homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools
Thread closed  Thread closed


Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » sex before marriage (Page 13)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: sex before marriage
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153

 - Posted      Profile for Eliab   Email Eliab   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Girl with the pearl earring:
But now I really don't know where I stand on the issue of sex before marriage. I used to think it had to be in the a loving, committed relationship, but now I just don't know - that didn't work before, so will it ever work? Sex just doesn't mean anything to me anymore. With my ex, it was an act of love, of commitment, and it was really special. Now it's lost all that, and it's nothing special anymore.

I'm sorry to read that. It's no surprise that you are hurt and confused by what happened.

I don't think that, just because your ex did not keep to his commitment to you, that invalidates the love and commitment that you showed to him. Even if you had been married, there would not have been any guarantee - you'd still have had to trust him to stay with you, and he could always have left. That doesn't mean that your trust was wrong, only that he was unworthy of it.

I hope you get back a sense of the specialness of sex. What you offered to your ex was valuable, and it still is valuable. You are, or will be, just as capable of love and commitment as you were, and sex can still be a sign and pledge of that.

I am, personally, of the 'no sex before marriage' view, but not because I think that this stops people being hurt in the way you were. It doesn't. Any commitment can be broken, and that will always be painful. The choice of whether and when to have sex probably doesn't make a great deal of difference to that. Even if this person hadn't been the first one you had sex with, he'd still have been the first one you'd really wanted to have sex with, and you'd have been just as upset.

--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"

Richard Dawkins

Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Girl with the pearl earring
Apprentice
# 9151

 - Posted      Profile for Girl with the pearl earring   Email Girl with the pearl earring   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Thanks Eliab, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you
Posts: 26 | From: Cambridge UK | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Viola99
Apprentice
# 9644

 - Posted      Profile for Viola99         Edit/delete post 
Girl with a Pearl Earring

[Votive]

I read your posts with interest when I was going through a hard time this time last year, and I am so so sorry things didn't work out for you. I have no useful comments or experiences to share, except to say you're not alone in struggling with this issue. I have spent the last year trying to square it all out in my head and it's not easy! Just keep praying and trusting that better times are round the corner.

Viola

Posts: 46 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
John Holding

Coffee and Cognac
# 158

 - Posted      Profile for John Holding   Email John Holding   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
HywC

Apprentice
# 11065

Posted 30 July, 2006 18:00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm sure I'm not the first to start a thread like this, so sorry to anyone who's bored of the subject(!)

Basically, it's always seemed to me that there's no justification for the common belief that sex before marriage is a sin, at least not in the Bible. adultery and extra-marital sex is clearly a no-no, but I think pre-marital sex is a bit of a grey area. A friend told me it had originated in a desire to keep women away from monasteries or something like that.

Then the other day, I found the following in Song of Songs (4:12) "You are a garden locked up, my sister, my bride; you are a spring enclosed, a sealed fountain." The comment on this verse in my Life Application Study Bible reads "In comparing his bride to a locked garden, Solomon was praising her virginity. Virginity considered old-fashioned by many in today's culture HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOD'S PLAN FOR UNMARRIED PEOPLE - and with good reason. Sex without marriage is CHEAP. It cannot compare with the joy of giving yourself completely to the one who is totally committed to you" (I've capitalised the bits I find most offensive!)

In its simplest form my question is what do people think God's will is on the subject, and why do they think it? Over to you!

--------------------
"I'm swearin' like a trooper, an' I'm drinkin' like a bum, I'm a liberal back-slider and it sure is a lot of fun"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 7 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2006 | IP: Logged

Nightlamp

Shipmate
# 266

Posted 30 July, 2006 18:08
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed you ain't, you could ask your questions here or just read it.

