Thread: (more) sex before marriage Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020112
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
Given the original SBM thread is in Oblivion, I was hoping to resurrect the topic and ask around for some opinions regarding my personal struggle (for want of a better word):

I have had sex, and all but the first time was as part of monogamous, committed relationships. I have a since become a Christian and my partner (also a Christian) is very much no sex before marriage. I have no argument with her beliefs and have no wish to change her mind - on the contrary, I would probably feel worried if she did suddenly do so.

The problem from my partner's point of view is that we are not having sex for different reasons: she because God prohibits it outside marriage, and I because I respect her opinion to choose not to have sex with me (which I would obviously do so if it were a question of faith or simply personal morals/conscience). For me, this needn't be a problem, but she thinks that my opinions are not based on what God thinks.

I would say my opinions on sex and marriage are somewhat liberal-traditional: I think one night stands (I don't like the word "promiscuity" as it makes me think of defence lawyers using it to bully rape victims) are likely to be emotionally damaging, and I do find aspects of the conservative argument for marriage (as expressed here) appealing (if a little utopian), but I'm still not convinced that what I did was sinful. Or is my pride getting in the way?

Sorry for the ramble, I hope it's all a bit more coherent on-screen than it is in my head!
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Adam and Eve had sex before marriage, so, hmmmm.
The Christian church did not get all het up about marriage for nearly a thousand years after Jesus.
Paul is the typical justification, but he thinks the best option is celibacy. A case can be made that Jesus said the same.
In practical terms, sex has risks. Disease being one. But then just interacting with others brings higher risks in that regard.
As to the emotional damage argument, it is only potentially emotionally damaging because of the onus place on it. Relationships are way more emotionally damaging and only a few suggest we should have only one of those.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I'm curious why one night stands are thought to be emotionally damaging? I would have thought that long term relationships are potentially way more damaging, although of course, some are not.

Also, curious as to how this damage is measured.
 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm curious why one night stands are thought to be emotionally damaging? I would have thought that long term relationships are potentially way more damaging, although of course, some are not.

Also, curious as to how this damage is measured.
I must admit that I am guilty of going by anecdotal evidence and my own view of making sex and relationships inextricably linked. I should qualify that I probably think that sex is preferable within a relationship, but I recognise (though often forget) that what works for me doesn't necessarily work for others. Up until I became a Christian that was fine by me: mind my own business and live and let live. What I'm not sure about now is that if me becoming a Christian changes anything, and if not, do I have a theological position on my side?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
In my lifetime, it was definitely risky to have sexual intercourse before marriage, because, other than difficult-to-obtain condoms, all sex had the risk of pregnancy. We didn't worry much about disease, AIDs hadn't arrived. This tied sex to making a relationship permanent.

Because of the risk of pregnancy, sexual activity was taken more seriously; you were trusting the other person with your future, and it seemed your life. I wonder if it reinforced social stereotypes of the aggressive male and passive woman.

When sexuality was freed from risk of pregnancy - The Pill was a really big deal, sex for fun and limited worry about pregnancy changed everything. The rule seemed to be that if you were in love, having sex was okay, with most seeming to be pretty serious about their partner and thinking they would marry.

In former affluent times, couples could settle down in their early 20s. I actually bought a house when I was still a university student. If the economic situations force young people to live with their parents until they approach 30, wouldn't we expect them to be sexually active?

There is a trend that does disturb me though. This is the casual hook-up culture, where is it supposed to be grand to have sex, and to specifically not care about the person. It seems to start in the teens somewhere This seems to be a denial of a truth: that sex is about caring about being with someone else. Though we are also hearing lately that people have significantly less sex today than their grandparents did.

Casual sex? I'd suggest that it does effect people emotionally. Sex contains emotion, as does any significant bodily function. If it contains emotion, can it not but contain an element of one's soul? Damage? that is a different matter than causing an effect.

