|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: sex before marriage
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
that this kind of discussion always seems to reflect a belief that it is wrong to care about sex.
Oh, come on. If we didn't think it ok to care about sex, we wouldn't be reading this thread at all.
My views on the point reflect my opinions of marriage much more than my opinions of sex: they are the consequence of taking seriously the "for better, for worse" part of the commitment. To accept the ethic of marriage (or so it seems to me) is to reject the idea that a good relationship is necessarily identical with a happy, fulfilling or satisfying relationship. It is to reject the idea of satisfaction of desires (sexual or otherwise) as a criterion of evaluating a marriage altogether.
Of course, I would rather be happy than not, and I would rather get laid than sit up at night playing Solitaire. But if I had the choice between a sexless marriage with the woman I love, or my free and unending choice of erotic delights with all the nymphs of paradise, then I would obviously choose love, and I would expect any person who was in love to do the same.
quote:
To say that marital love can be separated from sexual desire is only intelligible if one assumes that sexual desire is inherently disordered
I don't think that follows at all. My love for my wife encompasses much more than my sexual desire for her, and I could very easily experience sexual desire for all manner of people whom I would not for an instant consider marrying. I certainly rate marriage as better than sex - even a marriage like my own which for years was anything but happy. That doesn't mean that I think sexual desire is inherently disordered.
quote:
To take the most relevant assumption for the topic at hand, they assumed that unmarried women were the property of their fathers, that they could be sold to their husbands, and that their virginity was a particularly desirable feature, the absence of which would detract from their marketability. None of the prohibitions on premarital sex Lynn cited make any sense at all absent this assumption. Since I think we would all agree that this cultural belief was mistaken, and it follows that those laws are moot
Even if (some of) the reasons for the law were bad, it doesn't follow that the law is moot. I would, for instance, be prepared to defend the principle of virginity (male as much as female) on purely romantic grounds. I am under no illusions that ideas of romance are culturally conditioned, and I certainly don't suppose that Moses, for example, would have had any such common concept with me. That Moses would have defended the same principle on cultural grounds that I either could not understand or would reject is no surprise.
quote:
So suppose a couple in love lived together chastely before marriage, and one or the other said "I can't stand the way you leave the bathroom a mess every morning, I hate your cooking, you snore, you watch idiotic shows on TV and don't talk to me, you don't wash the dishes, you don't fill up the car and I have to drive to work on fumes, when I got sick you acted like I was just a whiner instead of taking care of me and comforting me... I don't want to marry you after all." How immoral is that, compared to discovering a mutual sexual incompatibility?
Well less immoral, obviously, insofar as the objection probably isn't to the fiancé's lack of competence or tempremental difference in such matters, but to a new and unflattering insight into their character - laziness, selfishness and lack of compassion in this case.
Since their character is the thing with which one is in love, it is may not be wrong to re-evaluate one's intentions on learning of flaws in that character. (Whether and to what extent it is wrong clearly depends on the specifics).
There is also the point that in the scenario under discussion, the assumption is that the couple are very close to permanent commitment, and would not otherwise be trying out sex at all. Rejecting someone for sexual incompatibility in such circumstances is to reject them after they have made themselves highly vulnerable by sharing their first sexual experience with you in circumstances where it clearly is highly important to them. Sharing your choice in TV shows with someone is not intimate in the same way.
(I think that answers Ricardus' point as well).
--------------------
"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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
Eliab, are you saying that people like us should lower their expectations and get married to someone with whom they could not enjoy a full sexual relationship that would hopefully lead to children of their own? Possibly not, but it reads like it to me. Please do re-explain.
Gwai has it right.
I would expect anyone who is in love with someone to the point of being willing to marry them and to commit to them forever "for better, for worse" to continue with that commitment undaunted by the risk (present in all relationships, although greater in yours) of sexual frustration and childlessness. I would expect someone in love to hope for sexual fulfillment, and to accept what sexual pleasue they receive with gratitude and love, but I would also expect them to endure charitably and without complaint any sexual frustration which they are called to endure. That, to me, is all included in what "being in love" means.
We have at least one biblical example, in the case of a man who is scarcely notable for high moral character or self-control, finding that great love can overcome years of frustration.
quote:
If we'd have ordered things The Right Way (according to this thread) we would have been going into a marriage on the hopeful expectation of it working and us having children, then not found out that the reality was 100% different from that until the honeymoon night, which could have ended up as something more akin to a worst nightmare imaginable for me, (and consequently for hubby) not a loving sharing experience. Is that what anyone should hope a marriage experience will be like? Wpuld you choose that experience for yourself [...] ?
Yes.
If the alternative were not to marry the woman whom God had given me to love, yes. Without hesitation.
quote:
I suspect a lot of men would have been tempted to stray/give up and marry someone different, sooner or later
A lot of men would. And all of them are unworthy of your love.
I hope that you did not think that your fiancé was one such. Why would you knowingly marry a man who is an adulterer at heart, if not yet in deed?
--------------------
"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
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Eliab, I think we;ll just have to disagree on this one.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
quote:
and there is no example of happy polygyny provided in scripture.
Now there's a challenge! I can't think of one offhand.
Let me know if you do, okay? Seriously.
... I championed David as a poster-boy for polygyny there, IIRC, but with the caveat that finding a perfect example of any model of marriage is doomed to failure, as the Bible is a book full of flawed people
Well, yes. Is there a happy marriage in the Bible at at all?
The only monogamous couple among the patriarchs that we are told much about are been Rebekah and Isaac. And look how their kids turned out!
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
...I hope that you did not think that your fiancé was one such. Why would you knowingly marry a man who is an adulterer at heart, if not yet in deed?
For clarity, no, I didn't think that my husband had any intention at all of straying, nor has he ever suggested that he would (blimey, it's all we can do to cope with one person, let alone a string of them!). My thoughts are nevertheless reflective of my own concerns based on logic and statistics, and my understanding (imperfect as it may be) of the normal requirements of a marriage, not his specific behaviour or intent.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
...all the experts in all the world wouldn’t make any difference, nor all the time in creation, nor all the inventive alternative building-up-to-it processes people could think up. The “full works” from a partner feels like nothing else can possibly feel to us – the combination of texture, temperature, smell, sensation, proximity, pressure, speed, changes in reaction during the event. If the sum total of it after all due care and consideration still overloads our brains, then that’s the reality and there’s nothing we can do to change it. We're not in charge of the "off-switch".
I don't accept this premise. There are all sorts of coping and desensitisation strategies for dealing with this sort of thing for people with ASDs right across the spectrum in all areas of life, not just the sexual. So I just don't agree that it would be the case that, if it had been difficult initially, nothing could have been done to gradually overcome that.
But even if I accepted your premise, I know several married couples who, for some reason or another cannot have a "full" sex life (or a sex life at all). Does this make their marriages any less meant or ordained by God? I don't believe it does, and nor do I think it an unfair burden / sacrifice to ask of your spouse.
I guess I feel similar to Eliab; that I think if you get to the point of saying you are committing to one person for life then it is for better, for worse etc, and that what that means in practice will be different for each of us - but that's part of the beauty of the commitment.
Anyway, I don't mean or want to make this about your particular situation and it's no criticism of the choices you in particular made. We all stand before God for our own choices, which we make with the circustances, beliefs, feelings and evidence available to us at that time. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't come out of that argument very well based on my own life choices! And I think God is plenty gracious and big enough to cope if we do make choices that fall short of what he would have ideally had us do.
But equally I don't think that should prohibit us from trying to wrestle these issues though.
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
We are, after all, talking about life-long love and commitment here. The person is, one would hope, someone you find so special and so important to you that you want to be with them for the whole of your life.
You're assuming that people already know this and are then having sex, but I think the more common scenario is that having sex happens before people have figured out that someone is this special and this important, and sex is one part of that process.