--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 6729 | From: Inglewood | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

yocreo
Apprentice
# 11676

Posted 30 July, 2006 18:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'but I think pre-marital sex is a bit of a grey area'

not according to Deuteronomy 22:13 onwards its not

--------------------
No ****** A,B,C or D!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 12 | From: Hull | Registered: Jul 2006 | IP: Logged

anteater
Apprentice
# 11435

Posted 30 July, 2006 18:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting question, and I stick to the historic view, although I would be the first to say that pre-marital sex is nowhere near as serious as adultery.
Whilst I don't go all the way with the RC view that sex is only legitimate when the goal is to have children, I would go part of the way and say that it is not God's will for it to take place where any resulting child would have no guarantee of a secure home.
I also think that for the christian, the fact that the relation between the sexes is meant to mirror that between Christ and the Church is important.
It's a shame that people use words like cheap to characterise this, since nothing is gained by insults. I belong to the generation where this standard was universally upheld, and mostly in practice as well as in theory. My experience is shared by my contemporaries: you don't go blind, come out in spots, or any of these things, if you hold of till your married, and when your married, I don't know a single christian friend who has expressed anything other than contentment in the fact that he has only had a single relationship.
Of course it's tough and in a way unnatural, as we all know that in Jesus' days, marriage would be normal as soon as a person is of an age to be sexually active.
So whilst I hope I would not be censorious, at the same tim, I have never been convinced of the argument for change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006 | IP: Logged

Firenze

Ordinary decent pagan
# 619

Posted 30 July, 2006 18:22
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A woman is property. She belongs in the first instance to her father. He exchanges her, as part of an economic/political transaction to do with consolidating social relationships, enhancing status, forming alliances etc.

Her virginity is an attribute of her family's status: loss is damage to the family's standing, and dimution, if not extinction, of her economic value, as an article of exchange.

Only by virginity on marriage, and continuing fidelity thereafter, can her next owner - the husband - ensure that the children are his, and his investment in them worthwhile.

This, IMO, is the patriachal bedrock, and any stuff about divinely sanctioned morality is simply another ploy to control women for the benefit of men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3532 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

anteater
Apprentice
# 11435

Posted 30 July, 2006 18:55
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Firenze:
I'm not sure which observable societies you think this applies to? I hardly think it is true of my own (UK). In some societies, daughters are more of a liability, requiring a potentially cripplng dowry price, hence the problem of female infanticide.
I don't doubt that you will find some examples, but where is that relevant? I don't want to assume it can't be, but applying your scenario to my own relationships with women would just be fantasy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 50 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006 | IP: Logged

Beautiful_Dreamer

Shipmate
# 10880

Posted 30 July, 2006 18:56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think sex before marriage is a question we need to answer for ourselves. I myself did other things before marriage, but did not have intercourse before my wedding night. I think that made it all the more special. I am not one who can just *do it* (fantasies aside). But I don't judge others who made a different choice.

--------------------
In Ancient Egypt, cats were worshipped as gods. Cats have never forgotten this.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 327 | From: Georgia, USA | Registered: Jan 2006 | IP: Logged

leo
Shipmate
# 1458

Posted 30 July, 2006 19:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Firenze:
A woman is property. She belongs in the first instance to her father. He exchanges her, as part of an economic/political transaction to do with consolidating social relationships, enhancing status, forming alliances etc.

Her virginity is an attribute of her family's status: loss is damage to the family's standing, and dimution, if not extinction, of her economic value, as an article of exchange.

Only by virginity on marriage, and continuing fidelity thereafter, can her next owner - the husband - ensure that the children are his, and his investment in them worthwhile.

This, IMO, is the patriachal bedrock, and any stuff about divinely sanctioned morality is simply another ploy to control women for the benefit of men.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Add to that the advent of easily available contraception that reduced the fear of unwanted pregnancy or disease and the reasons for 'condeming' pre-marital sex fell away. None of my Christian friends 'waited until they were married' as far as I know.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2310 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001 | IP: Logged

barrea

Shipmate
# 3211

Posted 30 July, 2006 19:30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I mostly agree with what anteater has written.
I think that there is enough in the NT to convince us that fornication is condemmed. what I can,t understand is why God allowed men in the OT to have many wives, David had numerous wives and yet he was called a man after God's own heart.and he was only one of the OT men who had other wives, yet God never seems to condemn them for it. it puzzles me. ..

