|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: "Stop staying pure until marriage"
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Maybe we're into a word usage thing? Chaste has the connotation to me of 'purity'. If it is meant to responsibly have sex, with someone you love, with proper sensitivity to the shared relationship that sexuality brings with it, then we're in agreement. In no wise would I support promiscuity. Rather faithful sexuality with a loved other. (And masturbation, which is a different discussion.)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Maybe we're into a word usage thing? Chaste has the connotation to me of 'purity'.
The purity/virginity cult thing is a one-time deal. You keep yourself untouched, and if at some point you "lose it", you're a non-virgin: a slut, a whore, no better than you should be, and so on.
That is a harmful way of thinking. In the virginity cult, if you "slip up" and have sex, then you've lost "it", you can't get "it" back, and so you may as well shag all comers, because you're a whore anyway.
quote:
If it is meant to responsibly have sex, with someone you love, with proper sensitivity to the shared relationship that sexuality brings with it, then we're in agreement.
As it happens, I support not having sex outside marriage. But I'd agree with all that you say here.
I think you shouldn't steal, either. But let's say you do steal something. What does that mean for your response to future stealing opportunities? Nothing at all - you still shouldn't steal.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
But the rules are for people, not people for the rules. Whereas your assertion is that the rules for sex and marriage and relationships are for God.
Well, actually I haven't said anything about that. In fact, I have explicitly deferred arguing about what "ought" is right. And that quite simply means that you totally missed what I was talking about, and instead listened to those voices in your head telling you what I must be talking about.
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
To be honest, mt, it simply makes do much sense to me that I had not gone much further than the logic posed above.
I tell you, I am truly nonplussed.
I do not have facts and figures, just basic psychology.
Knowing yourself and trying to see your partner as clearly as possible; how is that not reason?
There was no actual logic involved in what you posted. You did not in fact reason at all there, much less formally to some strict standards of validity. There was also no basic psychology to be found in your post, if we mean by that the science psychology. Or at least I didn't see any discussion of new empirical data from properly designed experiment or argument based on reference to peer-reviewed, published work in psychology (or to textbooks, if we talk "basic" science).
That, I believe, was mousethief's point.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I didn't see any discussion of new empirical data from properly designed experiment or argument based on reference to peer-reviewed, published work in psychology (or to textbooks, if we talk "basic" science).
That, I believe, was mousethief's point.
Fair enough. How about this for a start? And this link with several articles on communication, which is most of what I was talking about.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose the idea of 'staying pure' is an ought; that's what worries me. There is an equal and opposite ought, which is 'you must have sex now', which also worries me. Both forms of ought ride roughshod over people, and they get hurt.
Compare: "I suppose the idea of 'stopping at a red traffic light' is an ought; that's what worries me. There is an equal and opposite ought, which is 'cross whatever colour the traffic light shows', which also worries me. Both forms of ought ride roughshod over people, and they get hurt." Obviously, that's nonsense. The former ought does not "ride roughshod" over anyone, even if it means that on occasion people end up waiting uselessly at a red traffic light. Whereas the latter ought is clearly a very bad idea. Where potential dangers are involved, the right oughts are just what protects people, and the wrong oughts endanger them. It is not that oughts are per se, just because they are oughts, right or wrong.
Obviously, this does not settle the question what "ought" (if any) might be the right one here. However, note that the ought in my example does not just protect individuals. It also protects the common good by organising people in a particular fashion. Likewise, I think we fall way short if we talk about this topic as if the prospective couple lives in splendid isolation from the rest of society. Indeed, since a large fraction (probably still the majority?) of people will marry, we have to ask ourselves how all these many couples should be socially organised for the best of society at large. Just like traffic rules occasionally inconvenience an individual driver, so our "couple rules" may occasionally inconvenience the individual love seeker. This does not necessarily mean that such rules are evil.
Are you really comparing traffic management with human intimacy? That seems odd to me.
Your question about how couples should be 'socially organized' raises a lot of questions. Who will determine the nature of the rules?
Also, I'm not really sure if your notion of rules here is a moral one, or a legal one (as with traffic management), or both.