Fair point. I'm making the assumption because the point I'm arguing against is that a couple who would otherwise wish to reserve sex until after making a formal commitment intended to be permanent, would be prudent to test the water first.
Which makes sense -- the auditioning scenario you and others here posit is pretty grim. But I think you're arguing against something that is pretty unusual. Chances are, anyone who is that big a jerk would have revealed his/her jerkishness far earlier in the relationship and would have been dumped by anyone with a shred of self-esteem.
quote:
It's an entirely different argument in other (more common) cases. My view on that is that as a matter of my own experience I would strongly recommend virginity before marriage, but I think the moral issue depends on whether one considers it a command of God.
I think this is the real question, and I agree with what Timothy the Obscure said on the previous page:
quote:
I don't agree that you can simply extract a behaviorally specific code of sexual conduct from the Bible that applies to a society in which women are equal to men. But then I believe that part of what Christ brought us is an ethics that is liberated from behaviorally-specific "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots."
How people will apply the principle of love that Christ taught in sexual matters will depend on how they view sex. If you think sex is super special, the ultimate joining of two people, then it makes sense to reserve it for marriage. But if you think sex is an important but still ordinary part of life, it makes sense to apply the more ordinary ethical standards of treating people with respect and care to specific situations.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Caz...:
quote:
Originally posted by amber.:
...all the experts in all the world wouldn’t make any difference, nor all the time in creation, nor all the inventive alternative building-up-to-it processes people could think up. The “full works” from a partner feels like nothing else can possibly feel to us – the combination of texture, temperature, smell, sensation, proximity, pressure, speed, changes in reaction during the event. If the sum total of it after all due care and consideration still overloads our brains, then that’s the reality and there’s nothing we can do to change it. We're not in charge of the "off-switch".
I don't accept this premise. There are all sorts of coping and desensitisation strategies for dealing with this sort of thing for people with ASDs right across the spectrum in all areas of life, not just the sexual. So I just don't agree that it would be the case that, if it had been difficult initially, nothing could have been done to gradually overcome that.
But even if I accepted your premise, I know several married couples who, for some reason or another cannot have a "full" sex life (or a sex life at all). Does this make their marriages any less meant or ordained by God? I don't believe it does, and nor do I think it an unfair burden / sacrifice to ask of your spouse.
I guess I feel similar to Eliab; that I think if you get to the point of saying you are committing to one person for life then it is for better, for worse etc, and that what that means in practice will be different for each of us - but that's part of the beauty of the commitment.
Anyway, I don't mean or want to make this about your particular situation and it's no criticism of the choices you in particular made. We all stand before God for our own choices, which we make with the circustances, beliefs, feelings and evidence available to us at that time. Like I said earlier, I wouldn't come out of that argument very well based on my own life choices! And I think God is plenty gracious and big enough to cope if we do make choices that fall short of what he would have ideally had us do.
But equally I don't think that should prohibit us from trying to wrestle these issues though.
I think you're still working partly from the premise that I simply would have panicked/not liked it. That isn't what I meant, nor is it what happened. But these are very public boards and I'm all out of enthusiasm for explaining much further, except to add that my problems are also medical ones that have already taken a lot of surgery and medication and confidence-building to sort out. Me 'cutting out' and not being able to say or indicate "stop" isn't a question of attitude, but a response to a set level of sensory input where I simply DO cut out. Since it's the brain's wiring that's at fault, I'm still not convinced that therapy is ever going to rewire it. It doesn't for the other sensory overloads, though it can help for people who have anxiety/depression relating to it.
It isn't a psychological problem so much as a risk of serious injury, (again). I didn't want to risk it, hubby didn't want to risk it, and I'm just not going to say more.
I do accept, for what it's worth, that there are therapies available for people with ASDs whose attitudes and medical situations would make it possible for that kind of progress to be made. Also for what it's worth, I have already had to do a hell of a lot of 'overcoming hurdles' in this respect to get as far as we have.
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caz...
Shipmate
# 3026
|
Posted
I respect that Amber, and I think it's probably entirely right and appropriate not to share the personal specifics - like I said I've no intention to make you feel bad or to make this in any way about your particular decisions, issues, conditions or challenges (and I wish you a lifetime of hot sex ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
Still think the wider issue is an interesting one, though, and not just involving sex. It's definitely got me thinking about the "better and worse" aspects of marriage again, and what impact they have on marriages. That's a tangent really but it's got my on-maternity-leave-and-fed-up-of-daytime-telly brain pondering ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
"What have you been reading? The Gospel according to St. Bastard?" - Eddie Izzard
Posts: 1888 | From: here to there | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
Originally posted by Caz...:
... (and I wish you a lifetime of hot sex )
Thanks! ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) though hubby indicated that he'd quite like his tea first if that's alright?
The "better and worse" aspects of marriage, and what impact they have on marriages?
Ah yes, that's a million-dollar question, and well worth debating. But which board? Purg? Or is it another dead horse?
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
There is also the point that in the scenario under discussion, the assumption is that the couple are very close to permanent commitment, and would not otherwise be trying out sex at all. Rejecting someone for sexual incompatibility in such circumstances is to reject them after they have made themselves highly vulnerable by sharing their first sexual experience with you in circumstances where it clearly is highly important to them. Sharing your choice in TV shows with someone is not intimate in the same way.
(I think that answers Ricardus' point as well).
Well, not entirely, because you're still putting in terms of one-sided rejection, as opposed to both sides deciding they're incompatible.
That said, I'm not saying that couples ought to have sex before marriage. But it seems to me that not having sex is introducing an unnecessary level of uncertainty to what is already a pretty risky endeavour. Granted, a loving couple should be able to work round any problems, but why should they need to?
--------------------
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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally Posted by Ricardus:
That said, I'm not saying that couples ought to have sex before marriage. But it seems to me that not having sex is introducing an unnecessary level of uncertainty to what is already a pretty risky endeavour. Granted, a loving couple should be able to work round any problems, but why should they need to?
So, basically, because of the unnecessary risks involved in the endeavor of "waiting until you're married," couples ought to not not have sex before marriage, based on the fact that there might be unforeseen consequences.
So you're basically saying that couples ought to have sex before marriage (unless there's another way to not not have sex that I'm unaware of). Unless of course I'm misreading something...
[ 22. April 2008, 21:29: Message edited by: Bullfrog. ]
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I'm trying to distance myself from the position expressed by another poster elsewhere that couples who don't have sex before marriage are inevitably doomed.
--------------------
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
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
What I mean is that, prima facie, the most reasonable course of action seems to me to be that couples should have sex before marriage.
If, however, there are additional considerations that trump this reasoning, then no harm will necessarily be done. The question is then: what are those considerations?
--------------------
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
|
|
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I don't know that couples split up on that basis but I do know that people don't go on second or third dates on that basis - which was my point. You were equating "any of the criteria on which we effectively judge our partners before marriage" and I think that's simply not true; criteria escalate.
I meant that there is no moral difference - rejecting a partner on the grounds of eating disgustingly is no more moral than rejecting a partner for sexual incompatibility. In fact I should have thought the former would be more immoral (or at least finicky), since if someone dribbles down their chin you can just look away, whereas sex is a bit more noticeable.
How interesting! So you'd as soon your daughter sleep with her boyfriend as share a meal with her boyfriend? I mean, if the activities are moral equivalents...? quote:
As far as I can see, you and Eliab are arguing that, if a couple are truly in love, then any sexual compatibility shouldn't matter, because their love will be strong enough to overcome it. My point is that a couple can be in love and still find some insurmountable incompatibility - hence the break-up of long-term relationships. (And indeed divorce, though I see divorce as a different issue.)