--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 619 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002 | IP: Logged

Firenze

Ordinary decent pagan
# 619

Posted 30 July, 2006 19:49
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by anteater:
Firenze:
I'm not sure which observable societies you think this applies to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The OP appeared to deal with specifically with the ancient near east, so my post is meant as a resume of the status of women in that society.

It is a source of no little depression that the norms and mores of several thousand years BC continued for so long, and are not extinct to this day - hence 'honour killings'.

And it is not that long in Britain since a woman had no right, after marriage, to her property, her children, or even her own body. Nowadays, however, it is generally the case in western societies, that relations take account of women's access to education, employment and control of their fertility. But that doesn't stop the patriachy peddlers attempting to sell the idea of premarital chastity and post-marital 'submission'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 3532 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

jlg

What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98

Posted 30 July, 2006 21:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by anteater:
I belong to the generation where this standard was universally upheld, and mostly in practice as well as in theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, just when was this generation? My parents were born in 1917 and I was born in 1951 and I'm not aware of a time when the practice was upheld as well as the theory.

--------------------
Jennifer

Basses from my barn

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 11508 | From: New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Edward::Green

Review Editor
# 46

Posted 30 July, 2006 21:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Beautiful_Dreamer:
I myself did other things before marriage, but did not have intercourse before my wedding night.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bowling? Bell Ringing? Does sex only become sex when a man penetrates a woman's genitalia with his genitalia? I cannot see how this is different from many of the 'other things' people do before marriage.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2752 | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

John Holding
Host
# 158

Posted 30 July, 2006 21:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Hostly Maple Leaf Tuque on:]

As suspected, there is a thread in Dead Horses on this subject -- a little way down the list and probably hidden from sight unless you display all threads. I'm going to close this one and copy the posts to the old one.

[Hostly Maple Leaf Tuque off]

John Holding
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts: 2415 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Posts: 5929 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211

 - Posted      Profile for barrea     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by anteater:
I belong to the generation where this standard was universally upheld, and mostly in practice as well as in theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Um, just when was this generation? My parents were born in 1917 and I was born in 1951 and I'm not aware of a time when the practice was upheld as well as the theory.

--------------------
Jennifer
I was born in 1927 and I can assure you that single couples living together as man and wife was very rare until the middle and late sixties when the permisive society came in.
It was almost unheard of when I was growing up

--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1

Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
HenryT

Canadian Anglican
# 3722

 - Posted      Profile for HenryT   Author's homepage   Email HenryT   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
It was almost unheard of when I was growing up

Any philosopher will say that the difference between "universally" and "almost unheard of" is one of kind, not degree.

--------------------
"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
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211

 - Posted      Profile for barrea     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Henry Troup:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
It was almost unheard of when I was growing up

Any philosopher will say that the difference between "universally" and "almost unheard of" is one of kind, not degree.
Does this mean that you don't believe it?

--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1

Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Gill H

Shipmate
# 68

 - Posted      Profile for Gill H     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Are we talking about people who weren't married openly living together as a couple, or are we talking about people who weren't married having sex?

'Cause surely the second one has been going on since time immemorial (or immoral).

But certainly in my area, a couple who weren't married and openly lived together was a pretty rare thing right up until the mid-80s. Many of my friends left school and got married at 16, (carrying a suspiciously large bouquet to hide the bump) and of course many divorced a few years later. Living together without being married wasn't really seen as an option, unless you wanted to shock.

I'm sure there were some couples who we all assumed were married but never had been, but if so, they were pretty quiet about it.

--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.

- Lyda Rose

Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gracious rebel

Rainbow warrior
# 3523

 - Posted      Profile for Gracious rebel     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I watched a programme on Channel 4 last night that followed up on 20 couples that had married in 1980 - chosen as their wedding photos had all appeared on the same page in the Brighton local paper.

Now I realise that to some of you 1980 must seem like ancient history, but to me its not that long ago. So I was surprised to find how much attitudes seemed to have changed since then.