Your point about couple rules 'occasionally' inconveniencing the individual again raises more questions - what do you mean by 'inconvenience' and 'occasionally'? I would say that shame and guilt over sex have done more than inconvenience people, and the rules were often reinforced via shame and guilt.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fair enough. How about this for a start? And this link with several articles on communication, which is most of what I was talking about.
Slate is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal. And I'm sorry, but if you are doing the science thing now, then you need to actually reference specific primary sources (or data) for every individual proposition and claim that you make - not point vaguely to a commercial place aimed at selling me stuff, which editorialises freely on a lists of primary sources with unknown content. Yes, that sounds like work, and like a lot of reading to be done, but it is your work. In "science mode", it is not the reader who is supposed to figure out where in all the material could be some motivation for the claims being made. It is the author who has the duty of piecing together something akin to an actual argument. And patrolling this is pretty much what "peer review" is all about...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Alright, my bad for choosing a POV based on rationality. (And common sense)
If you read the Slate article, it references a psychologist with like a PHD and everything. And the other link is also piled Pretty High and Deep with published psychologists.
I'll look for individual reports, I suppose. Feel free to post counter examples, if you wish.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And that quite simply means that you totally missed what I was talking about, and instead listened to those voices in your head telling you what I must be talking about.
I certainly don't mistake rudeness for manners. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Mild Boxing Day comment. Boxing over perceived rudeness should head Hellwards. Boxing over meaning can continue unabated.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
(and still full of goodwill to all)
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
A clerical acquaintance in Toronto confessed that she is now concerned when couples coming for marriage preparation have not been sleeping together.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Chesterbelloc
Tremendous trifler
# 3128
|
Posted
I think I can put myself in shoes from the wearing of which I can sympahise with your clerical friend, Augustine.
Given that she is a she, and therefore not a Roman Catholic priest, and given how widely divergent Catholic teaching regarding sexual morality is from are the views of society in general (and even from what seems to me to be those of the majority of western Christians), I can understand how your clerical friend would baulk at a couple who came to her for marriage who had not yet slept together.
Their continence must, from such a perspective, seem like a worryingly unhealthy aberation, possibly indicating a serious psycho-sexual problem which could potentially shipwreck the marriage. Depending on the couple's own background beliefs, it may even be such. Which is why Catholics (especially men) often feel these days that they will be thought weird (perhaps undatably/unmarriably so) if they want to keep sex for marriage.
Which all goes to show how far Catholic and non-Catholic views of sex have drifted from one another in recent decades. I wouldn't be 18 again for all the world.
--------------------
"[A] moral, intellectual, and social step below Mudfrog."
Posts: 4199 | From: Athens Borealis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
Chesterbelloc -- One must always be careful of stereotyping!! The priest involved is celibate and a rosary rattler and, her gender aside, would blend into any Latin diocese in Canada quite easily-- she tells me that she uses J2P2's "Love and Responsibility" as her guide. I have heard comments similar to hers over the years from RC clerics and, if I can offer anecdotal and impressionistic evidence, I would say that continent engaged couples would be more frequently found in evangelical circles than in RC ones-- of my observant RC friends of whose personal lives I have any knowledge, I do not know of any who head up the aisle as virgins and most of them have been cohabiting with their fiancé(e)s.
One of my friends (Master's in mediaeval philosophy), whose own adventures must cause her confessor much trauma, said that a sacramentalist worldview is a factor in leading people into engaging with the world about them, and that sometimes this would involve other people's bodies. I think that this argument needs some (to use contemporary academic-speak) unpacking but it is intriguing.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
There are three problems with the notion of purity equalling being sexually untouched.
The first is that the whole issue of sex as being somehow sullying, dirty or shameful has caused (and is causing) untold harm in the lives of decent, continent people.
The second problem is that we are ignoring the massive changes that modern medicine and increased life expectancy have brought about.
The third is that by-and-large societies see enjoyment of sex as being a good thing - and a good thing for both sexes in a marriage.
If you insist on people ignoring any realistic exploration of their sexual compatability and further insist that one party (usually the female) be taught from childhood that anything 'down there' is dirty, you are deliberately setting up couples to have problems with sex. IMV that is unforgiveable and definitely unchristian.