I can't speak for Eliab but I am not arguing that sexual incompatibility doesn't matter if you love each other; my argument is that 95% of 'sexual incompatibility' can be discerned by means other than sexual intercourse and that if your love has met all your other criteria and you've not had any hint of sexual incompatibility and you go ahead and have intercourse and it's not good so you break up, that's pretty cold because it's not necessarily reflective of what would be reality in marriage. I've emphasized (repeatedly, I think) that there's a learning curve to good sex and that every couple is unique. I don't care if you've been a great lover with person A, you might not be a great lover as far as person B is concerned - you may have to change and adapt in order to please person B - and that change and adaptation takes time, as does learning in the first place - so I don't think it's a terribly reasonable position to essentially say, "okay, now for the road test." And I suppose part of that is simply the question, what will you do if your love doesn't 'measure up'? What constitutes 'measuring up' (and I'm not making rude size jokes although that can be a real factor-- ![[Frown]](frown.gif) ) ??
I'm actually not saying that one is better off going ahead and marrying the person when you've had an unsatisfactory sexual experience - but I think at that point it's a sad, hurtful, and difficult situation, no matter what. I mean, what if it's you that doesn't make the grade? quote:
(from a later post)That said, I'm not saying that couples ought to have sex before marriage. But it seems to me that not having sex is introducing an unnecessary level of uncertainty to what is already a pretty risky endeavour. Granted, a loving couple should be able to work round any problems, but why should they need to?
Because it's the nature of life? Because there are always challenges to work through and we don't necessarily know what they're going to be before we make the commitment? I'm not arguing for going forward blind but I am trying to find a workable way to avoid mistakes I've made myself in the past, were I in that position in the future (yeah, because I'm such a hot grandma! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif) ).
TGG, I don't remember the thread but I don't King David is a good example of polygyny because if it worked for him he wouldn't have committed adultery with Bathesheba and arranged the murder of her husband. So yeah, I guess we still disagree
Timothy tO, if there's anybody putting forward a "it's wrong to care about sex" belief, they've escaped my notice and I thought I was reading pretty carefully (at least the new part of the thread).
Ken asked Is there a happy marriage in the Bible at at all? An interesting question; I will have to ponder it. There are certainly marriages where we're not shown the couple fighting or unhappy with each other (e.g., Zachariah and Elizabeth, parents of John the baptist; the Shunemite woman and her husband in 2 Kings 4:9).
quote:
RuthW said: How people will apply the principle of love that Christ taught in sexual matters will depend on how they view sex. If you think sex is super special, the ultimate joining of two people, then it makes sense to reserve it for marriage. But if you think sex is an important but still ordinary part of life, it makes sense to apply the more ordinary ethical standards of treating people with respect and care to specific situations.
What do you think the Bible tells us about the nature of sex? I'm genuinely curious, I'm not trying to set you up or anything.
Caz... said That's a tangent really but it's got my on-maternity-leave-and-fed-up-of-daytime-telly brain pondering - the Ship is always superior to daytime television!
quote:
Gwai said Certainly many people find that sex makes them (more) in love with the person they have slept with. So, if the sex doesn't work, this may be a problem. Indeed, I know a couple who did something like this and when they broke up (for very good reasons) it was a serious problem for the woman.
Yes, the changes in brain chemistry related to sex and love are really impressive, sexual intoxication, as it were... a person can set him/herself up for a lot of pain - and men get hurt this way, too-- it's not simply a female thing.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote:
Timothy tO, if there's anybody putting forward a "it's wrong to care about sex" belief, they've escaped my notice and I thought I was reading pretty carefully (at least the new part of the thread).
Well, I understand Eliab to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, Eliab) "you commit to marriage because you love someone, and if it turns out that that means 50 years of frustration, it really shouldn't bother you, because sex just isn't that important to a Christian marriage. You should be happy with whatever you get."
Obviously, I don't agree that marital love can be separated from sexual desire without being diminished.
quote:
(Eliab on other reasons for dumping a potential spouse):
Well less immoral, obviously, insofar as the objection probably isn't to the fiancé's lack of competence or tempremental difference in such matters, but to a new and unflattering insight into their character - laziness, selfishness and lack of compassion in this case.
Since their character is the thing with which one is in love, it is may not be wrong to re-evaluate one's intentions on learning of flaws in that character. (Whether and to what extent it is wrong clearly depends on the specifics).
I would say that how one deals with a sexual problem is a very strong indicator of character--probably more so than any of the others I listed (except perhaps how one treats a sick partner). Most sexual problems between spouses can be resolved, given enough courage and willingness. A person who won't confront his/her own intimacy demons as they manifest in the sexual sphere is a bad bet for marriage in all kinds of ways. (Amber's situation is quite different from the usual, though I would say that the way she and her husband dealt with the matter demonstrates a level of courage and honesty that all couples should aspire to. Maybe they should write a book.)
Not that I'm advocating the "test drive" approach--that's a red herring from either side of the argument, IMHO. I just don't see that sex should get some kind of special treatment--it's the same as any other kind of behavior. Loving another as yourself is the issue: were you honest, did you keep your commitments, did you make the necessary effort to empathize and to respond to the other person's actual feelings (including what sex means to them, not just to you) and to avoid harming them emotionally or otherwise? People have been devastated by breakups without ever having sex (see Jane Austen or any number of other 19th century novels).
And I think the temptation to look for rules is a snare--a focus on rules leads to a focus on loopholes, or to a rigidity in which the letter kills the spirit. And as a Quaker, I do of course believe that we always have access to the perfect inward Guide and Teacher for any situation, if we will only listen...
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Well, I understand Eliab to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, Eliab) "you commit to marriage because you love someone, and if it turns out that that means 50 years of frustration, it really shouldn't bother you, because sex just isn't that important to a Christian marriage. You should be happy with whatever you get."
Interesting; that's not what I understand him to be saying. quote:
People have been devastated by breakups without ever having sex (see Jane Austen or any number of other 19th century novels).
Having been devastated under both circumstances ( ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) ), I can assure you it's worse if you've had sex. quote:
And I think the temptation to look for rules is a snare--a focus on rules leads to a focus on loopholes, or to a rigidity in which the letter kills the spirit. And as a Quaker, I do of course believe that we always have access to the perfect inward Guide and Teacher for any situation, if we will only listen...
I'm very much a Spirit-filled Christian but I also know that we humans are self-serving on a profound level, even though we don't mean to be ("The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it?" Jeremiah 17:9, God speaking). Therefore I listen-up when Jesus says, "if you love Me, keep My commandments." Jesus connects our love for Him with our obedience on many occasions "If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love."
You may be confident that you can safely resist the temptation to look for rules but I've seen some well-meaning Christians (including a few Quakers) go significantly astray by trusting that their ability to hear and rightly understand the internal Holy Spirit is greater than the ability of scripture to communicate the will of the Holy Spirit. For me the temptation is to think I know better than God's word... ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
...Amber's situation is quite different from the usual, though I would say that the way she and her husband dealt with the matter demonstrates a level of courage and honesty that all couples should aspire to. Maybe they should write a book.
Well, in a way that's already happening, but that's another story and it's not exactly a book: It fits in with the national/Diocesan advisory work I do on disability for the churches, shall we say. Not too sure about the courage either - sheer determination might be closer to the truth, but thank you
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
So you'd as soon your daughter sleep with her boyfriend as share a meal with her boyfriend? I mean, if the activities are moral equivalents...?
I didn't say the activities themselves were morally equivalent. I meant that rejecting someone on the basis of their dining habits is morally equivalent to - or, if anything, worse than - rejecting someone on the basis of their sex life.
--------------------
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
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What I mean is that, prima facie, the most reasonable course of action seems to me to be that couples should have sex before marriage.