When describing early married life, pretty much all the couples had very gender based domestic roles. All but one couple had been married in church. Nearly all the wedding dresses (and this was August) had long sleeves. None of the brides were pregnant at the time of marriage. All these things surprised me, as being far more different to nowadays than I would have expected.

But the biggest surprise of all was to hear that for at least 3 of the couples ( not all of them were asked this) the bride had been a virgin.

I found this astounding that as 'recently' as 1980, at least 15% of this supposedly random sample had not had sex before marriage. Now if this was Christians I would not have been surprised, but these were just ordinary people.

[Other inteesting statistics by the way: - 12 couples were still together to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary. two had been widowed and the rest divorced in the meantime. Two or three couples deliberately chose to be childless. One couple were infertile. One couple had a Downs syndrome child even though they were both in their 20's. It was a fascinating programme, although I'm sure the sample couldn't have been that representative of the population at large].

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347

 - Posted      Profile for The Lady of the Lake   Email The Lady of the Lake   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I don't find it astounding at all. It's just that sex outside marriage has become the norm in recent years to such an extent that people are shocked by people who manage to not have it before marriage.

--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.

Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Leila
Shipmate
# 11555

 - Posted      Profile for Leila   Email Leila   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I have a couple of questions GR.

How do you know that none of these people in the report were Christians?
Are Christians not 'ordinary people'?
How many of the men were virgins?

Posts: 541 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Gracious rebel

Rainbow warrior
# 3523

 - Posted      Profile for Gracious rebel     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Leila:
I have a couple of questions GR.

How do you know that none of these people in the report were Christians?
Are Christians not 'ordinary people'?
How many of the men were virgins?

Good questions Leila. Its a pity you didn't see the programme, as I can't remember too many details now.

Of course I don't know that none of them were Christians, but I think if any of them had been the sort of Christian where their faith would have featured as a reason why they didn't have sex before marriage, it would have been stated.

Yes of course Christians are 'ordinary people', but what I meant was, the sample was supposed to be just random people (all those whose wedding photos appeared on the same page on one particular local newspaper back in 1980), rather than a survey of people who professed to be Christians (where I would have expected the proportion of couples who didn't have sex before marriage to be much higher).

None of the men were asked if they had been virgins as far as I can recall. But that is irrelevant to this particular debate as it is about individual couples and whether or not THEY had had sex.

My own marriage would of course fall into this category actually (I married in 85 though, so its 5 years too late) as I was a virgin at marriage but my husband was not. So WE didn't have sex before marriage, but HE did! [Biased]

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Leila
Shipmate
# 11555

 - Posted      Profile for Leila   Email Leila   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
GR. I can see how one of a couple could be a virgin and one not - was just intrigued to know why they'd only asked the women. I guess it's because you can get the results you want from the questions you ask.

--------------------
"Do not believe just because it has always been that way, do not believe just because others may believe so. Examine and experience yourself." The Buddha

Posts: 541 | From: England | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged
Autenrieth Road

Shipmate
# 10509

 - Posted      Profile for Autenrieth Road   Email Autenrieth Road   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
If the question of interest is, "did you as a couple have sex before marriage?" then asking only the woman about virginity at marriage (or even, both man and woman) does not answer that question. A couple neither of whom are virgins may still not have had sex with each other before marriage.

Having three virgin women does establish that at least three couples did not have penetrative sex with each other before marriage.

[ 03. August 2006, 22:06: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

--------------------
Truth

Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jante
Shipmate
# 9163

 - Posted      Profile for Jante   Email Jante   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Lady of the Lake wrote:
quote:
I don't find it astounding at all. It's just that sex outside marriage has become the norm in recent years to such an extent that people are shocked by people who manage to not have it before marriage.

I was shocked tonight while wach the Inspecto Lyndley Mystery, that he questioned the victims sister as to why she was still a virgin and yet had a boyfriend. He took it for granted that she must have a hang up wuith sex because ' in this day and age -shrug of shoulders'!! Of course it turned out the sister he was speaking to had been abused and the victim hadknown this. Why is being a virgin in this day and age become such an unusual thing??

