|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: sex before marriage
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by FreeJack:
It doesn't necessarily mean that you will stick to 1 if it comes to the crunch
I guess that's true - though I wasn't so much thinking about men worrying about whether or not the women had had previous partners, as men not allowing their own theoretical objectionn to sex outside marriage to get in the way if they find themselves in a situation where someone wanted to have sex with them. Whether that person was a virgin or not.
My suspicion is that most men who have perfectly good theoretical objections to sex outside marriage would in practice find reasons that seemed good to them at the time why it didn't apply to themselves, here, now.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gracious rebel
Rainbow warrior
# 3523
|
Posted
...what happened to number 3 then LOTL!? ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Seriously, I do now think that the Christian 'rule' about no sex before marriage, does almost as much harm as it does good, and makes so many people into hypocrites for they know they have broken it but have to act among other Christians as if they haven't.
But maybe worse than that is the unhelpful focus on sex that it encourages - one is so busy trying hard not to cross whatever line one has determined that must not be crossed before marriage, that one can never really relax, and enjoy getting to know each other in a sexual way gradually, alongside all the other ways one gets to know each other during courtship.
Also the business about if/when to reveal one's 'past' can cause awkwardness in a culture of no sex before marriage. My husband and I did wait, but he'd had several other partners before he met me (and subsequently became a Christian) ... it must have been so hard for him to decide if/when to tell me about this. He finally got around to it about a month before our wedding, which was not really a helpful time for me to be confronted with the idea of him with other women (although I guess I must always have suspected that to be the case - I honestly can't remember).
--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website
Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
I can see what you are saying is true, that there are people who do not compare their partners and thereby avert the problems that could arise from that. However,1)I guess I was talking about some people's worry of being badly treated in this way, which isn't quite the same thing. Quite a few people seem to be weighed down by that worry. (I'd be interested to know if there are any gender differences here).
My experience is very different. I can't think of anyone I know who is worried about this. This is not to say that I and my friends and acquaintances think previous sexual experiences are completely irrelevant; I'd certainly want to know basic things about someone's sexual history if I were going to have sex with him. But for me this is just like learning other things about someone's life.
quote:
Then, 2) there is the problem of how do different people handle their 'past' with partners or prospective partners. It seems to me that people adopt different attitudes:
1) this was their 'past' before they became Christians, due to having held different attitudes then
2) this was a time when they lapsed from the faith and are now coming back in
These people may or may not feel guilt, remorse, etc. and are striving to turn a new leaf
4) they don't feel guilty. No. 4 is the scenario that intrigues me here, because some people are open about their attitude, whereas others aren't, but will either a)hide their 'past' from a partner or prospective partner or b)feign a sense of guilt and repentance.
I had sex when I was not a Christian, and I have had sex since becoming one, and I don't feel at all guilty about any of it, because there was nothing wrong with it.
I am struck by your wording; you assume that this is a "problem" which requires handling. As far as I'm concerned, that I and the men I have slept with have had previous sexual partners is a fact, not a problem. I have a past, and I expect that the men I meet all have pasts. I suppose it's possible that I could meet a man over 40 who is a virgin, but chances are he'd be the kind of conservative Christian with whom I am completely incompatible.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
exactly.
Agrees with Ruth.
In cons evo world were told all about these "problems" which once escaping that world you realise arent really problems, and being twisted be odd attitudes to sex brought on by church stuff is more of a problem...
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rat
Ship's Rat
# 3373
|
Posted
Also agreeing with RuthW.
There is something about the language of problem in this area that makes me uncomfortable. It seems almost as if those using it believe they can remove all the uncertainty and difficulty from relationships by choice of a 'clean' partner.
Human beings are messy. Everybody we ever meet will have a past - maybe a sexual past, maybe a relationship past, if nothing else a family past. And somewhere along the line there will be problems to be overcome.
I have no issue with people choosing to moderate their sexual behaviour according to their beliefs. But I can see no sense in elevating the anticipated 'problems' caused by previous sexual activity above those caused by - just choosing at random - a previous emotionally-charged relationship that ended badly, or a damaging childhood.
--------------------
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
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
2 "clean" partners doesnt guarantee a happy relationship or good sex or anything either...
just perhaps 2 people with more hang ups...