This brings lots of questions to my mind:
Is there evidence that couples who had sex with each other before they married are more likely to stay married than are couples who didn't? I don't think that there is. TtO could probably provide the citations if I'm wrong, but I'm reasonably sure that I've read that studies show the opposite to be the case. In which case, premarital sex would increase risk of the marriage failing, not decrease it.
I'd also like to know how many couples who have sex before they marry, where they have an expectation of marrying, actually do get married, and how many don't.
And of those couples, how often is it the case that they're both really committed to the relationship? I know I'm older than dirt, but when I was younger, it was often the case that a young man would promise marriage in order to get sex, but having absolutely no intent to marry. The possibility that the marriage proposal is a come-on line is a serious risk.
I think a willingness to wait for marriage indicates personality traits that predict a greater chance of a successful marriage -- willingness to delay gratification, for example.
There may be instances here and there where the partners need to know something about each other that can't be learned any other way, before making the final commitment to marry. But it seems to me that such instances would be rare, and that the risks associated with premarital sex are ordinarily too great to justify.
And that's if the only consideration is whether these two individuals can have a marriage which is happy and successful long-term. If you're viewing marriage as a path to theosis, a podvig, a way to become holy, then there are many other questions to ask.
Or so it seems to me.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
So you'd as soon your daughter sleep with her boyfriend as share a meal with her boyfriend? I mean, if the activities are moral equivalents...?
I didn't say the activities themselves were morally equivalent. I meant that rejecting someone on the basis of their dining habits is morally equivalent to - or, if anything, worse than - rejecting someone on the basis of their sex life.
I (for one) would never, ever reject someone on the basis of their sex life (FWIW, I've had friends who were openly and enthusiastically polyamorous. While I think it's a profoundly risky way to conduct one's relationships, it's not something I held against them, especially considering where they're coming from and their lives.)
I just think that there's a very strong argument for waiting until you're in a very stable, committed (and I might say for all intents and purposes married) relationship before engaging in sexual intercourse (and I think Josephine outlined at least some of these very well).
Though it might be a question of whether you think there is any intrinsic value in marriage itself, and where that value lies.
--------------------
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
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
A return to the tangent about the position of women in our society in recent history
Actually it is relevant, because it is necessary to know what the differences between our cultures and the ones the Bible came from are if we are to be able to read the Bible correctly and apply its teachings to ourselves.
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
We do not - and haven't for a thousand years at least - have a legally enforceable right for parents to choose the marriages of their children. We do not require adult women to live under the tutelage of a man (and we haven't for centuries - most unmarried English women in the middle ages and early modern period worked for money outside their parent's homes and were free to travel around as they wished.
Really? Can you give me some citations on that? In the middle ages and since... that's a very different view than the one presented by feminists.
Oh? And which feminists would they be then? Most of the ones I read are quite sussed on history!
I'm not saying the women were not oppressed in northern European cultures, or that they are not now. I'm not saying that we are or were any less sexist or authoritarian than people in Syria or Egypt or wherever (we might have been but that's not what I'm saying). But that the relative unfreedom of women (relative because most poor men and working men were unfree relative to rich men, and to rich women) and the extra social constraints they experience compared to men, are different in different times and places. There are specific differences in our traditions of kinship and marriage and those of many other countries. The most obvious one being that forced marriage was never legally allowed (which is not to say it never happened). In the laws of England (and many other northern European traditions) women were legally free to marry whoever they wished. (A big problem for the wealth parents of heiresses, especially as there was no divorce)
We never had anything like harems or purdah, there were no "women's quarters" in traditional houses, there was never an expectation that women would walk around covered and never meet with or talk to men. The kind of patriarchal extended family that is common in some cultures where women on marriage go to their husband's fathers house and are routinely placed under the control of their husband's mother is more or less unknown in ordinary society in northern Europe. It exists in parts of southern Europe and the Mediterranean region and it existed among aristocrats - but not the poor.
There was never in England any legal restriction on the right of unmarried women of age as women to travel or live or work where they wanted - there were certainly practical restrictions but then there were for most men as well.
In some countries women typically went from their father's house to their husband's house when they married, often in their early teens. That was not the case here. For some centuries working-class women in Britain have mostly worked for money outside their own homes. Very often as domestic servants in other people's houses (which gave plenty of opportunities for abuse) and if they couldn't find that work, then often as agricultural labourers (Read Hardy - he's a bit later than the period I'm thinking of but knows what he is talking about - even if he is a better poet than a novelist). That work probably seemed more like exploitation than freedom to a lot of people but it is a different situation from the idea of women confined to the home. Slightly better-off women often worked in some trade or business, such as shop. It was generally expected that married women would work in their own homes, and as recently as the early twentieth century there were employers who would not employ single women. But it wasn't just housework. Poor women needed to work for money and it was regarded as mark of a successful man what he could earn enough for two. Staying at home and not working for money were signs of social status. In the 18th and 19th centuries as prosperity increased women tended to withdraw from the middle of the labour market - but it was never anything like universal.
The typical age of marriage was late 20s for men, early 20s for women, so there were years of working life between puberty and marriage. Read Robert Burns's Cottar's Saturday Night - a sentimental portrait of an idealised poor family, notably disciplined and religious people, strict Presbyterians - but the sons and daughters go out to work. The eldest daughter Jenny, (who it is implied might be living in another town) buys her own clothes and brings back her "sair-won penny fee" to give to her mother, and she also has a boyfriend - the Saturday night in question is the occasion of his first visit to her parents.
Such a way of life must often have given opportunities for sexual activity. Not for everybody (Burn's poem is quite clear that no-one is doing the naughty business with young Jenny, which coming from his is a bit rich) .Whatever the truth of that, it was normal for the first child to be born within 9 months of marriage. Of course that may have often, maybe even normally, been unwanted and oppressive sexual activity from the woman's point of view. I'm sure plenty of masters behaved badly towards their servants. Incidentally it doesn't matter to this argument whether or nor Burn's poem is an accurate description of any real incident - it might well be, perhaps it is, a piece of political propaganda in defence of poor Presbyterian peasants - but the fact that he can put it in a description of a fictional normal family held up for commendation shows that the behaviour is socially possible and not thought of demeaning or dishonourable.
The situation is completely different from that of a patriarchal extended family such as ones in Genesis. Would Joseph's or Jacob's daughters have had a job? Could they have moved out of their father's house and lived elsewhere? But then the situation of the patriarchs in Genesis seems to have been very different from that of the people who collated the Torah centuries later. And the way of life in Jesus's place and time was different again. So we are not only reading the Torah as a book from a different culture. we are reading it through the lens of yet another culture.
And they were different. For example, in the Old Law just about the only right a woman had was to bear children. In our society we tend to think of a slaveowner having sex with his slaves as one of the worst of the oppressions of slavery. In the Torah the rule is that a slave-girl has a right to demand that the master or his sons have sex with her and if they refuse she must be set free - because she as a woman has both the duty and the right to bear children. Utterly different thinking from anything we are used to. Hard to see how the rules of that culture can be adapted to ours.
Even in New Testament times - much more familiar to us - we have trouble reading things that must have been obvious to the original audience. No-one now really knows for sure what exactly porneia meant to Jesus, or what the homosexual behaviours Paul condemns are. When Paul says a deacon or bishop must be a "one woman man" some of us take that to mean that he must be married, some that he must be married to only one wife. (The usual ancient interpretation, and the one still used by the Orthodox church, was that a divorced or widowed clergyman may not remarry which simply doesn't occur to most of us). Jesus's teaching about divorce is widely taken to forbid the remarriage of a divorced person, which in context is absurd because to Jesus and the rabbis of the time (and orthodox Jews now) a divorce is simply nothing but permission to remarry - divorce with no remarriage would be a contradiction. (Read David Instone-Brewer on this - look him up on Google)
The longest passage in the New Testament about marriage is Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians,. especially chapter 7 (IIRC). His background is so different from ours that we now cannot tell when he talks about "a man" marrying "his virgin" whether he is talking about a father and daughter or a boyfriend and girlfriend. In fact that confusion existed even in the early church. The meaning must have been obvious to the original recipients of the letter yet had been lost by the time the Empire became Christian three or four centuries later!