Jante

--------------------
My blog http://vicarfactorycalling.blogspot.com/

Posts: 535 | From: deepest derbyshire | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
mousethief

Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953

 - Posted      Profile for mousethief     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Jante:
Why is being a virgin in this day and age become such an unusual thing??

Because more and more people are having sex earlier and earlier, regarless of marital status.

--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...

Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gill H

Shipmate
# 68

 - Posted      Profile for Gill H     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I don't mind it being acknowledged as an unusual thing - it is, that's fact.

It's when people treat it as unhealthy, or think you must be a freak, that gets me.

My own GP had this attitude, and that gave me more hang-ups than keeping my knickers on ever did. (Long story ...)

--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.

- Lyda Rose

Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Or they just don't believe you [Frown]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Scots lass
Shipmate
# 2699

 - Posted      Profile for Scots lass   Email Scots lass   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, there's nothing quite like your GP asking you about your sex life, for whatever reason, and then looking at you with a mixture of pity and disbelief...
Posts: 863 | From: the diaspora | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, for the 98th time, no I don't want a pregnancy test just because I'm changing GP, no I don't want a smear test.

Read this leaflet ....

I have ! It says I am in a next to no risk group, so I don't want someone sticking a speculum where it isn't wanted [Mad]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347

 - Posted      Profile for The Lady of the Lake   Email The Lady of the Lake   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I am sorry to hear people have been at the receiving end of obnoxious attitudes in smear tests. That's never been my experience. If I had been treated in a rude manner I would definetely have gone to complain to the managers of the clinic, my GP, etc.

--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.

Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Scots lass
Shipmate
# 2699

 - Posted      Profile for Scots lass   Email Scots lass   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
It's not that they've ever been rude, it's more that the doctor looks so surprised, then gives you a slightly appraising look. It's as if they're trying to work out why you're not having sex, is it because you're deeply unattractive? It could just be me being paranoid.
Posts: 863 | From: the diaspora | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yeah, mainly surprise - is what I've had, and these routine checks that work on the assumption that you're sexually active. It is surprisingly awkward to opt out.

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Auntie Doris

Screen Goddess
# 9433

 - Posted      Profile for Auntie Doris   Author's homepage   Email Auntie Doris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Oh yes... the same old story every time I have been to a GP. I decided to tell one dried up old receptionist that I didn't near a smear test because I was not shagging... and have not ever. She didn't ask again. But the rest of the waiting room thought it was hilarious and I got a round of applause!

Just as well I don't embarrass easily!!

Auntie Doris x

--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)

The life and times of a Guernsey cow

Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
[Overused]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
EnglishRose
Shipmate
# 4808

 - Posted      Profile for EnglishRose     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
If trying to persuade the Dr & receptionist that you don't need a smear test is difficult, trying to persuade the computer generated reminder system that you don't need an 'urgent reminder' every few months is impossible...... Computers can't cope with people who aren't sexually active by their mid 20s [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 544 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I had that problem right up til Id married. Then as Id put it off for so long I was terrified of the test thing.

As it was I told the female dr I saw one day, she booked an appt with her and it was fine. Really no worries once its done once. And Id so rather they caught any illness there than not!

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984

 - Posted      Profile for Doublethink.   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
[tangent]I love the line from the Right Said Fred song Swan:

"The great unlaid making their way home."

I am one of the great unlaid.[/tangent]

--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell

Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think the problem with the smear test persuasion is that the NHS sets targets for the percentage of certain types of patients who should be tested or immunised for certain conditions at a certain frequency.

So if your GP surgery does not arrange smear tests for 75% of their registered females aged 25-55 once every 2 years (or whatever) they will have their practice's financial income cut.

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347

 - Posted      Profile for The Lady of the Lake   Email The Lady of the Lake   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Auntie Doris,

I think you deserve a round of applause for being so brave!
Crumbs it's not everyday someone gets a round of applause for being a virgin!

--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.

Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Auntie Doris

Screen Goddess
# 9433

 - Posted      Profile for Auntie Doris   Author's homepage   Email Auntie Doris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I thank you [Smile]

Just as well my irritation overwhelmed any feelings of embarrassment I might have had.