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210
|
Posted
Whatever your views about whether sex before marriage is a Good Thing or not, I think far too much emphasis, in some circles, is put on the sexual aspect of relationships. Ironically, IME it is often those who are most ardently anti sex before marriage that become obsessed with what a couple is doing in bed at the expense of other parts of the relationship.
I have known friends who have worked incredibly hard to keep themselves 'pure' (to the extent that they don't hug or kiss because it might cause 'difficulties' and stir up 'impure' thoughts) and haven't thought too much about other aspects of their relationship.
I was also upset and quite shocked by a friend who said that he would be devasted if any future wife of his had 'sinned sexually' (i.e. had sex) with anyone else, but that he would try really hard to forgive her and not hold it against her. He thought this was a fairly tolerant attitude.
I know personal examples don't make a case, but they do illustrate my point.
xSx, who used to be GLE no sex before marriage gal and now isn't G, L or E and isn't sure about sex before marriage either!
Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
xSx, who used to be GLE no sex before marriage gal and now isn't G, L or E and isn't sure about sex before marriage either!
We need some more acronyms and abbreviations!
Not sure giving up being 'L' is a theological decision.
A friend of mine was once filling out a dating form and thought N-S meant No Sex Before Marriage and not Non-Smoker.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by karlbarth:
Is it possible to have a Christian sexual ethic for the 21st century? What seems to be the case at the moment is that the church kind of recognises many professing Christians are living together or engaging in premarital sex, but does not want to talk about it. Surely the choices are not restricted to: (1) a return to 18th century culture or (2) accepting the view of modern secular anything-goes in respect of sexuality.
In the US, the UUs (Unitarian Universalists - not usually considered Christian) and the UCC (United Church of Christ) have developed a sexuality curriculum called Our Whole Lives
(O.W.L.).
I think one of its main purposes is to counter the "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" message that students get in the public education system (at least, that was we were taught when I was in school; I have doubts about whether it's changed much). But it does have a significant faith component for churches who are using it with their youth, to encourage the youth to think through how their sexuality relates to their faith and beliefs.
So yes, there are more options than "don't do it" and "anything goes." Although you may have to be ultra-liberal to find a religious person talking about them outside the Ship.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
So yes, there are more options than "don't do it" and "anything goes." Although you may have to be ultra-liberal to find a religious person talking about them outside the Ship.
Mm. Well, it's certainly the position of most non-con-evo Anglicans I know. And most of them would consider themselves to be religious people.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
saysay
Ship's Praying Mantis
# 6645
|
Posted
Aye, that was poorly worded.
I meant to say something more along the lines of: outside of ultra-liberal churches, you're not likely to find this as the official teaching. Apart from on the Ship (which, granted, isn't exactly a church and doesn't have an official teaching, although it does seem to have a majority position).
I'm not sure that makes any more sense. It's one of those days. Nevermind.
--------------------
"It's been a long day without you, my friend
I'll tell you all about it when I see you again"
"'Oh sweet baby purple Jesus' - that's a direct quote from a 9 year old - shoutout to purple Jesus."
Posts: 2943 | From: The Wire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Holding
Coffee and Cognac
# 158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
In the US, the UUs (Unitarian Universalists - not usually considered Christian) and the UCC (United Church of Christ) have developed a sexuality curriculum called Our Whole Lives
(O.W.L.).
I think one of its main purposes is to counter the "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" message that students get in the public education system (at least, that was we were taught when I was in school; I have doubts about whether it's changed much).
How different things obviously are.
In Ontario, the provincially mandated sex ed component of the middle school health curriculum has for 10-15 years excluded the possibility of abstinence as a method of birth control. It assumes, and the teachers teach, that all people (remember these are kids 12-14) will be sexually active without any reference to any other standard of behaviour. As it happens, I favour broad teaching about birth control and the like, though I would prefer a more balanced approach than our schools take.
I have to say found your (no doubt accurate) suggestion that in your state there is such a bias against sex before marriage almost amusing by contrast.
John
Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
I cant imagine a Uk curriculum biasing towards "no sex before marriage". Its usually about safe sex, and some schools deal with the relational aspect too.