All utterly different from our own history.
Citations? For the English stuff, read some standard histories of marriage, like those by Lawrence Stone (though bear in mind that he changed his opinions during his career and that he tended to ignore regional or micro-cultural variations). Or read standard social histories of England in the Early Modern period (that's after Reformation but before Railways). Or just read novels and plays and poems from the 14th to the 19th century.
Oh heck, just listen to the folk songs.
But whatever you do, avoid navigable waterways and people called Nancy and Willie
[ 23. April 2008, 18:41: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
Originally posted by Josephine:
quote:
Is there evidence that couples who had sex with each other before they married are more likely to stay married than are couples who didn't? I don't think that there is. TtO could probably provide the citations if I'm wrong, but I'm reasonably sure that I've read that studies show the opposite to be the case. In which case, premarital sex would increase risk of the marriage failing, not decrease it.
Couples who live together before marrying are more likely to divorce, but the cause-effect relationship is far from clear, since those who won't cohabit are likely to have more negative attitudes toward divorce in the first place. So the correlation could well (IMHO probably does) arise from both being effects of a single cause, i.e. attitudes about marriage and sexuality.
However, there's one study(rather more carefully designed than most, I think) that suggests that it isn't premarital sex so much as multiple partners that correlates with divorce. If you only have premarital sex with your future spouse, your chances of divorce do not increase.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
Ken, thanks for a fascinating post!
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
most unmarried English women in the middle ages and early modern period worked for money outside their parent's homes and were free to travel around as they wished.
This was the specific portion of your post that I questioned: most unmarried English women in the middle ages - I've not studied medieval England but this is assuredly not the stereotype presented (not over here, anyway!). I can see a significant number of early modern period women could be described this way; the governesses and servants probably had a good degree of freedom, although I don't know that it would apply to women of higher station? quote:
Oh? And which feminists would they be then? Most of the ones I read are quite sussed on history!
Perhaps we've got an especially vitriolic strain over here; you'd be tempted think no woman has ever had any freedom over herself or her body or her life, ever in the history of humanity. quote:
I'm not saying the women were not oppressed in northern European cultures, or that they are not now. I'm not saying that we are or were any less sexist or authoritarian than people in Syria or Egypt or wherever (we might have been but that's not what I'm saying). But that the relative unfreedom of women (relative because most poor men and working men were unfree relative to rich men, and to rich women) and the extra social constraints they experience compared to men, are different in different times and places. There are specific differences in our traditions of kinship and marriage and those of many other countries. The most obvious one being that forced marriage was never legally allowed (which is not to say it never happened). In the laws of England (and many other northern European traditions) women were legally free to marry whoever they wished.
Okay, I see what you're saying. I don't think that Jewish women were forced to marry, either; the traditional betrothal involved the man coming over with a bag of money and wine and sitting down to negotiate with her father (and brothers); they'd write up the contract and then she would come in and look at the contract and look at the money and if she felt it was acceptable, she'd drink the wine.
But I also think that one of our problems, as we look at these scriptures, is our tendency to sentimentality and our emphasis on romantic love, 'soul mates' and all that. It tempts us to think there's only one person with whom we could have a good, blessed life - and I suspect in reality there are dozens (if not hundreds, maybe even thousands) of people with whom we could have a good, blessed life. So we're living with a particular set of filters and "love" is a hot-button issue in our culture: look at how much time and money is invested in entertainment which exalts that concept.
One of Jackson Browne's early songs said: quote:
My dreams like nets were thrown
To catch the love that I'd heard of
In books and films and songs
Now there's a world of illusion and fantasy
In the place where the real world belongs
I think it's very hard for late 20th century western folk not to fall into that place of illusion and fantasy. quote:
We never had anything like harems or purdah, there were no "women's quarters" in traditional houses, there was never an expectation that women would walk around covered and never meet with or talk to men. The kind of patriarchal extended family that is common in some cultures where women on marriage go to their husband's fathers house and are routinely placed under the control of their husband's mother is more or less unknown in ordinary society in northern Europe. It exists in parts of southern Europe and the Mediterranean region and it existed among aristocrats - but not the poor.
Why do you think that is? (now I'm just curious) I've seen it most within Islamic culture and those places which at one time or another were under Islamic rule (e.g., chunks of southern Europe and the Mediterranean region). quote:
Hard to see how the rules of that culture can be adapted to ours.
Unless the rules didn't originate from within the culture but were in fact of divine origin. That is my belief. So what I'm looking to do is to discern what aspects of the Law were meant to differentiate the Jewish people from the gentiles around them and what aspects of the Law reflect God's eternal values. I believe we're given great insight in this arena by Jesus, the gospels, the epistles, and ultimately the Holy Spirit. Obviously YMMV! quote:
The longest passage in the New Testament about marriage is Paul's teaching in 1 Corinthians, especially chapter 7 (IIRC). His background is so different from ours that we now cannot tell when he talks about "a man" marrying "his virgin" whether he is talking about a father and daughter or a boyfriend and girlfriend. In fact that confusion existed even in the early church. The meaning must have been obvious to the original recipients of the letter yet had been lost by the time the Empire became Christian three or four centuries later!
Yeah but that happened because they'd been purposely detaching themselves from the Jewish roots of Christianity; if you know the Torah the meaning is clear. quote:
Oh heck, just listen to the folk songs.
I loved the Childe Ballads with a fierce joy when I first learned to play guitar at the impressionable age of 12... In fact, as recently as a few years ago I wrote a song in the style...
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
However, there's one study(rather more carefully designed than most, I think) that suggests that it isn't premarital sex so much as multiple partners that correlates with divorce. If you only have premarital sex with your future spouse, your chances of divorce do not increase.
But how does this reconcile with the idea that wisdom indicates we should "road test to insure compatibility" if, in fact, we prove incompatible? Then we're entering either the territory of multiple partners or 'get thee to a nunnery.'
FWIW, I concur with multiple partners not being conducive to happier marriages; if I were not so absolutely set against divorce (respondent here, not petitioner) I would have been very tempted to bail early out of my second marriage because the sexual comparison was inescapable and not good. While I've felt no need to pull my punches in this forum, I was careful to never voice anything of the sort within the marriage (how would it help? Unless you're talking poor technique or something else which can be addressed, there is no upside and plenty of downside). I would have been happier in that marriage if I'd come to it without experience and I cannot help but suspect that would have made him happier, too--
I think there are many practical reasons to embrace sex in sacramental rather than casual terms.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
amber.
Ship's Aspiedestra
# 11142
|
Posted
On the subject of women and history, I agree that the role of women in England has often been overlooked or wrongly stated in modern times. One thing I noted in the Oxford history statistical studies on this was the sheer number of women who were heads of the household and in responsible jobs, living in high esteem in their communities.
In the upper classes, running and managing the Country Estate was very much a shared responsibility, and with the men away at war/in their gentleman's club in London, the women were normally in overall charge. In shops, farms and small businesses almost everywhere, the job was shared as best as would fit around the children. These days, anyone who works with their 'other half' is greeting with the words "Oh I could never do that - we'd drive each other mad". I've lost count of how many people have said this to hubby and I over the years. Yet that was the standard pattern for much of history.
It makes me wonder what modern romantic/sexual/supermodel expectations of marriage we have, rather than a practical working model of shared responsibility, friendship, parentship, mutual respect of each others' roles etc.
I also think there was a much better acknowledgement of the value of childcare and housecare, and a much better community based around those valued activities. Today, tell most people you're a stay-at-home mum and they seem unimpressed.