Auntie Doris x

--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)

The life and times of a Guernsey cow

Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gill H

Shipmate
# 68

 - Posted      Profile for Gill H     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
My GP was worse than that. I asked her to break my hymen (having got the idea from the dreaded 'Act of Marriage' book that this was a good idea and would make sex less painful on the honeymoon).

She laughed at me for wanting it done, she said 'Silly girl! Fancy still being a virgin at 28!' and she was extremely rough when she did it, and caused me a lot of pain.

This caused me to develop vaginismus, which it took several years of patience and prayer, and some sessions with a Christian psychotherapist, to get over.

I'm not sure who I'd Consign to Hell first - her, or the LaHayes for writing 'The Act of Marriage'.

--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.

- Lyda Rose

Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Gracious rebel

Rainbow warrior
# 3523

 - Posted      Profile for Gracious rebel     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Gill that's a dreadful story - so sorry to hear what you went through.

I never would have asked the GP to break my hymen, as I guess I was just too 'embarrassed' myself to indicate that I was a virgin - it was bad enough going onto the contraceptive pill a few months before marriage, as I felt the doctor would therefore assume I was sexually active, but I guess it was obvious when he examined me that I was still a virgin - he didn't say anything but I just felt really awkward.

I did try to stretch/break the hymen myself (once again probably following advice in a similarly dodgy Christian book who's deteils I have fortunately forgotten in the mists of time) - this was attempted when in the bath, for several weeks before marriage. Fat lot of good that did me though, for when it came to the wedding night I was still far too small to allow full penetration - it took us at least two weeks of patient attempts before we managed to get it together properly! [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
Fancy a break beside the sea in Suffolk? Visit my website

Posts: 4413 | From: Suffolk UK | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
heh i remember reading that book and wondering if that was something i should have done! GRRRRRRRRRRrrr maybe christian relationship books should be sent to the flames?!?!

I wish *someone* had told me that what you describe GR was "normal"!!!! We had many problems!!!!

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
da_musicman
Shipmate
# 1018

 - Posted      Profile for da_musicman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Not really understanfing the logic behind that piece of advice. Was there any?
Posts: 3202 | From: The Dreaming | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Well..... *sex ed hat on* When a man and a woman have *special huggles* and its the womans first time - the hymen breaks and can be very painful/ bleed etc. Obviously her insides also arent used to having something so big thrust inside it!!

LaHaye (should be shot) therefore recommends that the dr do that for you in advance to make the first night (wedding night obviously) easier.

I understand from other threads that in the US, its more normal for a girl to have had an internal examination by the age of being sexually active - which in the UK would be incredibly unusual. I decided I didnt want the first person to visit "down there" to be a dr!!!

I think just advising a couple to explore gently, play, go slowly and not nec expect penetration to begin with is the way forwards (personally!). Its a good time for a man to learn about foreplay too!!!

Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Lady of the Lake
Shipmate
# 4347

 - Posted      Profile for The Lady of the Lake   Email The Lady of the Lake   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Crikey, LaHaye actually gives that advice in his book! What a nutcase!!! [Eek!]

It looks to me as if what's going on is idolisation of the wedding night. Ghosh how childish.

--------------------
If I had a coat, I would get it.

Posts: 1272 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Auntie Doris

Screen Goddess
# 9433

 - Posted      Profile for Auntie Doris   Author's homepage   Email Auntie Doris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Perhaps LaHaye should get over himself and recommend a visit to Ann Summers instead of a doctor 'helping out'.

Auntie Doris x

[ETA - this is soooo much cleaner than the post I was going to make!!! [Snigger] ]

[ 07. August 2006, 18:14: Message edited by: Auntie Doris ]

--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)

The life and times of a Guernsey cow

Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
There are other books from that sort of perspective that give very similar advice, although I'll try to resist naming the guilty parties. I'm not sure I've come across any suggestion of medical intervention in this context, though, except in very extreme circumstances. It's a pretty stupid idea anyway, because if you're both virgins it'll probably take at least a honeymoon's-worth of fumbling and exploration to get very far.