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
I spend 10 months or so in Americorps teaching what was called an "abstinence first" curriculum. It tried to cover all the bases, focusing on the relationship side of things. The overall message being something like: "the only way to be absolutely safe from all of the potential repercussions of having sex is abstinence. Seriously. It's easier that way. But...if you are going to have sex (and it's practically a given that some of you will), here's what you can do to try to limit the risks you are taking."
I also found that the relationship stuff was actually the hardest to explain, particularly when you're dealing with 12-14 year old boys.
And a side to that, I agree on one hand that it's kind of ridiculous to be giving sex ed to individuals who are essentially children , but at the same time this is the age when they start beccoming sexually active, and if you know, statistically, that a fair number of kids this age are going to be sleeping together, you'd rather they be doing it with some modicum of education about what they're getting into.
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by saysay:
In the US, the UUs (Unitarian Universalists - not usually considered Christian) and the UCC (United Church of Christ) have developed a sexuality curriculum called Our Whole Lives
(O.W.L.).
I think one of its main purposes is to counter the "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" message that students get in the public education system (at least, that was we were taught when I was in school; I have doubts about whether it's changed much).
Since you give no clues in your profile, I don't know where in the US you are or how old you are, but my '50s/'60s public school sex ed didn't give the "YOU WILL DIE IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE" message (it was 'just the facts, ma'am) and neither did our kids '80s cirriculum (which provided the facts, but laid heavy emphasis on thinking about relationships, consequences, and what you might do and why, encouraging the kids to think).
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347
|
Posted
There seems to be an assumption here among some people that people who clearly oppose sex before marriage aren't really interested in other aspects of relationships. This isn't really true. Hardly any of the people I know who are traditionalists in this regard are like this.
In fact the only Christians I've met who have been unduly fixated on the no sex before marriage rule and not paid enough attention to other aspects of relationships have been people who tend to jump into relationships very quickly out of desperation.
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I am struck by your wording; you assume that this is a "problem" which requires handling. As far as I'm concerned, that I and the men I have slept with have had previous sexual partners is a fact, not a problem
The point is, not everyone who is a Christian (for it is Christians we're talking about here, mainly) holds the same attitudes as you do, in fact most do not.
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
I was also upset and quite shocked by a friend who said that he would be devastated if any future wife of his had 'sinned sexually' (i.e. had sex) with anyone else, but that he would try really hard to forgive her and not hold it against her. He thought this was a fairly tolerant attitude.
If your friend is a Christian, I'm not surprised he thinks that way. At least he's realising he needs to forgive and not hold it against such a (presumably hypothetical) person. It's better than not even bothering to take such things seriously, isn't it ? Or would you rather that he simply didn't hold to the traditional teaching at all ? At the end of the day, he's got every right to hold to the traditional teaching.
--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.
Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
I am struck by your wording; you assume that this is a "problem" which requires handling. As far as I'm concerned, that I and the men I have slept with have had previous sexual partners is a fact, not a problem
The point is, not everyone who is a Christian (for it is Christians we're talking about here, mainly) holds the same attitudes as you do, in fact most do not.
I realize that. But they're wrong. And the following demonstrates how traditional Christian teaching about sex has created unrealistic and sometimes quite damaging attitudes toward sex.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
I was also upset and quite shocked by a friend who said that he would be devastated if any future wife of his had 'sinned sexually' (i.e. had sex) with anyone else, but that he would try really hard to forgive her and not hold it against her. He thought this was a fairly tolerant attitude.
If your friend is a Christian, I'm not surprised he thinks that way. At least he's realising he needs to forgive and not hold it against such a (presumably hypothetical) person. It's better than not even bothering to take such things seriously, isn't it ? Or would you rather that he simply didn't hold to the traditional teaching at all ? At the end of the day, he's got every right to hold to the traditional teaching.
Of course he has that right. But it's led him to prioritize virginity in a way that seems extremely unhealthy to me -- does he feel this strongly about other virtues a prospective mate might have not upheld once or twice in her life? -- and it may mean that he'll miss out on considering women with whom he might be very happy.