All churches need to be honest about sex and their attitudes towards it. For one church in particular, this is going to be almost impossible since they have a clergy that is almost entirely without sexual experience - either good or bad - and who are the most likely to see sex as being dirty or shameful; they are also the least likely church to listen to, never mind take, any advice from people with direct experience of sex.
As for whether or not couples should explore sex together before marriage, I'd say it is irresponsible not to. For all the couples who marry as virgins and then go on to discover a world of shared delight, tenderness, etc, there are many more for whom there is always a problem on both sides that more honesty before the wedding might have stopped.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Maybe we need a new word, one that doesn't have "when it's gone it's gone" implications. One that inspires making wise choices in the present rather than mourning an irretrievable past. Then we could bicker about what constitutes "wise choices" but not shame people who maybe made some unwise choices in the past. "That's over. Regrettable, maybe, but forgivable. What matters is, are you making wise choices now?"
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you insist on people ignoring any realistic exploration of their sexual compatability and further insist that one party (usually the female) be taught from childhood that anything 'down there' is dirty, you are deliberately setting up couples to have problems with sex. IMV that is unforgiveable and definitely unchristian.
You are needlessly conflating two unrelated things here. I don't think anyone here would disagree that teaching that sex is "dirty" is not only bad theology but, yes, potentially damaging to the relationship and to the individual's spirituality.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
If you insist on people ignoring any realistic exploration of their sexual compatability...
...As for whether or not couples should explore sex together before marriage, I'd say it is irresponsible not to. For all the couples who marry as virgins and then go on to discover a world of shared delight, tenderness, etc, there are many more for whom there is always a problem on both sides that more honesty before the wedding might have stopped.
Again, I think the notion of "sexual incompatibility" ridiculous-- and that myth almost as dangerous as the one you're trying to correct for. It treats sex both as a commodity that can be quantified, evaluated, measured-- as well as a static event that either "is" or "isn't". In my limited experience, neither is true.
As noted above, sex will wax and wane over the lifetime for a whole host of reasons, from pregnancy to prostate problems. Whatever data you gathered from premarital "evaluation of compatibility" will be outdated very shortly, I expect. But all of those challenges to sexual frequency, positioning, etc. are surmountable-- if both partners are flexible (pun intended), compassionate, generous, and caring. It seems to me that's what you really want to evaluate pre-wedding-- those qualities, which are going to have much much more to do with the long-term viability of the relationship, including the sexual aspects of the relationship.
And, honestly, I find this consumerist approach to sex just as offensive and potentially patriarchal as the "madonna/whore" approach of the purity culture. Because you know it's the man who's going to be doing the evaluating, and the woman who's going to feel "on trial" to demonstrate her sexual "compatibility". If anything is a recipe for sexual disaster and heartache, that is.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For all the couples who marry as virgins and then go on to discover a world of shared delight, tenderness, etc, there are many more for whom there is always a problem on both sides that more honesty before the wedding might have stopped.
We've explored this already upthread, but it seems so far there's pretty much equal anecdotal evidence of both, with no hard (um, definitive) research data one way or the other. But it seems to me the ones for whom there is a problem it is either due to ignorance-- something easily fixed thru learning/ experimentation-- or thru the false teachings of sex as something dirty/shaming, which, again, we've all agreed is not a good thing.
Couples will make the decision of whether to be intimate before marriage individually, for a host of reasons both religious and personal. Research shows the vast majority will chose to be intimate. But there's no indication that those who choose otherwise are in for any more disappointment, heartbreak, or psychological trauma than those who do.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe we need a new word, one that doesn't have "when it's gone it's gone" implications. One that inspires making wise choices in the present rather than mourning an irretrievable past. Then we could bicker about what constitutes "wise choices" but not shame people who maybe made some unwise choices in the past. "That's over. Regrettable, maybe, but forgivable. What matters is, are you making wise choices now?"
I think so. I should like to have such a word.