I think Christian marriages would generally work a lot better if books like this concentrated on removing years of carefully-accumulated hangups and inhibitions around sex and gently easing couples into the idea of sex being good, rather than making things worse with advice on unnecessary and possibly traumatic procedures so that the marriage can start with a bang, if you'll forgive the pun. I suspect the focus on the wedding night creates an artificial crisis situation for some couples, causing more anxiety, and often more hangups.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026

 - Posted      Profile for Caz...   Email Caz...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Auntie Doris:
Perhaps LaHaye should get over himself and recommend a visit to Ann Summers instead of a doctor 'helping out'.

Totally agree! It's more responsible too, not clogging up the NHS with all those virgo intacto appointments! [Big Grin]

--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard

Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Well I think it is better that the NHS does this rather than some dodgy back-street type who would be dangerous if left alone with a virgin.

Dr FreeJack

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026

 - Posted      Profile for Caz...   Email Caz...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
tell me you're kidding...

--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard

Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Auntie Doris

Screen Goddess
# 9433

 - Posted      Profile for Auntie Doris   Author's homepage   Email Auntie Doris   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I think Dr FreeJack might be joking [Biased]

Auntie Doris x

--------------------
"And you don't get to pronounce that I am not a Christian. Nope. Not in your remit nor power." - iGeek in response to a gay-hater :)

The life and times of a Guernsey cow

Posts: 6019 | From: The Rock at the Centre of the Universe | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026

 - Posted      Profile for Caz...   Email Caz...   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
I realised after I posted [Hot and Hormonal]

--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard

Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612

 - Posted      Profile for FreeJack   Email FreeJack   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Yes, that's right, only joking. I'm not a real doctor.

Mr FreeJack MA MSc

Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Gill H

Shipmate
# 68

 - Posted      Profile for Gill H     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
That book and 'Intended for Pleasure' made the whole thing seem like a medical exam. So many things you had to remember! I'm surprised it didn't come with a Powerpoint presentation you could show on the wall, so you could check the diagrams half-way through to see if you were doing it right. [Roll Eyes]

That's before we even get to the cultural assumptions - for example, that wives would be at home all day to pretty themselves up for their returning hubby (even before they had children). Sorry, but in the UK, women giving up work as soon as they married stopped at least 50 years ago.

When I moved house, I threw those books in the bin. Couldn't even bear to take them to the charity shop, as I really didn't want anyone else to read them. Any chance I could sue the LaHayes for my therapy costs? [Devil]

--------------------
*sigh* We can’t all be Alan Cresswell.

- Lyda Rose

Posts: 9313 | From: London | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Emma Louise

Storm in a teapot
# 3571

 - Posted      Profile for Emma Louise   Email Emma Louise   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Ohhhh Id love to sue them for an awful lot....
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
quote:
Originally posted by Gill H:
I'm surprised it didn't come with a Powerpoint presentation you could show on the wall, so you could check the diagrams half-way through to see if you were doing it right. [Roll Eyes]

They wouldn't do that - there's a minute chance such a diagram might turn you on! [Big Grin]

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alex Cockell

Ship’s penguin
# 7487

 - Posted      Profile for Alex Cockell     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
While we're on the subject of cultural assumptions each side of the pond - especially those of the Religious Hard-Right - the LaHaye's and Wheat's views make it even more difficult ofr us on the autism spectrum... especially when, for instance, I became a Christian BEFORE the libido booted.

Takes it from being a brake on an over-active function, to not even going ANYWHERE near the concept.

Josh Harris has a lot to be responsible for as well.

THoughts?

Alex

Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
da_musicman
Shipmate
# 1018

 - Posted      Profile for da_musicman     Send new private message       Edit/delete post 
Having read a couple of Josh Harris' books (Don't worry I'm better now. [Biased] )it seems to be that the main point is Respect for yourself and the other person. This seems a great message but then it sticks in all the dos and donts which undoes any benefit it may have done.
Posts: 3202 | From: The Dreaming | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19 
 
Post new thread  
Thread closed  Thread closed
Open thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools