|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What is it about Virginity?
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Im genuinely re-thinking what I think in the whole sexual ethics arena.... so another question...
If we move away from the "sex only with one partner ever" approach... what kinda guidelines/ morality/ whatever do we use in realationships/ sex/ one night stands as a Christian... Or is it anythign goes?
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
quote:
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.
I agree completely with all of this. That's why it isn't smart to treat a virgin as tabula rasa. We're human, sexual adults too. We pick up baggage like anyone does.
--------------------
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
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
If we move away from the "sex only with one partner ever" approach... what kinda guidelines/ morality/ whatever do we use in realationships/ sex/ one night stands as a Christian... Or is it anythign goes?
I think the same standards would apply as in any other sort of personal interactions. Don't hurt people, be kind, be generous, don't take advantage of others. In other words, love your neighbor.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Gmixolydian
Shipmate
# 2653
|
Posted
Hmmm... though it may surprise some who have been reading my posts, I don't really know what to define myself or my beliefs as right now regarding Christianity and the Bible... but that's a whole 'nother can of worms.
If however, we are speaking from a Christian perspective, I do know a reasonable amount of the Bible, and in the NT especially I don't see how one night stands could be justified. This is bound for Kergymania, I know. But briefly- Jesus' teaching on divorce comes to mind. For instance, Mat. 19:7 Jesus said, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery." There is also an interesting section on marriage in 1 Cor. 7.
Posts: 133 | From: Canada | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
May I once again remind everyone that the OP was specifically about Virginity and what makes it so special.
Promiscuity and adultery and even What, exactly, is Marriage are separate topics.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Little Miss Methodist*
Ship's Diplomat
# 4367
|
Posted
I've been pondering this for a while, and then the thread meandered for a bit so I thought i'd wait and see where it meandered to!
So, back to the virginity question....
I don't know about any one else, but I have a tendancy to remember anniversaries of things, or to count "firsts" or "lasts" as something special. I think part of this is me and the way my mind works, but another large bit of it is that we as a society like to mark out occasions.
If you think about it we will often celebrate things in life, and not just obvious things like new babies or weddings or birthdays! We might celebrate our last exam, our childs first tooth (or the first time you lose a tooth), first day at school etc etc. Not with huge parties necessarily, but we remember them, and mark them out in our minds as something a bit special. I think virginity is like this. There are lots of other factors involved that many other people have covered, but one of them seems to me to be just about it being something significant in life - something you have not done before and therefore that you mark out as being a bit special.
Because sex is so intimate, and comes along with all the emotions and feelings, it makes that "first" into much more of a big deal, and we find ourselves wanting to get it "just right".
We add to that the stuff we have more than likely been told by our parents ad infinitum about sex and how we are not to do it till we are married etc etc and that first time looks even more of a big deal (regardless of the sirt of relationship we are in).
I'm not saying by any means that this is the only (or even the greatest) factor, but I do think it comes into play, if only on a subconcious level.
There was an advert for a program on tonight with lots of famous people just stating an age. It wasn't specifically stated what this had to do with, but they were saying things like "first time? I was sixteen" etc, so i'm assuming that they were talking about when they lost their virginity*. The point is that they all knew. They wern't explicitly stating where and when, but I would guess they knew that too, if not the actual date. Its a bit like "where were you when Kennedy was shot / Diana died?" Every one remembers.
Apologies for long post, and for rambling.
LMM
*(i'm gonna feel pretty stupid if it turns out it was about the first time they saw Star Wars or something!)
--------------------
Past the point of no return,
The final threshold.
The bridge is crossed, so stand and watch it burn.
We've passed the point of no return.
Posts: 873 | From: Member number 1000! | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
I have no answers, but it always has amazed me how obsessed some women are with being virgo intacta , to the point where there is inconsistency in their thinking.
