, I like that. The woman is in no way passive- hence the term "consensual".
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
I have been thinking about this topic and i suspect ideas would have been different in the days prior to freely available contraception.
In someways "losing ones virginity" is for women the start of the rite of passage of going from Maiden to Mother, in that prior to having sex she can in noway become a Mother while after having sex she is on the way to becoming a Mother. Something like oral sex does not put her on the way to becoming a Mother, so is not part of the rite of passage and thus not such a big deal.
A metaphor:
So consider a similar transformation from laity to priest, becoming a deacon is like losing ones virginity, as it is a major step on the path from laity to priest in teh same way that losing ones virginity is the start of the path from Maiden to Mother. OK not all deacons become priests and not all non-virgins become mothers.
Taking some other "office" in the church such as reader is similar to non-penerative sex in that it does not lead to becoming a priest or a mother.
Finally in this metaphor, a virgin becoming a mother through IVF rather than sex could be seen a bit like lay presidency ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Faithful Sheepdog
Shipmate
# 2305
|
Posted
quote:
that Wikkid Person said:
Most women would rather tell me the gory details of their crappy relationships, and generally treat me like a eunuch. I am perhaps expressing frustration that most women treat me like a eunuch, and then whenever my efforts seem to be getting me somewhere with someone, these (much rarer) women want to have sex with me and bolt when they know they can't have it. Usually, finding out in the first big conversation with me what my views on sex are does the trick. In a few cases (only a few) they felt that they could "cure" me.
TWP, I would encourage you to reflect in detail on your own words above, it tells me a lot about you.
In the eyes of the first group of women, you are inadvertently playing the role of a female friend (or possibly a male relation, or a professional counsellor), and not the role of a potential husband, mate and sexual partner. Not surprisingly, these women then treat you in an utterly sexless fashion, since in their eyes you may as well be a woman.
You are also inadvertently agreeing to be treated in this way, and maybe even subconsciously preferring it, since if you didn’t like it, you would have indicated your dissatisfaction to them by some prompt words and/or action. Why should you automatically spend your free time listening to other women’s relationship problems, especially when you don’t have a fulfilling relationship of your own?
Contrast your own behaviour with the first group of women, with the behaviour of the women in the second group that you mention. They are not prepared to respect your moral and principled boundary – to stay virgin until marriage – and, quite frankly, just want some “Canadian sausage” early on (thank you Icarus Coot, a great phrase).
When they realise it’s not on offer, what do they do? Do they accept your boundary and continue to build a mutually acceptable relationship with you? No, they try and “cure” you. What kind of a compliment is that? Do they even hang around? No, they “bolt when they know they can't have it”.
In other words, the second group of women make it quite clear through their behaviour that they cannot accept a relationship with you on your terms. But why should you settle for anything less than your terms? They seem fair and reasonable to me, as well as moral.
Hard though it may sound, these women are actually doing you a big favour by being completely honest. If they can’t get “Canadian sausage” from you, then they are going to have to go and get it elsewhere. They know that it is up to them to take responsibility to themselves for satisfying what they perceive as their needs.
Are you doing the same?
Neil
--------------------
"Random mutation/natural selection works great in folks’ imaginations, but it’s a bust in the real world." ~ Michael J. Behe
Posts: 1097 | From: Scotland | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
The attractive thing is that the woman is proactive in what she does with her virginity, rather than having it taken.
Yeah, I like that. The woman is in no way passive- hence the term "consensual".
Well, it was more that fact that it was seen as a transaction between the woman and the goddess, with the man as instrument. Though, of course, he could be enacting a hieros gamos on his own account.
So at least they weren't hung up on the whole relationship thing...
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
...nor am I denying the role that sex (and fidelity within marriage) plays in creating a lifelong bond. I just find myself increasingly puzzled by the fact that people think of their virginity as "a significant part of [themselves]".
And isn't that bond a large part of what is the "significant part of themselves"?