[ 12. March 2017, 18:04: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Is sex about caring for someone? Caring how much? Clearly not caring enough to marry them. That level of caring is no longer required. But hook-up culture is apparently not caring enough. So the proper amount of caring is clearly somewhere between those extremes.

So how much is enough? I care enough about you to move in with you? I care enough about you to give you the keys to my Ferrari? I care enough about you to go on a third date with you? A second date? I care enough about you to sit up all night talking, then get a hard-on thinking about seeing you naked?

How much caring is enough?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
I suppose minimal caring is enough to involve another person in your sexual activity, otherwise, just masturbate on your own. [Disappointed]

Sexual hook-up culture research summary: "...developing research suggests that sexual hookups may leave more strings attached than many participants might first assume."
 
Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :
 
quote:
The problem from my partner's point of view is that we are not having sex for different reasons...she thinks that my opinions are not based on what God thinks.
Well, you can take this middle-aged no-sex-inside-of-marriage guy's opinion, or leave it. Seems to me that your respect of her reasoning is a God thing, if one is a Christian. Someone may of course resent feeling like they're the one with the responsibility to say 'no' all the time. To which you say what? 'Well, good luck finding a Christian man who's attracted to women and who has a more right-on attitude than I do'?

I think you're trying to do the right thing, for what it's worth.
 
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :
 
I've always accepted the traditional view that sex belongs in marriage, but I was also aware of the traditional understanding that marriage begins when it begins, and that the ceremony (either in church or elsewhere) is a solemnisation of something that could already be existing "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace", and like the other sacraments the temporal positioning of the outward sign and the inward grace are not of major importance.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I suppose minimal caring is enough to involve another person in your sexual activity, otherwise, just masturbate on your own. [Disappointed]
Then there is de facto no minimum for you. It's all okay. Which rather goes against what you said earlier. Which is it?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Sex contains emotion, as does any significant bodily function. If it contains emotion, can it not but contain an element of one's soul? Damage? that is a different matter than causing an effect.
An artfully crafted meal, a beautiful sunset, making a terrific image; all those contain emotion foe me.

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I suppose minimal caring is enough to involve another person in your sexual activity, otherwise, just masturbate on your own. [Disappointed]
Masturbation is fun, but nothing compared to a good partner.
Sex is a skill. Caring can enhance any experience. They are different things.
quote:

Sexual hook-up culture research summary: "...developing research suggests that sexual hookups may leave more strings attached than many participants might first assume."
Quoting studies without revealing methodology renders the reference nearly useless.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
DaleMaily

This is a fairly liberal website, and there are also posters who aren't Christians. So you're unlikely to be told point blank that pre-marital sex is sinful.

The problem for me as a Christian is that it's hard to imagine Jesus as having lived a laid-back serially monogamous sexual life. We do know that he disapproved of divorce. Maybe he married Mary Magdalene, but going from her to Martha, then Martha's sister, then the woman at the well, etc., doesn't seem to have been the kind of wonderful liberation that Jesus was promoting. And he did get into enough trouble to be put to death, so avoiding scandal was hardly his main concern....

Also, on a sociological level, I feel that sexual liberation as we know it is so closely bound up with the secularisation of Western culture that it's very hard for the churches (as opposed to individual radicals) to argue convincingly that the theological foundations of such behaviour are authentically Christian. Religious decline has gone alongside rising levels of extra-marital sexual activity, reductions in the marriage rate (and particularly Christian ceremonies), a rising divorce rate, and half or more children born out of wedlock. Correlation is not causation, of course, but the scholars I've come across routinely connect the former with the latter.

For most mainstream churches, then, it's a matter of sensitive pastoral care or simple pragmatism; declining churches are less likely to turn away people whose lifestyles would once have been beyond the pale.