I did not enter the convent until I was 25, but I knew many Sisters (from various congregations) who had entered very young, and who often had known they wished to do so from childhood. I doubt some of them had ever so much as kissed a man, yet they were so preoccupied with having an intact hymen that they would be aghast to learn that other nuns used tampons. That is bizarre. Vowed chastity has many elements (and it naturally may be undertaken by one who had past sexual experience, but I am not even referring to that situation here), but the idea that someone who has not violated the vow has 'lost her virginity' because a membrane might be broken seems really sick.
Of course, I think that the "I am a virgin, I only have oral sex" business is ridiculous and a classic self-deception. I shook my head when I read an online article about squeaky clean kids (who looked like Jehovah's witnesses, though they were not - clothing right out of the most conservative 1950 style) who had made a pledge to preserve virginity - but who were finding gratification in other ways. Their premise was that this was an act of virtue - but it clearly was not based on the virtue of chastity at all. I loathe the nonsense about 'saving myself for my husband' - when what that boils down to is that men like the ego game of breaking a woman's hymen.
I have known women who truly believed that sex belonged only in marriage. (I am assuming this was because of a theology wherein marriage is covenant and sex a sign of commitment... you can tell who is a nun here...) Yet, if they had sex once, doing so again did not matter - after all, they were no longer virgins. (The bizarre logic of "I think this is a sin - but it's no longer a sin when I don't have anything to 'give' to my husband is one I cannot follow.) One friend of mine, unfortunately widowed very young, was astonished that friends of hers who were outspoken against sex outside of marriage thought it would be fine if B. had sex with any man she wished because it did not matter - she had been married.
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
quote:
One friend of mine, unfortunately widowed very young, was astonished that friends of hers who were outspoken against sex outside of marriage thought it would be fine if B. had sex with any man she wished because it did not matter - she had been married.
Newman's Own's quote has given me a very perceptive observation. I was astounded to find myself almost in sympathy with the widow's friends. But almost unwillingly, for logically it seems absurd; if one didn't believe in sex before marriage (as was my position before I married), why should the fact that one is no longer a virgin, but then widowed (or even divorced) change one's view as far as any future relationships would be concerned.
And yet I feel sure that it would be different second time around. And it is related to what we discussed earlier about the continnum of sexual expression - once you are having regular sex, you become so familiar with the experience, and quite comfortable with the idea that a passionate kiss might well just lead to full sex - or might not, but the 'freedom' to entertain the idea is there. I don't know if I'm explaining this very well, but having been accustomed to no 'artificial barriers' of what is permissible (eg on which parts of your body you are happy to be touched), I think it would be far harder in a future relationship to go back to the way you were before marriage, with the 'barriers up'
I'm not saying this behaviour has any moral justification (for one who believes sex outside marriage is wrong), just that pragmatically I can see how it would be for me, and I suspect for many others too.
Plus of course, back to the original topic of virginity specifically - there must be some mileage in the idea that you can only lose it once, and having done so it would seem less of a big deal.
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
I doubt that my posting will add anything to this interesting thread, but Little Miss Methodist has raised the interesting question of anniversaries. During a dinner party a few years ago, much of the precious vintage of Niagara having been uncorked, a respectable Senior Planning Officer from the Dominion Sacrifices Bureau/ Sacrifice Canada told us that Saint Swithun's Day has always had a special meaning for her on this account.
Apparently, (very, very) shortly after she had disposed of her virtue to a fellow tree planter, the radio in her tent began to play Billy Bragg's "Saint Swithun's Day," and the announcer cheerily noted that he had looked up Saint S, and that the very day was his feast(15 July).
Her clerical father, mercifully unaware of the context of her enquiry, provided her with further information on this good and holy bishop, and she was further entranced to learn that Swithun's best-known miracle was when he restored a basket of eggs that workmen had broken on a bridge.
Since then, she informed us, she had always kept Saint Swithun's day.
Such attention to the church's sanctoral cycle can only incite our admiration!
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Does anyone here believe there is a difference between a virgin and a sexually active person (married or otherwise)?