I'm not saying that preferring to delay sex till after marriage necessarily creates these problems, but that some Christians' emphasis on it does create very unhealthy attitudes and problems they would otherwise have avoided. If someone believes that sex before marriage is wrong, they either have to rule out all non-virgins as prospective mates (which is a whole lot of people, even among Christians) or they have to come up with a way to deal with the fact that their future husband/wife is not a virgin. If they are very absolutist about virginity and place a high priority on it, a prospective mate who is not a virgin is indeed going to be a problem. If they believe some bullshit about people being irrevocably tied to the first person they have sex with, non-virginity does present a big problem. But if they are secure about themselves and secure in their love, and if they have more realistic views of sex and virginity, I don't see why it has to be such a big problem even if they do think sex should only take place in marriage. They presumably also don't want to marry liars -- do they insist that prospective mates never have told a lie in their lives?
quote:
There seems to be an assumption here among some people that people who clearly oppose sex before marriage aren't really interested in other aspects of relationships. This isn't really true. Hardly any of the people I know who are traditionalists in this regard are like this.
This is not the assumption I am making. I think what really happens a lot of the time is that people who clearly oppose sex before marriage place far too much emphasis on this. And I think young people especially tend to do this, since young people tend to be more black and white in their views overall.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
Lady of the Lake: quote:
If your friend is a Christian, I'm not surprised he thinks that way. At least he's realising he needs to forgive and not hold it against such a (presumably hypothetical) person. It's better than not even bothering to take such things seriously, isn't it ? Or would you rather that he simply didn't hold to the traditional teaching at all ? At the end of the day, he's got every right to hold to the traditional teaching.
Unless she were to have sex with someone else while in relationship with said Christian man, what would he have had to forgive? Even by traditional mores she hadn't sinned against him when she had sex outside of marriage, unlike in a situation of adultery. She probably hadn't even met him at that point. Has a person who has had sex before marriage sinned against every potential partner? Seems a bit extreme to me.
I'd run for the hills if any man said he forgave me for my sexual history prior to meeting him. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quantpole
Shipmate
# 8401
|
Posted
I am a virgin, and do not intend on having sex until I am married. I believe that is what God intends for human relationships. I wouldn't demand the same from a partner (though attitudes to sex are part of that person and would influence how I felt about them). In the same way, I would hope that a prospective teetotal partner would not insist that I've never been drunk (if anything drunkeness can be argued against more biblically than sex before marriage).
I despise any talk which uses words like 'broken', 'damaged goods' etc. The images from these words are of something that is irredeemable, and that does not match the gospel I know. The sexual history of a person is not something which can be talked about the same way as if it were a vase. Virginity is not a present to be given away on the wedding night. I haven't saved my virginity for anyone bar myself, because I believe that is what God wants from me.
Posts: 885 | From: Leeds | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I'd run for the hills if any man said he forgave me for my sexual history prior to meeting him.
Me too. And I'd kind of wonder about a man my age (43) who had no sexual history at all. Though I don't automatically rule out virgins, I would prefer a man who has some sexual experience.
quantpole's stance is one I would hold up as a sensible and realistic way to uphold the no-sex-before-marriage view.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
koffshun
Shipmate
# 11227
|
Posted
Quantpole, thank you ![[Smile]](smile.gif) It's so wonderful to read words like yours.
I've been following this thread for a while but never felt able to post on it, partly because it's so public but also because so many people have seemed so 'holy'!
I am "damaged goods" and although no man has been unwise enough to describe me as that, it's how I see it. I have huge self-esteem issues, which play a great part in my sexual history but also hold me back in terms of my relationship future.
I have so much respect for some Christians I know, not just for remaining virgins but for other Godly ways of living that I fail miserably in trying to uphold. I think I'd like to find someone who was as flawed as I am (but repentant on a daily basis!) because anyone too lovely would just find me repulsive. Dirty jokes and a tendency to frank comments are not attractive features on a girl, especially to a Christian boy.
What to do? Trust in God is what my repentant self would say. Hope for the best in my less holy moments. I'll be alone forever in my drunken stupour!
Posts: 127 | From: south of england | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scholar Gypsy
Shipmate
# 7210
|
Posted
Both Lyda Rose and Ruth W have answered much better than I could have done.