Ultimately, if we're looking at the possible spiritual blessings (or 'fruit') of a formal change in approach, I'm afraid I don't think there's much sign that a more tolerant approach to pre-sexual activity than currently exists would serve the gospel. As things stand, it wouldn't reduce decline and aid church growth in our culture, although it might benefit some liberal congregations with a sophisticated demographic. But outside of academia, where are the liberal Christian intellectuals who might promote Christian pre-marital sexuality as a respectable, liberating or radical choice?
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I suppose minimal caring is enough to involve another person in your sexual activity, otherwise, just masturbate on your own. [Disappointed]
Then there is de facto no minimum for you. It's all okay. Which rather goes against what you said earlier. Which is it?
Irony lost.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I suppose minimal caring is enough to involve another person in your sexual activity, otherwise, just masturbate on your own. [Disappointed]
Then there is de facto no minimum for you. It's all okay. Which rather goes against what you said earlier. Which is it?
Irony lost.
I was more interested in having a discussion than scoring humor points. Maybe I picked the wrong thread.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Quoting studies without revealing methodology renders the reference nearly useless.
You don't get away with that. The link is summaries of research. What is known, as a collection of review. It isn't a meta analysis but it is a credible summary. For CE purposes.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Quoting studies without revealing methodology renders the reference nearly useless.
You don't get away with that. The link is summaries of research. What is known, as a collection of review. It isn't a meta analysis but it is a credible summary. For CE purposes.
Where does it show their methodology? What questions they asked, did they factor in the economic environment, religious POV, economic background, etc. I downloaded the report summary and have only skimmed it, but I dis not see this.
 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

In former affluent times, couples could settle down in their early 20s. I actually bought a house when I was still a university student. If the economic situations force young people to live with their parents until they approach 30, wouldn't we expect them to be sexually active?
I'm no expert, but I always thought it was the case that a majority of married Christians (at least those I've come across) still do marry younger than the average. Part of the argument that always rankled with me was that it seemed that people who had gone to uni, met someone at the CU, then married a couple of years later were essentially asking (or demanding..) something they never had to face themselves. I know that has no bearing on what is "right", but it smacks a bit of lack of understanding. Basically, not having sex for 5 years has to be way easier than not having it for 15 years, for a variety of reasons.

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
Someone may of course resent feeling like they're the one with the responsibility to say 'no' all the time. To which you say what? 'Well, good luck finding a Christian man who's attracted to women and who has a more right-on attitude than I do'?

I think you're trying to do the right thing, for what it's worth.
Thanks. With regards the "saying no" bit, it's (unsurprisingly) greyer than that: if and when stuff happens (ugh, I sound like I'm 14...), sometimes it's me who stops it and sometimes it's the other way round. Either way, there's never been any "danger" of us actually having intercourse, although that then brings up the "where is the line?" question.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The problem for me as a Christian is that it's hard to imagine Jesus as having lived a laid-back serially monogamous sexual life. We do know that he disapproved of divorce. Maybe he married Mary Magdalene, but going from her to Martha, then Martha's sister, then the woman at the well, etc., doesn't seem to have been the kind of wonderful liberation that Jesus was promoting. And he did get into enough trouble to be put to death, so avoiding scandal was hardly his main concern....

But does that not suggest that he was concerned primarily with the problem of divorce, as I imagine pre-marital sex would have been rather rare, the age of marriage generally being on the low side? I've seen Jesus's musings on divorce be extrapolated to what gay people can and can't do, which doesn't wash with me: if he's talking about divorce, he's talking about divorce...