I also find intriguing Aleut's introduction of the sacramental nature that involves physicality. This had been mentioned in conversation in my presence some years ago as an impediment to certain unions, with the implications of it argued well by a second bishop who discussed the extension of the argument to sexuality generally, but more importantly, the extended responsibility the Church has for the sexual welfare of Christians. Further sanctification of the flesh beyond my competence to reiterate involved the Word Made Flesh and sexual and physical implications of that. Along the lines of the separateness of the physical and spiritual realms.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
For all the couples who marry as virgins and then go on to discover a world of shared delight, tenderness, etc, there are many more for whom there is always a problem on both sides that more honesty before the wedding might have stopped.
We've explored this already upthread, but it seems so far there's pretty much equal anecdotal evidence of both, with no hard (um, definitive) research data one way or the other. But it seems to me the ones for whom there is a problem it is either due to ignorance-- something easily fixed thru learning/ experimentation-- or thru the false teachings of sex as something dirty/shaming, which, again, we've all agreed is not a good thing.
I agree with what cliffdweller has said here. L'organist's claim about the potential danger of being a virgin at marriage needs evidence to back it up, I'd say. Does anyone know of such evidence?
I too find baffling the whole 'sexual compatibility' thing, as distinct from compatibility in the broader sense. Where's the evidence for the existence of specifically sexual compatibility?
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alex Cockell
Ship’s penguin
# 7487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Highfive:
Feel the need to speak up here
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Christ taught His apostles on making "themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." (Matt 19:12)
"Others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven" Jesus didn't mean the disciples specifically, did he?
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
St Paul recommends sexual continence to all men, in preference even to marriage, and points to himself as one who keeps it (1 Cor 7:1,7-8), and he was likely a life-long virgin as well (1 Cor 7:8).
When you write it like that, it's utterly terrifying, but I know Corinthians has the context behind this.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
And foregoing sex foreshadows heaven (Matt 22:30).
Is that really what that means? I thought that meant that marriage is irrelevant in the resurrection.
Wasn't Paul originally in the Sanhedrin? He'd have had to have been married...
Posts: 2146 | From: Reading, Berkshire UK | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
Wasn't Paul originally in the Sanhedrin? He'd have had to have been married...
Not that I've ever heard. It certainly doesn't say that in Scripture; I don't remember ever hearing about it from Orfy tradition. Nicodemus who with Joseph of Aramithea buried Jesus was in the Sanhedrin, if I recall. Not Paul.
[ 26. December 2014, 23:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Re Paul/Sanhedrin:
I just did a very quick rummaging online. Found a fairly short blog article that seems pretty level-headed: "Was Paul a member of the Sanhedrin?" (Smoodock's blog).
[ 27. December 2014, 00:36: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
I too find baffling the whole 'sexual compatibility' thing, as distinct from compatibility in the broader sense. Where's the evidence for the existence of specifically sexual compatibility?
I would think it matters as much as any other kind of compatibility.
If you're (generic "you") around someone (spouse, friend, co-worker), and you can't stand something about them--laugh, sense of humor, smoking, hygiene, table manners, etc.--then it's really going to crimp your relationship, and you may not want to be around them at all.
Similarly, if you and your spouse differ on comfort levels with aggressiveness/gentleness, games, BDSM, talking during, particular methods, etc., etc., you're apt to have problems. And then there's whatever trauma and baggage each person brings. Hard enough to work out, if you both know that going in. But if you *don't* know, yikes.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I don't know that there should be a blanket policy for/against pre-marital sex. But, IMHO, the couple should *thoroughly* talk everything out ahead of time, at the very least.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hard enough to work out, if you both know that going in.
Heh. Heh heh. You did that on purpose.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Similarly, if you and your spouse differ on comfort levels with aggressiveness/gentleness, games, BDSM, talking during, particular methods, etc., etc., you're apt to have problems. And then there's whatever trauma and baggage each person brings. Hard enough to work out, if you both know that going in. But if you *don't* know, yikes.
Pre-marital thorough talking about sexual issues, definitely. But if both people marrying are virgins, then presumably they won't know much about their sexual preferences, in terms of the things you mentioned, Golden Key. So if there is mutual self-sacrificing love, then the people will discover together what floats their boat, yes?
And if one person is more experienced than the other, then the former can lovingly, considerately help the latter to learn what fulfils them sexually. While also learning and discovering together.