Huh? I'm talking about the bond that evolves over years of monogamous married life (which includes sex, but also many, many other things), and while I will admit that that does become part of oneself, it isn't intrinsically linked with offering up one's virginity. It wasn't in my and my husband's case and there seem to be a lot of other married shipmates agreeing with me.
quote:
The thing is, once you've been "bonded" to one person in this way, it seems like it would be very hard to ever fully sever that bond, or ever fully recreate a similar bond with another person.
Excuse me, but I'm talking about the bond created over decades of married life, not the "bond" created with the person who took your virginity. I have lots of odd little sentimental bonds with some of the guys I slept with (some of whom I loved) before I got married. I also have lots of odd little sentimental bonds with lots of guys that I worked with, have been or am friends with, and never had sex with, both before and after I was married. None of these bonds have needed to be severed, and I have never felt the need to "recreate" them with my husband. My bond with my husband is unique (as were all the others, male and female) and I cherish it not because he holds the unique (by definition) post of having been the first guy to get his penis all the way into my vagina, but because he holds the unique (because I love and trust him that much) position of being the man I vowed to love and live with and forsake all others for. I don't say that lightly, because there was a rough period early in our marriage when I thought we weren't going to make it. Believe me, the thought of severing our marital bond was horrible and devastating. Working our way through the difficult times and continuing to love and accept one another is a far stronger bond than mere sex; sex is the icing on the cake, the cherry on the sundae, and yes, it can be a very transcendental experience. And virginity has nothing to do with it.
quote:
A friend of mine let her boyfriend take her virginity even though she felt rather iffy about him- but now she says that the thought of having sex with anyone else makes her want to vomit.
This girl needs some professional help. Regret over a mistake is one thing, but wanting to vomit is quite something else.
quote:
If sex can create such a bond with "iffy boyfriends,"
That was in no way a bond! Get real.
quote:
I wonder what it could do for a well-thought-out marriage committment!
I trust you aren't actually implying that because my husband and I (and so many others) weren't virgins when we married and have no regrets about that fact, that somehow we don't have a "well-thought-out marriage committment"?
Waffle real fast, Gmix, or I'll be asking for a personal apology.
quote:
PS- I am NOT saying that even in a marriage is sex somehow the miracle glue that keeps a couple together forever- (there's a lot more that MUST go into a marriage than just that)- but I do think it can help significantly in creating an intimate bond between husband and wife. Thanks for your thoughts, all. It's nice to have some honesty.
[Edited rogue UBB bold in quote.]
Okay, maybe this is my fault, but I've been misunderstood again.
The girl- let's call her Sue- felt like throwing up at the thought of having sex with any other person. She is, in fact, still currently with said boyfriend, and still having sex with him. My point is that obviously having sex with him, despite her initial uncertainty re: her feelings for him, has done something to change their relationship (perhaps "bond" is not the right word- but truly, there is a sort of bond there, isn't it?? Call it what you want, I guess).
And I just don't see how there's any comparison between the bonds you experience with co-workers and platonic friends and other aquaintances, and the bond (oops, still using that word!!) that is formed between a person and his/her sex partner.
By the way, this
"Well, duh. "
was totally unnecessary. I'm here for a debate, not mockery.
Gmix
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
quote:
Are you doing the same?
Seeing what I can arrange.
--------------------
We have only one truth and one reality. Let's make the most of them.
Posts: 1007 | From: Almonte, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trancel
Apprentice
# 5361
|
Posted
Reading through this ongoing discussion has made me think back to a series of sessions we did with our church youth group a couple of years back on sex and relationships. The idea was put forward by our rector, who had done something similar at a previous church, but the other leaders were a little nervous about covering the topic.
One of the biggest eye-openers was when in the first session we asked the group what they thought the churches opinion on sex and relationships was. The answer was a resounding "not a clue", as nobody in the church had ever discussed sex with them. Some had (like me ten years before) been given a book by their parents, and there was a general feeling from the media that the church regarded virginity as important, but that was about it.