And I wasn't suggesting that ALL people who wait for marriage place undue emphasis on that, but IME, this does seem to take on more importance than many other types of 'sinning' or aspects of the relationship - probably because it is difficult to stay pure when you are young, in love, and under pressure from 'society'.
Posts: 822 | From: Oxford | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gill H
Shipmate
# 68
|
Posted
I like what quantpole said too.
Maybe it's just the circles I moved in, but I never came across any real obsession with talking about sex (or talking about not having sex) before I got married. Even in my GLE church. We were thoroughly British and never mentioned it at all, in fact. Better repressed than obsessed?
Then again, I didn't read all the 'helpful' Christian relationship books on dating by people called Don't-Hug-It-Too-Closely or similar.
When Hugal and I were going out, I don't recall anyone speculating on whether or not we were sleeping together. The church people probably thought we weren't, and work colleagues probably thought we were, but I suspect no-one thought it appropriate to mention it to us! It truly wasn't a major issue in our relationship. We were going out for a year, then engaged for another 18 months, and waiting till marriage never presented a problem (well, OK, I admit I can only speak for myself - you'd have to ask him!)
Oh, and koffshun, you're not 'damaged goods', except inasmuch as we all are. I do shudder at the logic that turns sex outside marriage into the worst sin of all, particularly when Jesus didn't seem to take that attitude (see the woman taken in adultery).
--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.
- Lyda Rose
Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koffshun:
...Dirty jokes and a tendency to frank comments are not attractive features on a girl, especially to a Christian boy. ...
I find a tendency to frank comments attractive features in a girl.
As for dirty jokes, well it depends entirely on the language and context. But I usually get the context wrong myself, so I don't think that would put me off a girl either.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koffshun:
Dirty jokes and a tendency to frank comments are not attractive features on a girl, especially to a Christian boy.
Out of interest, do you think these would be attractive features 'on a boy', especially to a Christian girl?
Oh, and Quantpole talks a lot of sense. First off, the idea that we are 'goods' (damaged or otherwise) is a far more clearly unscriptural position than anything one might want to say about sex. We are, are we not, created in the image of God and redeemed at great cost through the blood of a lamb without stain? Hardly 'goods' then. Secondly, the whole 'saving myself for my husband' and, more interestingly for a Freudian, 'my promise to my daddy' angle on this issue that seems to be flavour of the month with a certain type of conservative, apart from seeming a tiny bit sexist, also makes the fairly elementary mistake of confusing men with God (which actually probably amounts to the same thing.)
All of which is to say I am far more concerned with the ways people talk about this issue, and their reasons for holding particular positions, than with the actual positions they arrive at.
[ 25. April 2006, 09:32: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koffshun:
I've been following this thread for a while but never felt able to post on it, partly because it's so public but also because so many people have seemed so 'holy'!
Holy? Go back to pages one and two and read my posts, koffshun. Lots of us not-so-holy folks here on the Ship.
quote:
I am "damaged goods" ...
In view of your discomfort with the quasi-public nature of the boards, your feeling that others are holier, and this comment, let me attempt to break the ice a bit:
Hi. I'm jlg. I'm 55. I've been dealing with generally mild but chronic depression since childhood, which at a few times in my life got bad enough that I was seriously suicidal. I was sexually molested around age ten to twelve by a close male relative four years older than me. Was ready to "lose" my virginity by age 15, but it took me another couple of years. Between ages 18 and 29 was very sexually promiscuous (we're talking dozens), had five abortions, got date-raped (one guy used drugs) a few times.
Not to mention the dabbling in drugs and lots and lots of alcohol.
Even when I was suicidal, I never considered myself "damaged goods". No matter how emotionally messy I was, I wasn't a thing, a "chipped and cracked vase", I was a hurting human being.
Not that there aren't people who do treat other people as 'things' to be used; and it isn't always obvious at the time.
Which is why this earlier post bothers me so much:
quote:
Originally posted by The Lady of the Lake:
quote:
Originally posted by xSx:
I was also upset and quite shocked by a friend who said that he would be devastated if any future wife of his had 'sinned sexually' (i.e. had sex) with anyone else, but that he would try really hard to forgive her and not hold it against her. He thought this was a fairly tolerant attitude.