Not all was equal, of course, but it wasn't the picture of endless oppression that some have been led to believe. In fact, I'd argue that modern society has never valued women less than it does now. Not perfect, a supermodel, earning a decent wage and with perfect children, a sizzling sex life and a house that would look good in a homes magazine? Gee, you're a failure. I don't think it does a great job of valuing men for the right reasons either.
Perhaps that is also why there is such a huge modern emphasis on sex, because many people have not been taught how to base a relationship on anything else?
Posts: 5102 | From: Central South of England | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
Speaking of women and freedom in the middle ages, I have a good friend who is a literature professor and whose specialty is the middle ages, so I asked her if ken's statement as questioned by Lynn was correct
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
most unmarried English women in the middle ages <snip> worked for money outside their parent's homes and were free to travel around as they wished.
For what it is worth, here is her response: quote:
Well, I would rather modify it. It was certainly common for unmarried women to spend a few years before marriage earning their dowry by working. Often, this meant working as a servant for a few years, or working for wages in someone else’s field, etc. Quite common. But even then, I wouldn’t want to exaggerate. It was rarely for more than 2-3 years, with dowry in mind. And since men always earned more than women (even if they did exactly the same work in the fields, and even if the woman was just as efficient), most families preferred to use males as wage-earners, and to work their own land. Thus, it was VERY common for families to rent more land when they had teenagers or young adults, and use female labor on their OWN land; the profits then went to fund dowries. Basically, a woman could make more money working extra family land and selling the crop, then she could for wages. So a lot of family’s pooled resources to rent (or get rights over) extra land.
Does this help?
[eta grammar]
[ 24. April 2008, 16:29: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Perhaps part of the problem with "women's roles" was that being a woman and maintaining a house truly was a full time job, perhaps harder and more onerous than going out and fighting or learning a trade or doing the things that men do.
Nowadays the home is increasingly seen as an isolated place, something to get out of and do stuff away from. We have machines to do the things that women used to do, and women have found themselves in a social vacuum that values traditionally male things more than traditionally female things.
--------------------
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
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Well, not entirely, because you're still putting in terms of one-sided rejection, as opposed to both sides deciding they're incompatible.
I don’t think that the attitude with values sexual satisfaction over continuing a relationship with someone you love becomes any more humane or reasonable just because one’s partner shares it. I accept that it might be less damaging.
quote:
That said, I'm not saying that couples ought to have sex before marriage. But it seems to me that not having sex is introducing an unnecessary level of uncertainty to what is already a pretty risky endeavour. Granted, a loving couple should be able to work round any problems, but why should they need to?
I don’t understand your point. In particular, I don’t understand why you say that not trying out sex before marriage introduces a level of risk or uncertainty. I don’t see that – if there are going to be problems, then why would the greater level of commitment in marriage make them less soluble? Pre-marital sex surely doesn’t reduce the possibility of sexual incompatibility occurring – if anything the opposite is likely to be true, because couples who wait at least know that both of them are capable of waiting and value something more than their own pleasure.
What are you in fact suggesting couples should do if their first sexual experiences reveal significant incompatibilities?
Honour their love and commitment by staying together no matter what? I assume not, because if you think that, then the couple might as well get married before the sexual experiment.
Split up? Then the relationship fails automatically if there are problems. Any commitment to work at things carries less risk.
Try to work through it, but split up if the attempt fails? In that case, the risk is greater for the unmarried than for the couple who married first (if you take marriage to mean what I take it to mean). If you had deeply-felt hang-ups about sex, what sort of partner would you think gave the best chance of overcoming them – the one who resolves to stay with you, endures difficulties with you, never criticised, threatened or pressured you, and who gave you all the time you needed to face your problems, or the one who tells you that you have six months to sort yourself out, or it’s over?
In what possible circumstances is there less risk of the relationship failing because of sexual problems if the parties first have sex when their commitment to each other is lower? Isn’t the risk going to be higher?
Or have I misunderstood what you mean by risk and uncertainty: If you mean that the break-up of a casual liaison, even at higher probability, is less of a risk than divore because the emotional investment is lower, then I agree. But the situation I am discussing is not a casual liaison, but one where marriage is serious contemplated, and the couple has reserved sex to (at least) that point in their relationship. In such a case, if the question is “what is my best chance of happiness with the person I love?” then I would say the answer is to enter into the committed relationship first, and work out any problems within that relationship, rather than to set each other some sort of sexual exam to determine compatibility.
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
Well, I understand Eliab to be saying (please correct me if I'm wrong, Eliab) "you commit to marriage because you love someone, and if it turns out that that means 50 years of frustration, it really shouldn't bother you, because sex just isn't that important to a Christian marriage. You should be happy with whatever you get."
No, not really.
I am saying that if you love someone you would rather be with them than not, and that you value them more than your own happiness (including sexual happiness). That’s what being in love means.
I don’t think that being in love, or being a Christian, or being married, or any combination thereof means that you can or should not be bothered by a lack of sex. Some people won’t be. Some will feel very keenly the pain of not having those experiences of intimacy and pleasure with the person they most care about. The sort of love which is appropriate to marriage ought to consider that pain to be a price worth paying for the relationship.
Although I would certainly endorse “You should be happy with whatever you get” as sound practical sense in many (probably most) cases of frustration. It is easier to deal with frustration if your heart is accustomed to gratitude and contentment. The frustration of simply not having sex is quite bearable – people of every level of libido manage it while they are single. The frustration of not having the sex which you are entitled to and are being denied is intolerable. So stop feeling entitled. Be grateful for whatever you get – accept whatever you get, even if it is only the stirring of desire, as a gift. Sexual restraint need not diminish love in the slightest, properly considered, it can be the expression and triumph of love.
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
We probably ought to have a thread on what spouses owe each other sexually (what did Paul mean by I Corinthians 7:1-5?), which wouldn't even be an ex-horse.
Sexual problems broadly fall into three categories:
1) Physiological--these can usually be dealt with medically (Viagra, hormones, etc.), if people are willing to admit and confront them.
2) Technique--sex is a learned skill, and people are individuals with unique responses, so there are technical aspects to be mastered. Again, no big problem with good communication and willingness to work it out.
3) Fears of intimacy--a reluctance to really reveal oneself to one's partner, to be open about one's desires and anxieties, and to confront the risks involved in being emotionally and spiritually, as well as physically naked in the face of another human being. This often manifests as lack of desire or as excessive demands that are (unconsciously) calculated to drive the other away, emotionally if not physically (or both--it's generally two-sided). It can also include being unwilling to acknowledge one's frustration for fear of more rejection, etc. Swallowing your true feelings to protect your spouse from whatever (and protecting yourself from potential conflict) is enormously destructive of intimacy and of marriages. Rationalizing it as altruism doesn't do anything at all for the marriage. It's not pain that is
quote:
a price worth paying for the relationship
Because the pain and the concealing of it will inevitably damage the relationship. But that's a complex argument that goes deeper into psychological theory than is warranted in a tangent.
Again, I'm not arguing for the "test-drive" theory--I think it's a bad argument for permitting (let alone encouraging) premarital sex, but its deficiencies do not constitute a good argument for prohibiting premarital sex.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
quote:
Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure:
However, there's one study(rather more carefully designed than most, I think) that suggests that it isn't premarital sex so much as multiple partners that correlates with divorce. If you only have premarital sex with your future spouse, your chances of divorce do not increase.
But how does this reconcile with the idea that wisdom indicates we should "road test to insure compatibility" if, in fact, we prove incompatible?
Well, it doesn't. Before conceding absolutely, however, I would clarify:
My argument was not precisely that we should test-drive our partners against sex, but rather that, since we in practice test them against everything else, why exclude sex? Most of the responses have simply been to say that it doesn't matter if we exclude sex, and since they come from people with more life-experience than me I shall assume they are correct, but that wasn't not quite my question.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
Good idea, Timothy tO--
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
But how does this reconcile with the idea that wisdom indicates we should "road test to insure compatibility" if, in fact, we prove incompatible?