Finally, if both partners have plenty of sexual experience, then talking together would be particularly important, perhaps. And perhaps (completely speculating; I have no references to back this up!) there are more likely to be sexual compatibility issues, which means it's better to not have sexual experience before marriage. But that doesn't mean those in this situation are sullied, or spoiled or anything like that. I agree with others who have said such language is really unhelpful.
--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.
Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Hard enough to work out, if you both know that going in.
Heh. Heh heh. You did that on purpose.
LOL. No, actually.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
And here's the thing: a modern virgin-by-choice might be able to talk about intimacy, but in a society were virginity is supposed to be the default position for all young women, sexual ignorance abounds.
I think you're conflating chastity with prudery.
I will agree that in times past there was a profound ignorance about sex (at least amongst the wealthier classes) - women not understanding what would "be required of them" on marriage, men not understanding that women menstruate, and so on.
But those things are largely a consequence of prudery and patriarchal nonsense, not of a society that expects chaste behaviour from its members per se.
I don't think I am conflating prudery and chastity - my point is that that conflation tends to arise when whole societies subscribe to the view that women should be virgins before marriage. In fact 'prudery' may be unfair: they weren't prudish in Jane Austen's day (at least, not when compared with the Victorians) but, with regard to negotiating the terms of marriage, the position of genteel young women seems to have been quite intolerable.
What a lot of people here seem to want is a liberal world in which sex before marriage is OK, but religious people can freely choose to remain virginal. Which is great, but doesn't go well with the idea that this is what God wants for us all. Irrespective of whether or not that's true, it doesn't make for a happy society.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
I love the way that some of you think the notion of people being sexually compatible ridiculous (thanks, Cliffdweller) and then accuse me of treating sex as a commodity.
As for the nostrum repeated by many of you - that couples who don't have sex before marriage should talk about it - how is this going to work: what you propose is two people who have never experienced something sitting down to talk about it, so in effect sharing their ignorance.
It is all too easy for those of us (you?) with a healthy sex life who have been able to sort it all out with your life partner to issue diktats about what should or shouldn't be possible, but life doesn't work like that.
And as many therapists would tell you, this is one area where people who perhaps need the most help, or who have suffered the most profound trauma, do not refer themselves or seek help for years (if ever), many of them preferring to (literally) suffer in silence.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
It is all too easy for those of us (you?) with a healthy sex life who have been able to sort it all out with your life partner to issue diktats about what should or shouldn't be possible, but life doesn't work like that.
But isn't this the point? That life did indeed work like that for some of us? And that there is no alternate 'us' to wonder what would have happened if we'd done it differently?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I am not sure that talk, without experience, is helpful. Without a few turns around the track you may not know what you might or might not like. It is like lichee. I can describe the fruit to you, go into the cultural and artistic resonances of the fruit, show you paintings and recipes and the wikipedia entry, but you won't know if you like it until you eat it.
I have no difficulty in believing that God is sufficiently creative t have supplied a range of possible responses and life styles for us. If the humblest romance author can do it, surely God can.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I am not sure that talk, without experience, is helpful.
You see, I'm not entirely convinced by this argument if the only experience we allow here is personal experience.
There are plenty of experts on subjects relating to human emotions and relationships who impart useful advice, whilst not having any experience in exploring those emotions or relationships personally, nor any wish to.
And - at least in this day and age - even 'chaste' Christian couples who hold hands, kiss, dance with each other, lie side by side under a starry night etc etc, will probably know whether or not the sexual desire for their partner is there. All without Putting That There.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
We knew perfectly well. Damnably well, even. It was a major struggle not to put That There.
If the major sex organ is the brain (followed to a large extent by the eyes and the skin), there's quite a lot you can know before having sex for the first time.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
As many difficulties as there are around sex, I think there are many more difficulties around child-rearing.
Personally I found that agreeing our priorities in child-rearing and our basic principles beforehand was very useful. It involved a lot of talk and almost no experience at all. I imagine it would have been trickier to work out on the fly. I can't see why sex wouldn't benefit from some discussion beforehand in the absence of experience.