If your friend is a Christian, I'm not surprised he thinks that way. At least he's realising he needs to forgive and not hold it against such a (presumably hypothetical) person. It's better than not even bothering to take such things seriously, isn't it ? Or would you rather that he simply didn't hold to the traditional teaching at all ? At the end of the day, he's got every right to hold to the traditional teaching.
Emphasis added
To me, that states that this person is putting a thing, an abstract thing to be sure, but still a thing, above the needs of another human being. And not just any random human being, but his spouse, the one person on earth he should be attempting to truly love with the unconditional love which God feels for all of His creation.
It also bothers me because it implies that one person can come into the marriage feeling him- or herself in a superior moral position, rather than as a fellow imperfect human being hoping to have a steady and compatible partner in the difficult job of trying to discover how to live a life in accordance with God's will.
When two people get married, they don't "give" each other their virginity* (or the lack of it), they give one another the vow of monogamy "from this day forward" and the determination to stick it out together and try to support one another through all the ups and downs and unforeseeable events of the future. Go read the vows. Nothing about virginity, lots about being there for one another in the unknown future.
*[ETA: thanks to quantpole for this]
[ 25. April 2006, 17:22: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by koffshun:
I am "damaged goods" and although no man has been unwise enough to describe me as that, it's how I see it. I have huge self-esteem issues, which play a great part in my sexual history but also hold me back in terms of my relationship future.
You really do have self-esteem issues. And possibly more baggage than Heathrow
Serious comments:
You are not damaged goods. You are a valuable and beloved child of God. He chose you before the world began to be holy and blameless in His sight. Does that sound like damaged goods to you?
Jesus' death purifies us from all our sins - meaning that God forgives them, and remembers them no more. We have complete freedom to go into God's presence because, through all that Jesus did, our hearts are wiped clean from a guilty conscience. This goes for any sin.
And, if your conscience keeps shouting that you are bad really, and damaged goods, then hold on to the fact that God is bigger than your conscience, knows everything, and he does not condemn you if you have said sorry.
You are not damaged goods.
And sometimes the only way to stop believing that is to keep repeating other stuff to yourself. Every time you think that you're damaged goods, repeat a positive statement about yourself. That will eventually break the old habit, and replace it with a new, better one. May I recommend either "God's love for me is so great I am called His child" or "God created me before the world began to be holy and blameless in His sight".
Sarkycow
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
With regard to RuthW's comment that a partner's sexual history is "a fact, not a problem," The Lady of the Lake responded:
quote:
The point is, not everyone who is a Christian (for it is Christians we're talking about here, mainly) holds the same attitudes as you do, in fact most do not. (emphasis added)
I'd be fascinated to see the empirical evidence The Lady of the Lake uses to support her statement. I can't speak for the UK, but every Barna poll issued in the U.S. in the past decade shows virtually no discernible difference in the rate of premarital sex among non-churchgoers and people who identify themselves as evangelical Christians. (The divorce rate, by the way, is higher among evangelical Christians.) Perhaps RuthW's opinion is at odds with The Lady of the Lake's circle of friends, but I don't see how that supports her sweeping claim.
I'll also join the throng headed for the hills away from Mr. Magnanimous who "forgave" his wife for her sexual history before meeting him. Absent something criminal or suggestive of emotional pathology, a potential spouse's sexual history is of minimal interest to me. I'm suspicious of the maturity and self-esteem of anyone who says "I want a virgin because I don't want to be compared unfavorably to a previous lover."
And koffshun, please print out Sarkycow's post and read it once a day. On second thought, maybe we all should.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073
|
Posted
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not, right or wrong. The point is that thinking you have a right to is very silly indeed, and thinking someone is less "marryable" because they aren't a virgin is frankly disgusting.
I used to struggle with this when I first became a Christian. It's that period between discovering what Gods ideal is (or our interpretation of that) and beginning to love a world that is far from it. Perhaps this fellow just needs to be left for a bit - hypothetical wives are always a bad idea anyway.