Well, it doesn't. Before conceding absolutely, however, I would clarify:
My argument was not precisely that we should test-drive our partners against sex, but rather that, since we in practice test them against everything else, why exclude sex? Most of the responses have simply been to say that it doesn't matter if we exclude sex, and since they come from people with more life-experience than me I shall assume they are correct, but that wasn't not quite my question.
Ah, I think that's the most clear statement (at least to me - ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) ). To me, the reason to exclude sex from the 'test' element of premarital relationship exploration is because of the holy aspect of it. I've alluded to it before (more than once, I'm sure; sorry, I don't like to be tedious), God uses marriage (specifically sex) as the model to help us understand our relationship with Him: the first appearance being And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived - God knows us, intimately (and how many of us react like Timothy's post, above, fearful of that intimacy? I know that I crave it and avoid it, almost simultaneously).
So I still believe my argument: sex is incredibly valuable and good (as well as potentially devastating) and that's part of why we're wise to be protective of ourselves and careful with it.
But I also wonder if we really "test" everything in practical terms? Has anybody posting here ever intentionally "tested" the trustworthiness of their potential mate, setting them up to see if they'll fall? See, I don't think we really do that much in the way of genuine "testing," not in the way that having intercourse would be a sexual test, you know? I think we start out paying attention and observing character and then as we get caught up in an emotional response I think we actually fall into paying more attention to our feelings than the qualities of the person about whom we're having the feelings... do you know what I mean?
Face it, it's a hard thing to find that person and commit to that person and, to some degree, the more seriously you take it the scarier it gets... I applaud everyone here on the Ship who has boldly stepped into that undiscovered country, for every marriage is its own unique terrain. Bless all your marriages and may you all have lots of great lovemaking and the compassion to bear with each other during those seasons when, for whatever reason, you aren't having lots of great lovemaking.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Blessed are the PURE in heart, for they shall see God.
Any one here seen God?
Sex before - outside Christian marriage for Christians is IMpure.
Unless we want a vast, sterile, fatuous debate over what purity means.
Whatever else it means it means sexually pure.
Which counts me out at 9:10 a.m. this morning as I walked across the park. Up until about 9:20 at least. That I remember. That smote me.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I am saying that if you love someone you would rather be with them than not, and that you value them more than your own happiness (including sexual happiness). That’s what being in love means.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but if that's what being in love means, it sounds awful. To me a relationship isn't about giving up happiness if love demands it - it's about two people making each other happy. There are always problems, sacrifices and periods of unhappiness, but I can't fundamentally separate love from happiness like that.
[ETA: OK Martin, I give up. What WERE you doing in the park this morning??]
[ 25. April 2008, 21:13: Message edited by: Hiro's Leap ]
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
To me a relationship isn't about giving up happiness if love demands it
No, I don't think that you have misunderstood me. I think that marriage is precisely about being prepared to give up your own happiness if love demands it.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I am saying that if you love someone you would rather be with them than not, and that you value them more than your own happiness (including sexual happiness). That’s what being in love means.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but if that's what being in love means, it sounds awful. To me a relationship isn't about giving up happiness if love demands it - it's about two people making each other happy. There are always problems, sacrifices and periods of unhappiness, but I can't fundamentally separate love from happiness like that.
[ETA: OK Martin, I give up. What WERE you doing in the park this morning??]
I don't think there is any separation from love and happiness in that case. It's just that love isn't directly yoked to one's particular individual happiness.
Sometimes happiness is easiest to find when you stop worrying about maximizing pleasure.
--------------------
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
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
It's perhaps tangential but I don't think another person can 'make you happy' - I've come to believe that happiness is far more internal than external, more related to attitudes and settings we grew up with, finally notice, and hopefully adjust in order to maximize our joy as we live this God's great creation.
As for Martin, I'm assuming it's a sufficiently warm day that there are some attractive young things in the park...!
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Just the one. Trouble is I've seen her before. Stood next to her at a road crossing. It's the walk. The face. The hair. The ... You know the kind of thing. Then when I was sitting at my desk at work a scene from a film based on an overlap of faces came to mind. Meet Joe Black.
Luckily, although I'm an old fool, I'm not an idiot. Well, although I'm an idiot ...
And I do tell God what He already knows.
Sigh.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lynn MagdalenCollege
Shipmate
# 10651
|
Posted
Oh yeah. Been there, done that.
I have friends who gently mock me for refusing to watch certain movies alone - but I know how I am and, left to my own devices, alone I will fall into lust with a character as embodied by a specific an actor. Safe to watch in a group, not safe to watch alone. And that's me, as a woman, and everybody knows women aren't as visually stimulated as men - in which case I can just imagine the challenge for the average man.
--------------------
Erin & Friend; Been there, done that; Ruth musical
Posts: 6263 | From: California | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I am saying that if you love someone you would rather be with them than not, and that you value them more than your own happiness (including sexual happiness). That’s what being in love means.
Maybe I'm misreading this, but if that's what being in love means, it sounds awful. To me a relationship isn't about giving up happiness if love demands it - it's about two people making each other happy. There are always problems, sacrifices and periods of unhappiness, but I can't fundamentally separate love from happiness like that.
And if your beloved develops early onset Alzheimers, as one of my aunts did? Or if, as the result of a head injury, your beloved goes from being a brilliant, capable, happy, and competent life partner to being of limited intellect, irritable, prone to angry outbursts, unable to hold a job, and needing someone to make all her decisions for her?
When my aunt was no longer capable of engaging in meaningful conversation at any level, and required the same type and level of care and supervision you'd give a two-year-old, many people suggested to my uncle that he place her in a home, divorce her, and find someone else. He could do that, and still do his duty to support his wife, paying her bills and that sort of thing. He deserved to be happy, he was told. Why should he give up everything, when his wife could no longer make him happy, but could only ever be a burden to him?
And my uncle would shrug his shoulders and say, "When we married, we said 'for better or for worse.' So it's worse."
My uncle valued her, and the vows he had made to her, far more than he valued his own happiness. And I am quite sure that, in the Kingdom, their wedding crowns shine with magnificence and glory.
The thing is, marriage, as understood by the Orthodox (and not just us -- my uncle, Eliab, and many others make the same point by their words and their lives) -- marriage is not principally about happiness. It's an icon of Christ and the Church, so it is principally about love -- not mushy, romantic, Hollywood love, but about the clear, hard, no-nonsense kind of love that is without illusions and is willing to give up everything for the beloved. It is about becoming, by grace, what God is by nature. It is intended as a means to becoming holy.
Happiness can be part of that, but there are no promises that it should be so.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hiro's Leap
Shipmate
# 12470
|
Posted
Eliab,
I think you said that "being in love" could involve the partners making each other unhappy. To me, being in love describes the emotion, and if the unhappiness carries on too long you'll lose that emotion. You can choose to love someone (as an act of will) despite long-term unhappiness, but if there's ONLY unhappiness and willpower it seems a pretty empty thing to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Josephine:
And my uncle would shrug his shoulders and say, "When we married, we said 'for better or for worse.' So it's worse."
Josephine,
As a non-Christian, I'm fascinated by the Orthodox attitude (i.e. marriage as a path to holiness): it's powerful, but also very alien to me. And since I don't believe in the Kingdom, I'm curious how it translates into the here-and-now.
In many ways I agree with you. Many couples of my parents' generation stayed together despite long-term illness. It's very tough, and I wonder if my generation will be able to do similar without the social expectation? Possibly only rarely.