Looking back at how the discussions went, there was a perception that society is obsessed by sex, especially the teen magazines that a lot of them read. The problem as I see it is that rather than focusing on the real issues, the church is, like the media, obsessed by sex, granted in a slightly different way, but obsessed just the same.
I guess with the soundbite culture with which we live, simple bold statements about virginity are easy to get across. It is easy to show young Christians saying that they are waiting until marraige. But if that is all you are telling young Christians is this soundbite, without talking about marraige and building strong relationships, and sex being one of the many bonds within that relationship, young people tie the soundbite in with the prevailing culture telling them that everybody else is 'doing it'
This leads to young people who remain "technical virgins" whilst being active sexually in other ways, and another phenomenon that I have come across which is very young couples (I know one where both were under 20) getting married. It seems that many, having been told that sex can only take place within marraige, are almost marrying to have sex. The aspect of building a strong relationship seems to have passed by, and ultimately with shaky foundations, many of the relationships have failed. Both of these seem to be symptoms of young people trying to fit the little the church has said with the masses of information that wider culture is saying.
What we tried to do with the young people in the youth group was steer away from soundbites on virginity and the like, and focus more on discussing relationships, putting virginity and sex as one aspect in a wider context of long term loving relationships such as marraige. Explain why the church believes what it does rather than just saying don't do it. I really believe that until the wider church does something similar, and moves away from the obsession about virginity the church is going to keep producing "technical virgins" and young marraiges that fail.
Richard
Posts: 13 | From: Berkshire, UK | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
If sex can create such a bond with "iffy boyfriends,"
That was in no way a bond! Get real.
quote:
I wonder what it could do for a well-thought-out marriage committment!
I trust you aren't actually implying that because my husband and I (and so many others) weren't virgins when we married and have no regrets about that fact, that somehow we don't have a "well-thought-out marriage committment"?
Waffle real fast, Gmix, or I'll be asking for a personal apology.
Gmix, you have posted numerous times since I posted this and in fact you have responded to most of the other things I said in that same post.
I take my marriage commitment to my husband extremely seriously and I am waiting for your apology.
Especially after I read this bit posted by you:
quote:
I know that even my dear wifey might get sick and tired of me and take off some day... but I also believe marriage can be what you are determined it should be. For a lot of people, I think they take the divorce option too early- and in my young, green, naivete, I will say for myself that divorce, except in the case of adultery, will not be an option. I KNOW this may be harder than I realize. But I think young, dumb, unfaltering commitment will actually help my (future) marriage.
emphasis added
So your (future) commitment to your marriage is going to be conditional? Is that what you mean by a "well-thought-out marriage commitment"?
Perhaps you will modify your wedding vows to reflect this well-thought-out commitment? "...til death do us part or one of us commits adultery..."? "...for better or worse or until one of us gets bored..."?
And to return to the OP, just how does virginity or the lack therefore affect the quality of those marriage vows or the ability of the two people to remain true to them?
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
Hosting
jlg and gmixolydian - if you want to fight, take it to Hell. Otherwise, sort out any misunderstandings and make peace.
Duo Seraphim
Purgatory Host
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
For those who are currently rubbing their hands together in anticipation of jlg and myself going to Hell together, I have PM'd her to sort things out that way instead.
Gmix
PS, jlg you are welcome to disclose the contents of that letter to anyone who's losing sleep over the issue.
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
Okay, maybe this is my fault, but I've been misunderstood again.
The girl- let's call her Sue- felt like throwing up at the thought of having sex with any other person. She is, in fact, still currently with said boyfriend, and still having sex with him. My point is that obviously having sex with him, despite her initial uncertainty re: her feelings for him, has done something to change their relationship (perhaps "bond" is not the right word- but truly, there is a sort of bond there, isn't it?? Call it what you want, I guess).
Sorry Gmixolydian, but I really think the example you have picked is not serving your case.
As far as I'm aware, feeling like throwing up at the thought of sex with anyone else is not a normal thing for people in a committed relationship. You might have no interest in having sex with anybody else, it might not cross your mind. Or it might cross your mind and you think 'Oh, I'd never actually do that because I'm faithful'. But nausea? That sounds pathological, and suggests that there is something unhealthy about this relationship, regardless of whether they have sex or not, and regardless of whether 'Sue' was a virgin or not.
Certainly sex changes a relationship - whether you are a virgin or not when you do it. IMO.
I don't really get the 'cult of virginity' thing.
--------------------
It's a matter of food and available blood. If motherhood is sacred, put your money where your mouth is. Only then can you expect the coming down to the wrecked & shimmering earth of that miracle you sing about. [Margaret Atwood]
Posts: 5285 | From: A dour region for dour folk | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim*
Sea lawyer
# 3251
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
For those who are currently rubbing their hands together in anticipation of jlg and myself going to Hell together, I have PM'd her to sort things out that way instead.
Gmix
PS, jlg you are welcome to disclose the contents of that letter to anyone who's losing sleep over the issue.
Thanks, both of you!
--------------------
2^8, eight bits to a byte
Posts: 3967 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rat:
As far as I'm aware, feeling like throwing up at the thought of sex with anyone else is not a normal thing for people in a committed relationship.
I've heard this remark two or three times in the past - "I love him/her so much I'd puke if I had to touch anyone else" - and those of us who heard it were unanimous in agreeing afterwards that they were just exaggerating for effect. In each case I'd have described the speaker as young, in their first or second relationship, and with a tendency towards melodrama.
[ 22. January 2004, 12:00: Message edited by: Ariel ]
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
Apologies to Gmix and the Hosts for blurring the boundary between Purg and Hell. And no, there won't be a Hell thread.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
I agree that my friend Sue's statement about "nausea" likely was an exaggeration. If I am honest, I do not agree that it is necessarily an unhealthy or unreasonable response to have in her situation. Even if nausea is taking it too far, I think some people will likely, in a "first relationship," feel a strong attachment to their partner, which is fortified by sex, and an utter lack of desire for anyone else. I guess it's what we call the honeymoon stage.
I think this is a good and necessary thing. I also think the very fact that this attachment will likely not be as strong in successive sexual relationships is a good reason to, if at all possible, make your first lover your only lover by being married to them.
Realistically, so many people in our society have already had sex with others that in most cases this will not be possible. Of course, you can always learn to love again, and most people will have to get over past relationships (sexual or non) at some point in life. But with each degree of physical OR emotional intimacy you experience in a relationship, the more you are attached to that person and the harder it would be to let them go if you had to.
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
I also think the very fact that this attachment will likely not be as strong in successive sexual relationships is a good reason to, if at all possible, make your first lover your only lover by being married to them.
Not only is it not a fact that the first "attachment" is the strongest, I doubt whether it is statistically more likely than any other outcome. It certainly wasn't the case in my own experience.
--------------------
“Here, we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.” - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 9515 | From: Southern California | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
I also think the very fact that this attachment will likely not be as strong in successive sexual relationships is a good reason to, if at all possible, make your first lover your only lover by being married to them.
Huh?
First, as Scot points out, this is not everyone's experience. He offers his experience as evidence; add mine to that. Also consider the experience of people who find their second marriages to be much stronger than their first marriages; I can think of several people among my friends for whom this is true.
Second, this assumes that sex is the most important factor in creating bonds between people, which is simply not true for everyone - I suspent it's not true for a lot of people. What distinguishes the first sexual relationship from others is sex. But subsequent relationships may be distinguished by a greater degree of compatibility or any number of others things which are really important. I know lots of people whose early sexual experiences were just experimentation with high school or college boyfriends or girlfriends, but who later met people with whom they developed deep and lasting romantic / spiritual / sexual / practical relationships.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
It's hard to go much further than that without delving into everybody's sex lives, which is pretty personal. Let me put it this way: when both the relationship is good, and the sex comes with commitment, I think the chances of a good overall outcome for both the relationship itself and the sex itself will be better than in any other scenario. The wide range of human experience doesn't really allow for a hard-and-fast rule. I just think the fewer people you sleep with, the better, unless you want to seriously shift mentalities away from Christian teaching. (And speaking of which, I do wonder how Solomon would have approached the whole issue!)
Gmix
PS- no, I wasn't stating my last post as fact, more as an attempt to simply use logic. I don't got no stats books.
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
Oh darn, Ruth posted again in the time I was typing re Scot's last post. I'll try to type faster...
Ruth, I take your point that subsequent marriages may be stronger than the first. quote:
...assumes that sex is the most important factor in creating bonds between people
Well, no, of course not. I believe that it does create a bond of some sort, but of course if you have sex with someone whom you don't really love or what have you, it will not be a healthy bond. But it is still there. It is unavoidable. You might call it a spiritual bond..?
But anyway, I like to think of a good relationship as a combination of well cared-for elements, of which sex is one. NOT the bottom line.
quote:
I know lots of people whose early sexual experiences were just experimentation with high school or college boyfriends or girlfriends, but who later met people with whom they developed deep and lasting romantic / spiritual / sexual / practical relationships.
Exactly! But won't anybody give me any credit that the experiences of early expiramentation may have brought negative "baggage" to the later marriage? My hunch is that they would have been better off saving sex completely for marriage. They can learn quite a bit about it in other ways than just doing it. And if your first time is with someone who has pledged their love and commitment to you, well, s/he'll be patient if you don't exactly know what you're doing at first, won't s/he? And assuming you're willing to work on things, naturally it also get better.
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
when both the relationship is good, and the sex comes with commitment, I think the chances of a good overall outcome for both the relationship itself and the sex itself will be better than in any other scenario.
Good sex in the context of a good, committed relationship is certainly a good thing. But people can and do have good sex in relationships that aren't marked by strong commitment, and when that's what they want, it can also be a good thing. You've assumed that "a good overall outcome" for relationships is life-long commitment. But not everyone wants that or is cut out for it.
Honestly, overall I have to say your posts on this subject make a lot of assumptions about people, sex and relationships which I just don't see as being true.
quote:
I wasn't stating my last post as fact, more as an attempt to simply use logic.
Well, you used the word "fact," so Scot and I both figured you were making a factual claim.
quote:
But won't anybody give me any credit that the experiences of early expiramentation may have brought negative "baggage" to the later marriage? My hunch is that they would have been better off saving sex completely for marriage. They can learn quite a bit about it in other ways than just doing it. And if your first time is with someone who has pledged their love and commitment to you, well, s/he'll be patient if you don't exactly know what you're doing at first, won't s/he? And assuming you're willing to work on things, naturally it also get better.
I think it really depends on the experimentation. I think immature people who are not ready to have sex are likely to have negative experiences, and that sometimes early negative experiences can create problems which last for a while. But lots and lots of people have positive first experiences of sex outside marriage and don't sustain any damage from it.
If your first time is with someone inconsiderate enough to be impatient with your inexperience, you've picked the wrong person to have sex with. But someone doesn't need to have pledged love and commitment in order to be a generous and considerate sexual partner; this is another one of your assumptions about people and sex. And yes, you can know ahead of time if they'll be generous and considerate in bed; people tend to be pretty consistent, and if they're jerks before you take your clothes off, they'll be the same way in bed.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Can't believe I let this one go by ...
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
They can learn quite a bit about it in other ways than just doing it.
You can learn a lot about sex by reading about it, but there's no substitute for hands-on training. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
Exactly! But won't anybody give me any credit that the experiences of early expiramentation may have brought negative "baggage" to the later marriage? My hunch is that they would have been better off saving sex completely for marriage. They can learn quite a bit about it in other ways than just doing it. And if your first time is with someone who has pledged their love and commitment to you, well, s/he'll be patient if you don't exactly know what you're doing at first, won't s/he? And assuming you're willing to work on things, naturally it also get better.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) Where do I start.
Nobody, anywhere, ever gets away with "no baggage", even if only slightly. By the time you are 30 or 40 just about everyone has had some kind of negative experiences in along with all the rest. That is part and parcel of being human and being alive. Even if you avoided sex totally you would still have some negative experiences from everyday life. It might screw you up, but it can also make you a more balanced personality.
You can certainly read a lot about sex and watch porn movies until they become meaningless, but it isn't the same as experiencing it. What we want and what we think we want are sometimes two different things. It's all very well having high-minded principles. Most people start out that way. Once you actually discover what your natural inclinations are and what your body responds to, you may well find that some of the principles are, for you, unrealistic ideals.
If your first time is with someone you care about it doesn't stop you losing patience after (for example) you have pointed out to them for the sixth time that if they did one particular thing in a different way it wouldn't cause you some discomfort, or whatever. If it's your first time you might well assume that this is how it is for everybody, but if it's theirs rather than yours you do at least have some idea of whether it is generally like this or whether it could be improved.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
Yes, but that's no reason to go out and create more baggage for yourself. Some things we can't avoid, some we can.
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
Nobody, anywhere, ever gets away with "no baggage", even if only slightly. By the time you are 30 or 40 just about everyone has had some kind of negative experiences in along with all the rest.
Ariel is right.
Let's say you don't meet and marry your true love until you're 40 years old and you are a virgin when you marry. By that point you've got 20 years of adult experiences relating to the opposite sex (we'll be heterosexist here, since marriage is generally not available to gay people). If you have nothing but friendships with women (or men where applicable) for 20 years, that's the baggage you'll carry into marriage, and it will have an effect. If you have a series of failed romances, even without sex, that's the baggage you'll carry into marriage. And either way, you will carry into marriage the baggage of having suppressed or repressed your sexual drive for over 20 years. Don't let anyone sell you any garbage about meeting your needs for intimacy in other ways; other forms of intimacy are no substitute for sexual intimacy.
Some people will manage this just fine. Others will be completely screwed up and their marriages will be disastrous.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Left at the Altar
Ship's Siren
# 5077
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gmixolydian:
It's hard to go much further than that without delving into everybody's sex lives, which is pretty personal. Let me put it this way: when both the relationship is good, and the sex comes with commitment, I think the chances of a good overall outcome for both the relationship itself and the sex itself will be better than in any other scenario. The wide range of human experience doesn't really allow for a hard-and-fast rule. I just think the fewer people you sleep with, the better, unless you want to seriously shift mentalities away from Christian teaching. (And speaking of which, I do wonder how Solomon would have approached the whole issue!)
Gmix
PS- no, I wasn't stating my last post as fact, more as an attempt to simply use logic. I don't got no stats books.
It's a good rule not to post on sex threads when your spouse has been away for a week, and you've had three glasses of wine, but to Hell with good rules:
Sex can be good in any number of scenarios.
In loving, long term relationships: Yes. Very good. But can also be very bad. Plenty of people marry dud lovers, and stick with them. They love them despite the fact that sex is the lowlight of the relationship. Others enjoy wham-sha-bang sex all their lives.
In relationships that last a while: Again. Very good sometimes, others not. Relationships usually don't fall apart or stay together on the basis of the quality/quantity of sex, but I'd imagine that it happens a bit. But equally, really really good sexual relationships don't necessarily last the distance in other ways.
In one night stands: It can be terrific or awful.
Stop romanticising and moralising. Sex can feel awfully good or awfully bad, or somewhere in between, regardless of the level of commitment.
You can say that the fewer partners, the better, and I respect your choice. But, you can learn things from people that you take to other relationships. Having said that, I never never never claim to be a good Christian.
As for feeling bonds with those with whom you've had sex - yes and no. It's more to do with the romance and "mystery ingredient" than what happens in bed.
--------------------
Still pretty Amazing, but no longer Mavis.
Posts: 9111 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
Stop moralising? So, what, I can argue as long as I don't bring a moral dimension into the debate???
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