--------------------
"All the Fat belongs to the Lord"
-Leviticus 3:16b
Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Presleyterian
Shipmate
# 1915
|
Posted
There's that "most" word again. The studies seem to be all over the map on the issue. My guess is age matters, too. An inexperienced 23-year-old might respond in that fashion because of a fear of sexual inadequacy -- not, in my opinion, a state of mind that suggests maturity and self-confidence.
Posts: 2450 | From: US | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
I think there is something subliminally attractive about a young virgin female to the male mind.
Before I had a decent spam filter on my email, I had a lot of emails offering me a cheap Rolex, free roulette chips or a Russian virgin. However tacky the spam email titles may be, they are designed to catch the eye long enough to over-rule sane judgement.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
badman
Shipmate
# 9634
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not
Let's be honest, most men assume that other men's sexual instincts are the same as theirs. But they aren't. You just can't know what "most men" want, especially if you assume you know "whether they admit it or not". Speaking for myself, I've never wanted a virgin. I'd much rather have sex with a woman who is not a virgin and, although various tasteless images or analogies come to mind to explain why, I think I'll just leave it there.
Posts: 429 | From: Diocese of Guildford | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not, right or wrong.
Cobblers. Absolute cobblers. What the hell would I do with a virgin?
And once they've 'had' your virgin, do you think most men still 'want a virgin'? Do you think they go and find fresh virgins at that point?
T.
--------------------
Little devil
Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073
|
Posted
Sheesh.
I didn't say this was a good thing! But in my observation of many different cultures through the ages it seems the older male likes to marry the younger female - and often the female not being a virgin causes a significant problem. Britain was not unlike this fairly recently.
I will never use the most word again.
I am so glad SoF doesn't run a fast food drive through, asking for a burger would be quite tiresome.
--------------------
"All the Fat belongs to the Lord"
-Leviticus 3:16b
Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
da_musicman
Shipmate
# 1018
|
Posted
Wasn't that all about Children though? Younger women are more fertile than older women so if you're hoping for an heir then better to have a younger woman as your partner. And the virginal part is to make sure the child is yours and your property stays in your bloodline.
Posts: 3202 | From: The Dreaming | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I once had a discussion about this in a muslim household, where I was given to understand that it was very important that the woman was a virgin and that proof was required - not to put too fine a point on it - on one's wedding night.
It might have been wind-up-the-stupid-white-idiot day, but all those present spoke with very straight faces.
It strikes me that such practices are far more about moral and physical purity than children.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not
Let's be honest, most men assume that other men's sexual instincts are the same as theirs.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I kind of suspected this.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by da_musicman:
Wasn't that all about Children though? Younger women are more fertile than older women so if you're hoping for an heir then better to have a younger woman as your partner. And the virginal part is to make sure the child is yours and your property stays in your bloodline.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It strikes me that such practices are far more about moral and physical purity than children.
Pah. I'm quite sure the 'moral and physical purtiy' bits came as justifications after the fact when people began to notice the points made by musicman.
[ 27. April 2006, 01:30: Message edited by: jlg ]
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
quote:
Originally posted by da_musicman:
Wasn't that all about Children though? Younger women are more fertile than older women so if you're hoping for an heir then better to have a younger woman as your partner. And the virginal part is to make sure the child is yours and your property stays in your bloodline.
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It strikes me that such practices are far more about moral and physical purity than children.
Pah. I'm quite sure the 'moral and physical purtiy' bits came as justifications after the fact when people began to notice the points made by musicman.
Quite possibly so.
C
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
Why is it that its a womans proof of purity thats demanded? Was it still expected of the man even tho it couldnt be prooved - or was it more that she would produce children for you alone? intact goods and all that?
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Why is it that its a womans proof of purity thats demanded? Was it still expected of the man even tho it couldnt be prooved - or was it more that she would produce children for you alone? intact goods and all that?
Well it is rather difficult to prove it physically with a man.
Before very recent medical advances, there was no doubt about who the mother was when a baby was born, but it was difficult to tell who the father was. There were no DNA tests. So if you married a virgin and kept her under careful watch until she produced a male heir within a year, you knew that her first born was yours, not someone elses. It is not so much about purity, as about making sure that the first born son who will inherit your estate is yours not the stable boy's.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by badman:
quote:
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not
Let's be honest, most men assume that other men's sexual instincts are the same as theirs.