Jesus didn't campaign to abolish slavery (old chestnut, I know...) but that doesn't mean he didn't approve, rather I imagine he was acutely aware of his limited time on Earth and his impending doom (and conquering of doom), so he had to prioritise, being completely human and all. Considering then that we probably have to infer from his teachings that he wouldn't have approved of slavery (I think we can all agree on that), we then have to try to infer and work out for ourselves (because we have to take some responsibility for what we do with our lives) what we should do. The problem with that is that inferring doesn't always lead to consensus, and the debate quickly regresses into the usual tic for tac insults and holier than thou attitudes from both sides.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
I've always accepted the traditional view that sex belongs in marriage, but I was also aware of the traditional understanding that marriage begins when it begins, and that the ceremony (either in church or elsewhere) is a solemnisation of something that could already be existing "an outward and visible sign of an inward and invisible grace", and like the other sacraments the temporal positioning of the outward sign and the inward grace are not of major importance.
I think that's pretty close to where I am, to the extent that I think sex belongs within the context of a committed relationship and that the marriage ceremony is a worthwhile expression of that.

I was brought up on no-sex-before-marriage principles and have no regrets in that respect, but have come to the conclusion that this cannot be convincingly argued on the basis of Scripture alone.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
I'm no expert, but I always thought it was the case that a majority of married Christians (at least those I've come across) still do marry younger than the average. Part of the argument that always rankled with me was that it seemed that people who had gone to uni, met someone at the CU, then married a couple of years later were essentially asking (or demanding..) something they never had to face themselves. I know that has no bearing on what is "right", but it smacks a bit of lack of understanding. Basically, not having sex for 5 years has to be way easier than not having it for 15 years, for a variety of reasons.
You may not mean to do this, but you make it sound as if the duty of religion is to indulge people whose priority is to find a great job and have fun sex before eventually looking for a spouse! I doubt that St Paul would have approved; he rather than Jesus seems to have been the one to address 'fornication' directly as a problem. (I'm aware that lots of Christians dislike Paul. But in theory, his writings still 'count', for now at least.)

quote:
I imagine pre-marital sex would have been rather rare, the age of marriage generally being on the low side? I've seen Jesus's musings on divorce be extrapolated to what gay people can and can't do, which doesn't wash with me: if he's talking about divorce, he's talking about divorce...


Interestingly, there are clergymen who accept that long term committed relationships are more or less equivalent to marriages. In that case, when those couples split up, is that equivalent to getting divorced? Dismissing the 'piece of paper' as unimportant or anachronistic doesn't seem to make such questions easier but more complicated....

quote:
[We] have to try to infer and work out for ourselves (because we have to take some responsibility for what we do with our lives) what we should do. The problem with that is that inferring doesn't always lead to consensus, and the debate quickly regresses into the usual tic for tac insults and holier than thou attitudes from both sides.
I don't think it's a matter of 'holier than thou attitudes'. Firstly, if you don't attend the church down the road and you don't like its 'attitude', who cares? Happy ecumenical arrangements can be made elsewhere.

Much more importantly, it should be realised that for some people this isn't about a polite, minor difference among rational, educated men; it's seen as a matter of salvation itself. And it may well be for the demographic of some churches.

Perhaps some Christians can go joyfully from lover to lover and also develop a profound and fruitful relationship with God. There's an interesting book to be written about that, no doubt. But ours is a faith primarily for the weak, the discouraged, the weary, the poor.... And for many of these people, serial monogamy without marriage could well be a source of their spiritual problems rather than a spiritual benefit.

A well-brought up gentleman might treat his short-term partners with utter respect and care; but due to background or experience another will find it much harder to do. A middle class girlfriend might be thorough with contraception; many women with low self-esteem or living chaotic lives might not be. Some women can master their emotions so as not to expect too much from their co-habitees or hook-ups; others haven't developed that skill. Some can brush off a teenage abortion; what about the ones who can't?

Research I've read suggests that these behaviours may (though not always, of course!!!) lead to situations which make a Christian outcome more difficult to achieve. High rates of serial monogamy in a culture don't help to create lasting marriages. Living together before marriage has in recent times made divorce more not less likely (although the difference has since declined, because nearly everyone in the West now lives together first). Unmarried parents are more likely than married parents to split up while their children are still young.... (Refs are available.)

Therefore, if we're concerned about not leading other Christians astray (which is a NT imperative, AFAIUI) we should be careful about presenting these behaviours as spiritually neutral and reasonable choices for all our brethren. Put bluntly, many of the world's Christians are poor women, and they probably won't be the ones getting the caring, liberal, respectful boyfriends....

But each to his own. We all fall short of the glory of God.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
hosting

This isn't a Dead Horse. It may have been so many moons ago but isn't now. Please check the very limited number of subjects which are Dead Horses in the board guidelines before posting. I'm moving this to Purgatory.
thanks!
Louise
Dead Horses host

hosting off

[ 13. March 2017, 23:00: Message edited by: Louise ]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
quote:
The problem from my partner's point of view is that we are not having sex for different reasons...she thinks that my opinions are not based on what God thinks.
Well, you can take this middle-aged no-sex-inside-of-marriage guy's opinion, or leave it. Seems to me that your respect of her reasoning is a God thing, if one is a Christian. Someone may of course resent feeling like they're the one with the responsibility to say 'no' all the time. To which you say what? 'Well, good luck finding a Christian man who's attracted to women and who has a more right-on attitude than I do'?

I think you're trying to do the right thing, for what it's worth.
I'm older than middle aged and more of the wait for marriage bent. But even though I'm closer to Dale's more conservative partner's view, I also think Dale is doing the right thing.

Further, and not wishing to make more of a muddle, I'm a bit concerned about Dale's partner's belief that it's important that they both believe the same things, and for the same reasons. This won't be the first time you disagree-- about faith matters, or about whose turn it is to empty the dishwasher. Making unanimity on all matters a goal seems to me a recipe for disaster. Much more important is simply having a partner who is willing to work thru disputes in a respectful and reasonable manner, and even make sacrifices at times out of love and respect for the other. It seems to me Dale is exemplifying this (very marriage-able IMHO) quality here, and that is to be applauded more than focusing on different parsing of what is, at best, inconsistent biblical teaching.
 
Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :
 
Browsing the 16th century records of the Presbytery of Stirling, as one does*, it was instructive to read that back then they didn't get particularly exercised over the issue of cohabitation before marriage. However, it was failure to follow through on a promise to marry that would incur their wrath, and it could be expensive, with public repentance and heavy fines involved.

On the original topic, one of my favourite ministers, asked his opinion of sex before marriage, replied that didn't think it was as important as sex after marriage.


*Scottish History Society, 1981
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Question, do you love your partner enough to marry her? That solves the problem. If you do not think you can make the commitment, is it time to move on?

I am reminded what my dad used to say. Men give love to have sex. Women give sex to have love.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
Given the original SBM thread is in Oblivion, I was hoping to resurrect the topic and ask around for some opinions regarding my personal struggle (for want of a better word):

I have had sex, and all but the first time was as part of monogamous, committed relationships. I have a since become a Christian and my partner (also a Christian) is very much no sex before marriage. I have no argument with her beliefs and have no wish to change her mind - on the contrary, I would probably feel worried if she did suddenly do so.

The problem from my partner's point of view is that we are not having sex for different reasons: she because God prohibits it outside marriage, and I because I respect her opinion to choose not to have sex with me (which I would obviously do so if it were a question of faith or simply personal morals/conscience). For me, this needn't be a problem, but she thinks that my opinions are not based on what God thinks.

I would say my opinions on sex and marriage are somewhat liberal-traditional: I think one night stands (I don't like the word "promiscuity" as it makes me think of defence lawyers using it to bully rape victims) are likely to be emotionally damaging, and I do find aspects of the conservative argument for marriage (as expressed here) appealing (if a little utopian), but I'm still not convinced that what I did was sinful. Or is my pride getting in the way?

Sorry for the ramble, I hope it's all a bit more coherent on-screen than it is in my head!
I don't know how much value there is in trying to convince you of the sinfulness of something you aren't doing and aren't likely to do again in the future. Seems a bit academic to me, particularly with the blood of Christ covering all, etc.

I confess that I am very out-of-step with most of the rest of the Ship because I do still think sex is only within marriage--though I'd worry about any couple that found it easy to keep to that stricture during their courtship!

It's because of the view I take of the Scriptures, of course--but there are other things that play into it as well that might be worth mentioning here.

One is that I really think there ought to be some level of one's being that is reserved solely for one's permanent, till death do us part spouse--and that includes both physical and spiritual aspects. Not every room in my house is a public room. Even my good friends don't normally waltz into my bedroom--or if they do, they don't make a practice of getting into the bed under the covers. Dumb analogy I suppose, but do you see what I'm driving at? I've got different sets of boundaries, and one of them is set to admit one person only. (and another admits nobody but God.)

Another thing that I mull over is just how much psychological callousing or pain I'd be laying myself open to if I got involved in multiple sexual relationships and the hurt etc. that comes when they end in conflict (as they often do). Someone that close to you can hurt you so much more powerfully. I'm not ready to lay myself open to that amount of possible damage (and who is always lucky?). Marriage is enough of a risk that way.

And then there's what a lot of you will consider the stupid shit--the fact that some people can never forget that their husband or spouse had other partners before them, can never stop wondering if their willingness to break one boundary implies a possible weakness in future faithfulness. (Now someone's going to flame me for sure.) But it's a real problem. I'm watching the final days of one marriage that is foundering on just that rock (among others, yes, but the mutual suspicion they had of each other didn't help at all).

Anyway, I've been dreadfully old-fashioned and was a virgin at marriage, with no partners but my husband since. To a lot of people that will equal "You don't know what you're talking about." Maybe so. But I've become more glad of it as the years go by and we approach our 30th anniversary. I've never found a reason to regret it.

ETA: should have said: I am not a Good Little Evangelical or anything of that sort. I'm a mainstream ordinary Lutheran.

[ 14. March 2017, 02:33: Message edited by: Lamb Chopped ]
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

Interestingly, there are clergymen who accept that long term committed relationships are more or less equivalent to marriages. In that case, when those couples split up, is that equivalent to getting divorced? Dismissing the 'piece of paper' as unimportant or anachronistic doesn't seem to make such questions easier but more complicated....
This is pretty close to what I think--which is why I wish they'd do it right and get the legal and social protections in place so they have a better chance together. Marriages today may have a high divorce rate, but cohabitation is AFAIK even worse for breakup rate--I'd like to see them have every advantage, especially if there are children involved.

Paul appears to have thought that what makes a marriage union is primarily sex--at least, I think that's why he goes off so hard on people visiting prostitutes. He sees that as a real union, possibly a permanent union--and if he sees prostitution that way, how much more cohabitation!

So yeah, I do think of those as marriages--but disadvantaged ones, as there's often at least one person who won't fully commit, and that leaves the other person in an anxious kind of limbo. And then there's the failure to secure inheritance rights and all that. It really sucks when you have to tell a young not-quite widow that her boyfriend's mother is taking the car, the bank account, and everything, because she isn't legally married and has no inheritance rights. And the children lose out because the parents didn't put his name on the birth certificate, and how are they going to prove paternity now?
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

I am reminded what my dad used to say. Men give love to have sex. Women give sex to have love.
IME, this is from cultural pressure than anything innate. Many women love sex for its own sake.
 
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

I am reminded what my dad used to say. Men give love to have sex. Women give sex to have love.
IME, this is from cultural pressure than anything innate. Many women love sex for its own sake.
And believe it or not the other converse is true also.
 
Posted by Galilit (# 16470) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

I am reminded what my dad used to say. Men give love to have sex. Women give sex to have love.
Or an old 1980's feminist saying:
For men, sex is about sensations; for women, it's about feelings
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

I am reminded what my dad used to say. Men give love to have sex. Women give sex to have love.
IME, this is from cultural pressure than anything innate. Many women love sex for its own sake.
And believe it or not the other converse is true also.
I have no reason to doubt this.