I also think a little experience is not necessarily all that helpful. It might be great one night, not on another. My view is that what keeps the couple coping is how they deal with it when sex turns out not to be all that great on a particular occasion. Do they treat it as a death-knell for the relationship, pretend it didn't happen, or communicate about it supportively.
I don't think the likely response through thick and thin can necessarily be inferred from sexual experimentation (or from discussion for that matter), although it might be inferred from knowledge of character.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Any component of a long term relationship will be good, bad and indifferent. Whatever your previous experience, whatever your POV.
Understand and be prepared to deal.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
I love the way that some of you think the notion of people being sexually compatible ridiculous (thanks, Cliffdweller) and then accuse me of treating sex as a commodity.
I realize the way I worded it sounded harsh. But honestly, that is the way it seems to me. The notion of "sexual compatibility" does seem odd to me, for all the reasons detailed above. Yes, people will vary in terms of their specific desires re frequency, initiation, positions, etc. But that doesn't seem to be any more of an "incompatibility" issue than, say, what you do on a Sunday morning or is it OK to read the paper at the breakfast table. The sort of stuff that, yes, needs to be talked about. Some of those sorts of things (both sexual and nonsexual) you'll know/ be aware of before the marriage, and some you won't-- regardless of how much "premarriage evaluation" one does. So some of that discussion will, by necessity, happen after the marriage simply because you won't know the issue until it comes up (wow is this thread prone to the double entendre). And, even more importantly, as discussed before, all of those sexual preferences are going to change over time-- so whatever "compatibility" there is before the marriage is irrelevant. So, again, what really matters is whether your partner is the sort of person who will approach the challenges of negotiating these sorts of differences with honesty, humor, compassion, and grace.
And, again, the whole notion of "premarital sexual compatibility" does strike me as commoditizing sex every bit as much as the purity culture does (which of course, it does as well). Having a premarital "compatibility test" strikes me as pretty much every bit as offensive as having to produce the bloody sheets as evidence of premarital purity.
I can think of all sorts of reasons why a couple might choose to engage in premarital intimacy, with desire being the most obvious. But evaluating "sexual compatibility" sounds-- horrible. I can't imagine anything more likely to raise a huge red flag for me than that.
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And as many therapists would tell you, this is one area where people who perhaps need the most help, or who have suffered the most profound trauma, do not refer themselves or seek help for years (if ever), many of them preferring to (literally) suffer in silence.
Absolutely. And people who have suffered trauma need compassion, care, a safe place to share their struggles. What they DON'T need is the pressure of a premarital "sexual evaluation" test. Again, I can't imagine anything more horrible. Premarital sex may or may not be on the agenda for such a couple, again, for various reasons-- but NOT to evaluate "compatibility".
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Any component of a long term relationship will be good, bad and indifferent. Whatever your previous experience, whatever your POV.
Understand and be prepared to deal.
Maybe the issue is not "sexual incompatibility" (whatever that means? square dick and round vagina?) so much as unrealistic expectations concerning sex, love, and who takes the trash out. If you go into marriage with a bleary-eyed idea that love will make everything beautiful and only "those people" have marital difficulties, then when the difficulties arise (as they invariably do), you're not mentally prepared to cope, and perhaps fix the blame on something outside yourselves rather than buckle down and do the hard work to set the relationship back on an even keel and keep it there.
The idea that sexual experimentation before marriage (either with each other or with others) can prevent this strikes me as bleary-eyed idealism, no less absurd than the "love will conquer all" virgins entering into marriage with unrealistic ideas.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
my point is that that conflation tends to arise when whole societies subscribe to the view that women should be virgins before marriage.
I rather suspect that a great many of the difficulties arise from this double standard. If you begin with the idea that young women are not permitted (and need to be protected from) sex, whereas boys, naturally, will be boys, then you rapidly acquire a society where young women are not allowed to know anything about sex or their bodies, all in the name of "protecting" them from some marauding penis that's going to "ruin" them.
If, however, you begin with the assumption that chastity is desirable for both sexes, I don't think you necessarily acquire the same kind of secrecy around sex that leads to it being seen as "dirty".
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
As many difficulties as there are around sex, I think there are many more difficulties around child-rearing.