I kind of suspected this.
I'd like to state for the record that this wasn't based on my own personal preferences!
--------------------
"All the Fat belongs to the Lord"
-Leviticus 3:16b
Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mikethealtarboy
Apprentice
# 11317
|
Posted
As has been mentioned, this is one reason I think it's kinda funny to talk about "virginity" in a guy. There's no physical evidence one way or the other, and in terms of "purity of thoughts" or whatever, guys have all lost the ability to see unicorns by age 15 or so, regardless of wether they've had sex. ;-) Although we don't see it in these terms anymore, there's also the factor that virgin is latin for a *girl*. My attempts to advocate the term "juven" for boys has met with no support though.
In regards to all guys wanting virgins -
I'm gay, so that may make a difference, but I was with a "juven" ;-) once - my first time. That worked out for both of us, been there, done that, don't ever need one again.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
Posts: 9 | From: Nevada | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emma.:
Why is it that its a womans proof of purity thats demanded? Was it still expected of the man even tho it couldnt be prooved - or was it more that she would produce children for you alone? intact goods and all that?
One of the set texts on my course is Joan Lluís Vives' De Institutione Feminae Christianae, which is a 16th century treatise on women's education. His "justification" is that it doesn't matter so much if a man is unchaste, because he can make up for it by being wise, bold, eloquent, or whatever - but nobody cares if a women is any of those things, so if she loses her chastity she has effectively lost everything.
Interestingly, he also condemns the practice of women refusing to marry a suitor unless he sleeps with them first. And one of the most common "propositions" (heretical statements) that the Spanish Inquisition dealt with was "simple fornication is no sin", and they were usually fairly lenient because it was so widespread. So it is unwise to evaluate a society purely by the mores it claims to hold.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tiffer:
Let's be honest, most men "want a virgin" whether they admit it or not, right or wrong. ...
I don't recall ever having this silly idea. My wife is older than me, and I was a virgin, she wasn't. And yes, we had sex before we were even engaged. So far, at 22 years of marriage, it's worked out just fine.
[ 29. April 2006, 12:32: Message edited by: Henry Troup ]
--------------------
"Perhaps an invincible attachment to the dearest rights of man may, in these refined, enlightened days, be deemed old-fashioned" P. Henry, 1788
Posts: 7231 | From: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Perhaps I move in circles too elevated to think such thoughts or too debauched to think them possible--it's sometimes difficult to tell--, but I have never heard of a male expressing a wish to marry or "possess" a virgin. Perhaps this is because of a general assumption that the virginal state is so rarely found among adults (indeed, a clerical friend of mine, discovering that a couple he was counselling for marriage were both virgins, was so startled by the anomaly that he sought out the rector who had supervised his curacy, to get some practical advice on how to deal with such a singular phenomenon). As well, much of the popular discussion we hear on the preservation of virginity takes place in a context where this refers to "technical virginity," which is rarely identifiable with a state of innocence.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tiffer
Shipmate
# 3073
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
Perhaps I move in circles too elevated to think such thoughts or too debauched to think them possible--it's sometimes difficult to tell--, but I have never heard of a male expressing a wish to marry or "possess" a virgin. Perhaps this is because of a general assumption that the virginal state is so rarely found among adults (indeed, a clerical friend of mine, discovering that a couple he was counselling for marriage were both virgins, was so startled by the anomaly that he sought out the rector who had supervised his curacy, to get some practical advice on how to deal with such a singular phenomenon). As well, much of the popular discussion we hear on the preservation of virginity takes place in a context where this refers to "technical virginity," which is rarely identifiable with a state of innocence.
Well exactly. It was merely a tongue in cheek observation of cultures throughout the ages - I'm sure in this brilliant liberated culture we have here this is all completely to the wind and we have bucked the trend.
And no, I didn't say "I want a virgin","you want a virgin" or even "you surely married a virgin".
Which were the comments that Teufelchen, badman, Kelly Alves and Henry Troup commented on. So helpful.
The fact that I went on to condemn that way of thinking seemed to be ignored by most of you.
Silly
Posts: 411 | From: England (all over) | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