But still, I hate the idea of a couple staying together despite making each other unhappy. I've know people do that, and although they described it as love, the conflicts were very deep and seemed more about dependency, fear of loneliness, and self-martyrdom.
Similarly, if one partner is utterly changed by an illness (severe Alzheimer's, say) there isn't a debate for me about whether or not the relationship can be ended: it already HAS ended. Or at least, it's changed so drastically it's become a different relationship, perhaps more like a parent-child.
OK, it's late, and I'm possibly rambling a bit. I'm also veering off-topic...apologies for jumping dead horse mid-race.
Posts: 3418 | From: UK, OK | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I've come to believe that happiness is far more internal than external
That's what I used to think when I was in my late teens and twenties. But I seem to have grown out of it.
The more I see of the world the more I think that people make each other happy or sad and that most problems are not your own fault and the solution is rarely in your own hands.
I'd never have said that in my twenties, or even my thirties. But with age comes, if not wisdom, at least experience.
Also once upon a time I thought that we should talk about our personal and emotional problems and face up to them and work through them with others close to us. But now it seems more and more that that often makes them worse, and the very act of talking about them can be emotionally and soacially crippling, and also ruing relationships. Its often better to just put up with bad things and keep going. Muddle through and stick together and maybe things will come out alright later. Over-examined problems ofen become intolerable and lead to unhealable breakups.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
HenryT
Canadian Anglican
# 3722
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
... the holy aspect of [sex]. I've alluded to it before (more than once, I'm sure; sorry, I don't like to be tedious), God uses marriage (specifically sex) as the model to help us understand our relationship with Him:
This is the kernel of the only moral argument on the topic of sex I've ever heard. All the rest are pragmatical arguments disguised in moral language.
And, if that test fails, either on the wedding night or before, there's a long-standing tradition of annullment. It's just less formal before.
***
Yesterday's Globe and Mail has a front-cover story on marriage by capture in Chechnya. The telling phrase "Unmarried women have no status in the society."
It's bizarre to hear that this exists in the 21st century.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hmmmmm Ken.
You're right aren't you. Happiness IS an EXTERNALLY driven state.
Jesus certainly wasn't happy much of the time.
And on 'talking things out', too. He only did with His Dad.
Indeed, most wise.
Josephine's uncle: what a guy. "I will if I want and I will if I don't want, if I want." for the noblest of motives.
Duty comes before happiness.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hiro's Leap:
As a non-Christian, I'm fascinated by the Orthodox attitude (i.e. marriage as a path to holiness): it's powerful, but also very alien to me. And since I don't believe in the Kingdom, I'm curious how it translates into the here-and-now.
Wow. Big question. I'll try not to write a book here. Forgive me if I go on too long.
Becoming holy means learning to become by grace what God is by nature. So how do you do that? You examine yourself, figure out where you don't measure up, and begin to practice what you need to do to make some progress towards the goal.
There are tools, like Luther's Small Catechism, that can help you evaluate where you are. But the principal tool God has given us is other people.
The first step in towards holiness is learning to tell the difference between wants and needs. Most people begin learning this in childhood, when their parents teach them, for example, that they have to go to bed at a reasonable time, even if they'd rather stay up late watching TV. Eventually, as an adult, we learn that we have to go to work rather than go to the park, because we need income to pay the rent and buy groceries.
Hopefully, you'll have already mastered this before you get married (or enter a monastery, which is another path to holiness). If not, your spouse will help you learn it. When you buy a new very expensive lens for your camera with money that was set aside to pay the care insurance, for example, your spouse's anger is a tool meant to teach you your mistake.
The next step is learning to place the needs of others before your own desires. As a child, you may begin to practice this with a pet -- if you have a dog, you have to feed it and walk it and take care of it, even when you'd rather not. As you get older, you'll find plenty of opportunities to practice this skill -- going to the funeral of the father of a close friend, for example. Not something you would choose to do, but your friend needs your support, so you go.
If you're married, you usually have lots and lots of opportunities to practice this. If you really want a new bicycle, but buying one would mean there wasn't enough money left to pay for medication that your child or your spouse needs, you don't buy the new bike. Over time, the awareness that others have needs that you must take into account becomes automatic, and taking those needs into consideration before you fulfill your own desires becomes second nature.
You can, of course, learn this without being married, but marriage provides an intense school for this sort of thing.
Eventually, as you make progress towards holiness, you begin to see others' needs as being just as important as your own, and perhaps more important. This isn't a narcissistic, self-indulgent martyrdom, but the real thing, accepted and embraced out of duty perhaps at first, but eventually out of joy. And, again, marriage is a place where you get to practice that skill over and over and over.
Does this begin to answer your question? Or have I misunderstood what you were asking?
quote:
In many ways I agree with you. Many couples of my parents' generation stayed together despite long-term illness. It's very tough, and I wonder if my generation will be able to do similar without the social expectation? Possibly only rarely.
I'm afraid you're probably right. I'm also afraid that I have a great deal of difficulty thinking kindly of anyone who would leave their spouse because of long-term illness. I'm afraid that I would interpret their past professions of love as no more than narcissistic delusion -- whatever it was, it wasn't love.
quote:
Similarly, if one partner is utterly changed by an illness (severe Alzheimer's, say) there isn't a debate for me about whether or not the relationship can be ended: it already HAS ended. Or at least, it's changed so drastically it's become a different relationship, perhaps more like a parent-child.
Of course it's a different relationship. But even without severe illness, a relationship changes over time. You won't be the same person at 50 that you were at 20, nor will your spouse be, and so the relationship won't be the same, either. Illness just magnifies what is an ordinary fact of all relationships. But if you love your partner, the love continues even as the relationship changes. As William Shakespeare said,
quote:
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EnglishRose
Shipmate
# 4808
|
Posted
That is one of the most profound posts I have read for a long time and gives me much food for thought, not just on the topic of sex before marriage.
I'd love to read more about this. Is Luther's Small Catechism a good place to start for a non-Orthodox person or would you recommend something else?
Posts: 544 | From: London | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
Hiro's Leap, I'm not Orthodox and not particularly inclined to the idea of marriage as path to holiness (although I have to say Josephine's most recent post has me thinking more along those lines, but in that case I might tend to say anything can be a path to holiness), but I completely agree with her about the proper responsibilities of someone towards someone they love or are married to, even (or especially) in the case of debilitating illness.
I know some people can't hold up under that strain, and I would want to be compassionate to what people can manage, but to say "well, they're not the same person, and it's not the same kind of mutual relationship as it was before, so I'm justifiably out of here" is utterly wrong. IMO.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EnglishRose:
I'd love to read more about this. Is Luther's Small Catechism a good place to start for a non-Orthodox person or would you recommend something else?
I found Luther's Small Catechism extremely helpful, when I first discovered it. It's intended for children, so perhaps that says something about where I was spiritually at the time. It's very simple and accessible, and the section on the Ten Commandments in particular helped me to see my own inclinations and actions in a different light. I still refer back to it from time to time, although I've been Orthodox 20 years now.
And it's easy to find on the Internet, which is something else in its favor.
There are other books that I'd be more likely to use now in a self-assessment. But the short answer to your question, I suppose, is yes -- I do think Luther's Small Catechism is a good place to start in evaluating your own life against the demands of holiness.
And Autenrieth Road -- you're right, anything can be a path to holiness. Whatever you're called to, whatever situation you find yourself in, can be a place of spiritual struggle, a school for learning to be like God. But you know that some schools are better than others -- parents work hard and spend lots of money to get their kids into really good schools, because those schools increase the chance that their children will succeed. In the same way, there are some ways of life that are better schools for holiness -- and the church has long taught that the best two are marriage and monasticism.
Which is not to say that someone who is neither married nor monastic can't become holy. That would be nonsense. But if you're a struggling student (as I am), it's best to pick a school where the curriculum is designed to get you to your goal.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