Personally I found that agreeing our priorities in child-rearing and our basic principles beforehand was very useful. It involved a lot of talk and almost no experience at all. I imagine it would have been trickier to work out on the fly. I can't see why sex wouldn't benefit from some discussion beforehand in the absence of experience.
I also think a little experience is not necessarily all that helpful. It might be great one night, not on another. My view is that what keeps the couple coping is how they deal with it when sex turns out not to be all that great on a particular occasion. Do they treat it as a death-knell for the relationship, pretend it didn't happen, or communicate about it supportively.
I don't think the likely response through thick and thin can necessarily be inferred from sexual experimentation (or from discussion for that matter), although it might be inferred from knowledge of character.
Yes. This.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, even more importantly, as discussed before, all of those sexual preferences are going to change over time-- so whatever "compatibility" there is before the marriage is irrelevant.
Sure, if you wait long enough, the guy who wants to be tied up and spanked isn't going to be able to get it up because he's too old or has prostrate problems or whatever. In the meantime, you could spend 20 or 30 or more years waiting for that to happen.
In my experience, people like what they like, and while you can tout flexibility as a virtue in more ways than one, people only bend so far. I much prefer sex with people who like what I like. I challenge you to look up what "commodity" means and then explain exactly how wanting to have some idea of what sex will be like with someone before committing to that person for the rest of your life fits the actual definition of "commodity."
Also, as lots of people are now delaying marriage until they're well into their 30s, it's more than a little bit unrealistic to think lots of them are going to forego sex until marriage. Thus they will have experience and preferences. Upthread it was said that such people could have frank and useful discussions without the need for actually having sex, but given the wide gulf between how some people talk about sex and what they actually do in bed, discussing sex is not a substitute for having sex.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lamb Chopped
Ship's kebab
# 5528
|
Posted
No doubt. But then, premarital sex is no perfect substitute for marital sex either. There can be some pretty significant differences. In the end, you consider your beliefs and you make your choices.
--------------------
Er, this is what I've been up to (book).
Oh, that you would rend the heavens and come down!
Posts: 20059 | From: off in left field somewhere | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
my point is that that conflation tends to arise when whole societies subscribe to the view that women should be virgins before marriage.
I rather suspect that a great many of the difficulties arise from this double standard. If you begin with the idea that young women are not permitted (and need to be protected from) sex, whereas boys, naturally, will be boys, then you rapidly acquire a society where young women are not allowed to know anything about sex or their bodies, all in the name of "protecting" them from some marauding penis that's going to "ruin" them.
If, however, you begin with the assumption that chastity is desirable for both sexes, I don't think you necessarily acquire the same kind of secrecy around sex that leads to it being seen as "dirty".
Yeah. Are you actually familiar with any examples (historical or otherwise) of societies that have been as strong on male virginity as they have on female virginity? Personally, I'm struggling to come up with one.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Maybe the issue is not "sexual incompatibility" (whatever that means? square dick and round vagina?)
Bwhahaha! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) Nice one.
The thing that alarms me about "compatibility" is that it might lead to fears of poor performance. (Fnarrr.) It would for me, anyway.
Why is incompatibility so different here than it is for money, for eg? MrJt9 and I have had far more fallings out about priorities around money and priorities around housework than about shagging. Because I was a virgin, and he was a chap of limited experience, we knew sex was something we would have to practice. And, let's face it, practice is hardly a hardship, is it? And as it happens, the things we both like have changed over time. No details necessary. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
If we'd tried sex pre-marriage to see if we were "compatible", it would have been a disaster. Chiefly because I certainly (and probably MrJt9) needed the practice.
How much incompatibility would be a genuine deal-breaker, anyway? We differ in quite a few preferences, but we still make it work because it's nice and something we want to work out. Like lots of other things in a long term relationship.
I have a sneaky feeling this idea of sexual compatibility is one more thing dreamed up by the women's mags to make us feel crap about. It's not a very long way from "Are you sexually compatible?" to "How to please your man in bed?" If I were minded to read the things, I wouldn't be at all surprised if one headline appeared on the front page of Cosmo the month after another.
BUT.
This is all true of my own experience. I married youngish by today's standards. People marrying in their late 30s are likely going to have different experiences to me, just because they've been out and about in the world a bit longer. So much is about confidence.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
BUT.
This is all true of my own experience. I married youngish by today's standards. People marrying in their late 30s are likely going to have different experiences to me, just because they've been out and about in the world a bit longer. So much is about confidence.
fwiw, I married (for the 2nd time) in my mid-30s-- to someone with quite limited experience, also in his 30s, and my experience was very much like what you described.
ymmv.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
And, even more importantly, as discussed before, all of those sexual preferences are going to change over time-- so whatever "compatibility" there is before the marriage is irrelevant.
Sure, if you wait long enough, the guy who wants to be tied up and spanked isn't going to be able to get it up because he's too old or has prostrate problems or whatever. In the meantime, you could spend 20 or 30 or more years waiting for that to happen.
Yes. As in, "this impotency problem is frustrating as hell. But I remember 20 years ago when I was pregnant and bloated and felt about as sexy as a dishrag. I remember how kind and compassionate he was then. I remember how we worked around my low libido and awkward physique. So, yeah, we'll make this work too."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
JoannaP
Shipmate
# 4493
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
So much is about confidence.
I think you may well have put your finger on the problem, in our case at any rate.
I envy Lamb Chopped.
--------------------
"Freedom for the pike is death for the minnow." R. H. Tawney (quoted by Isaiah Berlin)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin
Posts: 1877 | From: England | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Statistic in newspaper reporting Canada and USA is more than one-half of children grow up in non-traditional families The second datum was poorer folk are more likely single.
Makes me wonder causation though that is not part of the report, being correlation.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
Also, as lots of people are now delaying marriage until they're well into their 30s, it's more than a little bit unrealistic to think lots of them are going to forego sex until marriage. Thus they will have experience and preferences. Upthread it was said that such people could have frank and useful discussions without the need for actually having sex, but given the wide gulf between how some people talk about sex and what they actually do in bed, discussing sex is not a substitute for having sex.
Actually, most boys and I guess a lot of girls will be building up their experiences and preferences by ubiquitous, instantaneously and freely available porn. And that's before they ever touch the opposite sex, and - assuming that sex during teenage times is still a lot more talk than action - so all the time while their own activities are few and far between.
Society is nevertheless not going to crumble since our sex lives are in fact relatively robust. Somehow the most prudish Victorians managed to copulate, somehow we will, too. One of the biggest problems with modernity is the tremendous concern with perfecting individual lives in all aspects. The world does not end if some couple does not enjoy the most glorious sex thinkable, not even for that couple. I think we need to start thinking a bit bigger again. What role do we want sex to play in our societies, how do we want to social-engineer the framework within which individuals will operate?
And if we look at the question of late marriage from that "common good" angle, rather than from an individual one, then I think an interesting discussion can happen. For what it actually means to a particular individual to only marry well in their thirties, who knows? But that this may be a problem for society, that we can discuss more rationally.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What would a societal role for sex look like? Is it something that can be enforced through laws? Or just propaganda? Does "society" have a right to tell me what role sex should play in my life? What's the relationship between the role of sex in society, and the role of sex in any given marriage? None of this is clear.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The idea that sexual experimentation before marriage (either with each other or with others) can prevent this strikes me as bleary-eyed idealism, no less absurd than the "love will conquer all" virgins entering into marriage with unrealistic ideas.
I agree. Caring about what pleases your partner will make sex with them better than it would be otherwise.
I think that is as much as one can definitively say.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Caring about what pleases your partner will make sex with them better than it would be otherwise.
I think that is as much as one can definitively say.
Makes sense to me.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What would a societal role for sex look like? Is it something that can be enforced through laws? Or just propaganda? Does "society" have a right to tell me what role sex should play in my life? What's the relationship between the role of sex in society, and the role of sex in any given marriage? None of this is clear.
Quite so, none of this is clear. That doesn't mean that it isn't happening now, as much as in any other age. Victorians were not genetically different people to Moderns, they just had a different upbringing. And just because it isn't clear what exactly one can (and should) do about any of this doesn't mean that one shouldn't raise one's gaze from the immediate concerns of one's own relationships a bit and look at the bigger picture of society.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