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Does anyone here believe there is a difference between a virgin and a sexually active person (married or otherwise)?
Yes. I do.
Here is a passage from the teachings of my church:
quote:
Virginity is the crown of chastity and a pledge of true love.
Virginity is called the crown of chastity, because it crowns the chastity of marriage, and it is also a sign of chastity. A bride therefore at her wedding wears a crown on her head. It is also a sign of the holiness of marriage. For after parting with the flower of virginity the bride gives and hands herself over completely to the bridegroom, who then becomes her husband; and the husband in turn does the same to his bride, who then becomes his wife.
Virginity is also called the pledge of true love, because it is a pledge of their compact, a promise that love will unite them to be one person, or one flesh. Even men before their wedding regard the virginity of their bride as the crown of her chastity and as a pledge of true love. They look upon it as the great treat, from which their delight in this love will begin and last. These and previous statements establish that, after her girdle is undone and her virginity taken, a virgin becomes a wife; and if not a wife, she is vulnerable to becoming promiscuous. For the new state into which she is then brought is the state of love for her husband; and if it is not for her husband, it is a state of desire. Emanuel Swedenborg, Conjugial Love #503
This, perhaps somewhat old-fashioned, idea is mainly about women, but something similar is said to be true of men as well. There is a slight difference because males and females seem to have different sexual wiring. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Does anyone here believe there is a difference between a virgin and a sexually active person (married or otherwise)?
Yes. The latter has had sex, while the former has not.
--------------------
“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
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Apart from that difference in his or her personal history, is there now a difference in that person?
--------------------
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
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
what, exactly, _is_ a male virgin, anyway? i mean, its obvious when he's not, its when he's had vaginal sex with a female, to normal ejaculation. but what if he doesn't come? still a virgin? how about if its anal, (but with a woman) not vaginal? what about if he has a premature ejaculation before he gets to insertion? what about a homosexual male whos never had sex with a woman but has a full sex life with men? virgin or not? (i ask this because theres a lot of people who would say that a lesbian is a virgin no matter what she does as long as its with other women)
in a woman the "classical" definition (which i know we've pretty much dispensed with on this thread) is an intact hyman, or at the very least, (because the hyman can break in non-sexual ways) a woman who's never had a man's organ in hers. but there doesn't seem to be anything so clear-cut with the male definition. yet we have been talking about male virgins. so what do we actually mean by the term?
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scot
Deck hand
# 2095
|
Posted
No, sex does not cause a fundamental change in a person. Any new experience, including sex, will make a mark on a person but this is not something that is unique to sex.
Sex is commonly experienced in an emotionally loaded context, possibly increasing the impact of the experience. Cultural and religious conditioning may further add to the personal significance. However, the emotional, cultural, and religious context are not intrinsic to the sex act, so their effects should not be mistaken for a change caused by having sex.
--------------------
“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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by nicolemrw:
what, exactly, _is_ a male virgin, anyway?
I agree that it's not very clear cut. It seems that it is more a matter of a lack of experience and sexual innocence, rather than any strict technical definition.
Probably the same would be true in large degree in females as well - that it is more about sexual innocence and lack of experience than about the technicality of having an intact hymen.
Men obviously don't have hymens and ejaculate naturally and involuntarily with sexual dreams whether they have actual sex or not. Not that there is no difference. Men just function sexually differently than women, so virginity has traditionally (and unfairly) been a lesser issue for men.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
Apart from that difference in his or her personal history, is there now a difference in that person?
Yes. According to my church, anyway. Here is another quote from New Church doctrines:
quote:
The state of a virgin or untouched woman before marriage and after marriage.
What the state of a virgin is before she has been taught the facts about getting married was made plain to me by wives in the spiritual world, who had departed from the natural world as children and been brought up in heaven. They said that on reaching marriageable condition they began, through watching married couples, to love married life, but only in order to be called wives, to keep company in friendship and trust with one man, and also to be free of obedience at home and have control of their own lives. They said it was only the blessedness of friendship and mutual trust with a male consort that made them think about marriage, and there was not the slightest hint of the delight of any passion.
[2] The virgin state changed after being married to a new one, about which they had previously known nothing. This state, they said, was one in which everything to do with bodily life from first to last had extended so as to receive their husband's gifts and to unite them to their own life, thus becoming his love and a wife. This state began from the moment of being deflowered, and after this the passion of love blazed up, directed towards their husband alone. This extension made them experience heavenly delights. Since the wife had been brought into this state by her husband, and since he is its source and it is thus his in her, it was obvious that she could love no one but him.
[3] These statements made it clear what is the state of virgins in heaven before and after marriage. It is not difficult to see that on earth the state of virgins and wives on first being married is similar. How can any virgin know that new state until she experiences it? Ask and you will be told. There is a difference in the case of those who before marriage encounter stimulation from learning about it. Emanuel Swedenborg, Conjugial Love #502
Growing up in a religious community, where most young people remain virgins until they are married, this reading resonates with my own experience. I realize, however, that this probably isn't how most people see it.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
quote:
They said it was only the blessedness of friendship and mutual trust with a male consort that made them think about marriage, and there was not the slightest hint of the delight of any passion.
I'm not buying that one for a minute.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
quote:
They said it was only the blessedness of friendship and mutual trust with a male consort that made them think about marriage, and there was not the slightest hint of the delight of any passion.
I'm not buying that one for a minute.
Yes. I understand. Other translations put it somewhat differently:
quote:
Respecting marriage, they said that they had thought of it solely from the blessedness of mutual friendship and confidence with a male consort, and not at all from the delight of any flame.
And another translation:
quote:
They also said that they thought of marriage only because of the bliss of the friendship and mutual confidence they shared with a male companion, and not at all because of the delight of any passion.
And a fourth one:
quote:
They said that they thought about marriage only for the happiness of shared friendship and trust with a male partner, and absolutely not for the allurement of any passion.
This isn't consistent with your experience?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
quote:
They said it was only the blessedness of friendship and mutual trust with a male consort that made them think about marriage, and there was not the slightest hint of the delight of any passion.
I'm not buying that one for a minute.
I suppose that one has no physical passions when one is body-less.. remember that these virgins reported this when they were already dead voyeurs.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Yeah, I was sort of not dealing with the fact that these women giving their opinions about sex and marriage (in Freddie's tale) don't seem to have vaginas. Or am I mistaking the meaning of what he wrote? They are said to be completely spiritual or something?
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I suppose that one has no physical passions when one is body-less.. remember that these virgins reported this when they were already dead voyeurs.
Voyeurs?
These were people who had died as children and had grown up in heaven. The scenario, as described in these books, is that they have a body, live in a world, and have a life almost exactly as people in this world do.
But the quote also says that it is similar with virgins in this world, which is the point. The difference is that in this world it is more unusual to be free of unchaste influences than in heaven. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
Well, it sounds like an older version of "Women marry for love, men for sex". Despite appearences, I want a WHOLE lot more than sex out of marriage. Lying on the couch and watching movies, for instance. Cooking for her. Rubbing her feet.
--------------------
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
|
|
Jenn.
Shipmate
# 5239
|
Posted
Sorry but those quotes don't make much sense to me. I might be being stupid (always likely) but isnt conversing with the dead a bad thing? And growing up in this world is kinda different to growing up in heaven.
I guess its about anniversaries like someone else said. I tend to remember first times for everything - maybe not dates, but exact circumstances. It is kinda confusing with the whole what about when you are a widow aspect though... hmmm... shall have to think
Posts: 2282 | From: England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by angeljenn:
Sorry but those quotes don't make much sense to me. I might be being stupid (always likely) but isnt conversing with the dead a bad thing? And growing up in this world is kinda different to growing up in heaven.
Yes. Good point. I knew it was kind of off-the-wall. I just wanted to say that this is what we believe in my religion, in response that Wikkid Person's question as to whether anyone believed that virgins are different.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
quote:
I just wanted to say that this is what we believe in my religion, in response that Wikkid Person's question as to whether anyone believed that virgins are different.
Thanks man. Nice to hear a break in the trend toward "Sex isn't what you're making it out to be, man. It's not *important*. Whether you are a virgin or not isn't important. After you have sex, nothing important will have changed, so it is of vital importance that you go have sex *right away* so you won't be a virgin anymore!"
Paul said, of course, that there is a difference between a virgin and a married person, as the married person will seek to please their partner, which would likely take some of their focus off pleasing God.
I guess, then, it would be ok to have sex with people you're NOT married to and don't care about, because then you could please God all the time that you weren't actively seeking tail or getting it, without the complication of a partner taking your focus off Him.
--------------------
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
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
then you could please God all the time that you weren't actively seeking tail or getting it, without the complication of a partner taking your focus off Him.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Had Swedenbourg seen sex as a 'great treat,' that would be understandable. Someone's virginity as 'the great treat' is a concept that I loathe. (My saying 'voyeurs' came from the thought that those who died at too young an age to know about sex grew up in heaven and learnt by 'watching married couples. Though Freddy's quotes, in total, left me totally puzzled.)
My friend who was widowed (after about 12 years of marriage and five children) sincerely believed that sex belonged only in marriage. It really saddened her that some of her highly religious friends, who had always insisted sex outside of marriage was wrong, were of the 'you can only lose it once' point of view - the more because some of them told her she'd have to have that attitude if she ever wanted hopes of another marriage. (Incidentally, she did not have sex outside of marriage - but did remarry.)
On another note, extending my intial post - the Order which I entered is based in Assisi, and is only about 120 years old. The foundress did not wish to have women who had been married join the congregation, entirely because Italian family relationships are very intricate and what she had seen in other communities (in Italy, especially, a number of institutes had a substantial number of widows) made her think it best to have only candidates who had never married. (Had a woman's husband died the day of the wedding, she still would have family 'ties' to her mother-in-law, and need to be there if the latter later needed help; those who had children often could not take their minds of them or their own kids.) It was a purely practical decision... yet some of the starry eyed candidates thought it must mean she wanted only a 'community of virgins.' Not that sex in marriage is wrong - nor that vows of chastity are not possible for those who have previous sexual experience (in marriage or not) - but the virgo intacta crowd thought that meant superiority!
I'll never understand why breaking a hymen is such an ego trip for some guys (I would think it would be a tiresome business at best), nor why some women are excited at the prospect (unless they like everything to include the maximum pain.)
Come to think of it, why on earth did the Creator design us women with that blasted membrane, anyway?
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
I have no interest whatsoever in the hymen. I knew what was meant, however in the song "Cold-Blooded Old Time" from the "High Fidelity" soundtrack, when the lines went:
"How can I stand and laugh with the man
Who redefined your body?"
and the Barenaked Ladies song "The Wrong Man":
"And if I ever lie beside your body
Don't tell me where it's been
It's cruel unusual punishment
To kiss fingerprinted skin"
--------------------
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
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
It seems to me that sex is (often) incredibly powerful, but very, very different for each of us. Therfore a lot of harm has been caused by making simplistic rules and applying them indiscriminately.
I have known cases where couples, as Good Little Chritians TM, did not have sex until after they were married - and this has then caused big problems later on. Not having sex had given one partner the message that the other was not physically attracted to them. I don't want to imply that this applies to all couples, nor do I want to attack the Church's traditional teaching. But (as has been said on these boards many times) I want to note that this is an area where many people have got hurt in many ways down through the centuries.
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
And yet I feel sure that it would be different second time around. And it is related to what we discussed earlier about the continnum of sexual expression - once you are having regular sex, you become so familiar with the experience, and quite comfortable with the idea that a passionate kiss might well just lead to full sex - or might not, but the 'freedom' to entertain the idea is there. I don't know if I'm explaining this very well, but having been accustomed to no 'artificial barriers' of what is permissible (eg on which parts of your body you are happy to be touched), I think it would be far harder in a future relationship to go back to the way you were before marriage, with the 'barriers up'
Not having been married, I can't speak about how it would be to embark upon another relationship after a marriage had ended, but I can say that IME it is certainly different getting into the second sexual relationship than it is getting into the first, mainly because you know a lot more about what to expect the second time around.
But I haven't found it all that hard to have "barriers up" despite my previous sexual experiences, because I am very conscious of having chosen barriers that are appropriate for me. I don't have barriers up because of some rule about not having sex outside marriage; I put those barriers up myself, and I can take them down when the appropriate opportunity presents itself.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
Good point Ruth but I don't think your 'barriers' are quite the same as the ones I had, before marriage, when the reason I had them was because I believed sex outside marriage was wrong. Yours seem to be more pragmatic based on what is 'appropriate' for you at a particular time in a particular relationship.
Also, I've now been married 18 years, (and still having regular sex! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ); thats an awful long time to get accustomed to the idea, for it to seem so 'natural' for me, that I've almost forgotten what it was like to have the barriers!
Does that make sense, to explain how we can be seeing this a bit differently?
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Had Swedenbourg seen sex as a 'great treat,' that would be understandable. Someone's virginity as 'the great treat' is a concept that I loathe.
I'm sorry about the wording of "great treat" as a translation of the latin "delitiae." It's certainly understandable to loathe this.
I think the idea was simply that grooms have, rightly or wrongly, traditionally placed a high value on the virginity of their brides. Historically this has been true in most cultures world wide.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
weatherwax lyrical
Shipmate
# 4416
|
Posted
hi
new to the discussion but definitely not new to the question! i have been having an internal crisis of morality (?) in that although i am no longer a virgin (shock, horror and a long-step away from the self-righteous 16 yr old i used to be) i have had several sexual partners - and am not entirely sure why, since (and i promise to get to the point soon!) i have great problems with true intimacy and can't seem to get to grips with a proper, meaningful relationship. This means that once i find someone to share my life with i have all these numbers behind me...
...but...
...i would find it more difficult to know that the man i love has loved before than has simply had sex with people before. maybe i'm trying to feel like less of a whore but surely a man should feel less 'special' or that his wife's 'delitiae' (sp?) is of less value if she's truly LOVED someone before and not simply done the dirty.
am i making any sense? is this trite rubbish? (does anyone else detest the elusive figure of the ex-girlfriend simply because she 'was' rather than because she 'is' and could even be lovely?)
i agree - 'virginity' is a far broader term than the physical act. (i broke my hymen doing advanced gymnastics at a young age) and i don't like the 'chaste sluts' who do 'everything but', one can't help thinking they're fooling themselves...
--------------------
some are born great, some achieve greatness and some have greatness thrust upon them. i have not inherited greatness, nor do i seek it, and if one day i am made great it is through no fault of my own (but i suppose i'll have to cope...)
Posts: 57 | From: England (south) | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
Good point Ruth but I don't think your 'barriers' are quite the same as the ones I had, before marriage, when the reason I had them was because I believed sex outside marriage was wrong. Yours seem to be more pragmatic based on what is 'appropriate' for you at a particular time in a particular relationship.
Also, I've now been married 18 years, (and still having regular sex! ); thats an awful long time to get accustomed to the idea, for it to seem so 'natural' for me, that I've almost forgotten what it was like to have the barriers!
Does that make sense, to explain how we can be seeing this a bit differently?
Well, honestly, no. My barriers aren't the same ones you had before marriage, nor are they the same ones I had when I still thought sex outside marriage was wrong. But my barriers aren't pragmatic; they derive from a position that is for me just as much a moral position as the no-sex-outside-marriage position is for others. It's just not the same moral position. I used the word "appropriate" before, but I just as easily could have used the word "right." While I have always found rules about when people can and cannot have sex to be extremely unhelpful and unrealistic, I do think there are moral guidelines that obtain. Scot summed them up pretty well above.
You imagine you would find it hard to re-erect (sorry!) the barriers you had before you were married because you're so used to having sex. But I don't think barriers people really want to have are that hard to maintain. So if, God forbid, you found yourself single again, you might find that in fact it's not that hard to keep your hands where you think they belong because you really truly believe sex belongs to marriage and only to marriage.
And, to continue to be honest, if what you say about the ease of starting a second sexual relationship is true, if the barriers really would be hard to put up again, then it really doesn't sound like there's much grounds for the no extra-marital sex rule.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Am I the only one who is completely befuddled by Ruth's response? ![[Confused]](confused.gif) ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
And here I thought I was being so clear! What doesn't make sense to you?
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
I don't understand how you get from "the barriers would be hard to put back up again" to "there's not much ground for the no-sex-outside-of-marriage rule". That seems like a gigantic non-sequitur to me. What's your reasoning?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
i didn't follow that either, but I thought maybe I was just being dense.
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Zeke, we'll have to be dense together.
Dense? I'd love to!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zeke
Ship's Inquirer
# 3271
|
Posted
In a dense, who leads?
--------------------
No longer the Bishop of Durham
-----------
If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? --Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 5259 | From: Deep in the American desert | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Whoever's wearing the tux.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Ah. Okay. There were probably several leaps there.
If someone could keep the barriers up while a virgin and presumably still relatively young and possibly horny as all get out, trusting that everything they've been taught is right and that waiting for marriage really will be worth it, how could it be harder when they're older and presumably have more self-control and when they've had the experience of sex within marriage and found out that it is in fact worth waiting? To me the answer to that question is that virgins waiting for marriage have an easier time maintaining those barriers because they're hesitant and inexperienced and unsure about having sex; once all that's gone away, the barriers are harder to maintain because their real foundation is gone.
If the prohibition of extra-marital sex were grounded in something other than "I haven't done it before and I would be so much more comfortable being sure that it was okay when I do" then it would be easier to abide by it when you have benefitted from all it's supposed to do for you.
I would add that I think for some people the prohibition of extra-marital sex really is grounded in morality, rather than in wanting to feel comfortable and okay. I imagine such people would find the idea of indulging in casual or recreational sex after having been widowed to be an almost unthinkable disrespect to their dead spouses, no matter how much they missed the intimacy of sex.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
that Wikkid Person
Shipmate
# 4446
|
Posted
A friend of mine argued this after his own marriage. He said "Once the genie's out of the bottle and you know what you're saying 'no' to, it doesn't want to go back in."
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Thanks, Ruth. That makes a lot more sense now.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Whew!
In the meantime, there you are with Zeke, densing. And both of you married to other people. Even I don't approve, and there ain't much I don't approve! ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Densing hell! We're still arguing over who gets to wear the tuxedo!
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
I agree, Ruth.
I won't dense, don't ask me.
I won't dense, don't ask me.
I won't dense, Mousethief, with you.
My heart won't let my brain do things that it should do.
--------------------
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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by that Wikkid Person:
A friend of mine argued this after his own marriage. He said "Once the genie's out of the bottle and you know what you're saying 'no' to, it doesn't want to go back in."
Or it does want to go back in. Nudge nudge wink wink.
PS:
I could have densed all night....
[ 25. January 2004, 04:43: Message edited by: Mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grits
Compassionate fundamentalist
# 4169
|
Posted
quote:
"Once the genie's out of the bottle and you know what you're saying 'no' to, it doesn't want to go back in."
I believe this little comment might belong on the "Alternative body part names" thread.
--------------------
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
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