ETA: It is incredibly difficult to separate culture from biology and to evaluate it objectively. This is why I challenged the link no prophet offered. And Kinsey, TBH.

[ 14. March 2017, 04:20: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
It's because of the view I take of the Scriptures, of course--but there are other things that play into it as well that might be worth mentioning here.
I agree with a fair amount of your "other things".

For me an overwhelming argument in favour of marriage as opposed to cohabitation is creating an opportunity to discuss one's respective expectations of the relationship. Not everybody takes the opportunity offered but it is there.

However, on the narrower question of "no sex before marriage", I would like to know what in the Scriptures informs your view.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Is anyone else disturbed by the idea that relationahips and sex are inextricably linked?
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Question, do you love your partner enough to marry her? That solves the problem. If you do not think you can make the commitment, is it time to move on?

I am reminded what my dad used to say. Men give love to have sex. Women give sex to have love.
I don't agree.

One of my sons is married, the other cohabits. I see no less love in one relationship than the other.

These days - from what I see - they get married when children are on the cards, not before. So the marriage is the commitment to the children, they are already committed to each other when they move in together.

I moved in with my husband in 1976, which was quite unusual in those days. He wanted to get married, I didn't. I did as the youngsters do today and married him when children were in the offing.

Why do you assume the onus is on the man?

'Love her enough to marry her' ??? You talk as if she has no choice in the matter - as if you are giving her some special gift.
[Roll Eyes] if marriage is not a partnership, what is it?
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is anyone else disturbed by the idea that relationahips and sex are inextricably linked?
Mmmmn, not really. ISTM that the idea that you can interact with another person and not have a relationship with them is on a par with the idea that you can have an opinion which is free of context.

...just as I'm about to click 'add reply', it occurs to me that you might actually be asking, not, is anyone else disturbed by the notion that all sex is about relationships, but - is anyone else disturbed by the idea that all relationships are potentially about sex. In which case, yes. Yes, I am disturbed by that. I have frequently been disturbed by that notion. Because, despite my actual chasteness, I've often found myself attracted to people that I become close to. Sometimes women as well. Yep, disturbing. As best I can make it out, when thinking it through, it's about wanting to give more of yourself.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

However, on the narrower question of "no sex before marriage", I would like to know what in the Scriptures informs your view.
Fwiw, I don't think Christian sexual morality has much to do with the bible. Like abstaining from alcohol, it is possible to create an argument about sexual relations, but there is very little foundation for it.

Indeed, it seems to me that the vast majority of sexual relationships pictured in the bible are defective and do not follow the "norms" we are all supposed to believe in.

That said, I think there are good reasons to promote long term commitment and monogamy on a purely sociological basis.

Love and commitment are a better basis to build society than selfishness. Suggesting relationships are more than mechanical encourages human flourishing rather than diminishes it.

I know others disagree, and I know there are some who have unquestionable levels of commitment whilst not jumping through the traditional civil hoops. I'm not saying that people who disagree should somehow be disadvantaged, but still think that the church should be "for" long term, committed, monogamous, more-than-sex relationships.

Possibly just me then.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
Mmmmn, not really. ISTM that the idea that you can interact with another person and not have a relationship with them is on a par with the idea that you can have an opinion which is free of context.
Ah sorry, I had totally missed that reading of what I'd written.

But, again, I disagree. It seems humans are fickle and it is entirely possible to sexually interact with another person outwith of any emotional ties however the problem seems to be that it is impossible to tell when you will develop those ties at unfortunate times or what the other person feels about it (or what someone else who is close to that person feels about it). Sexual relations are rarely totally free and without any consequence, it seems to me, and it is a bit of a lottery to know before getting into them.

quote:
...just as I'm about to click 'add reply', it occurs to me that you might actually be asking, not, is anyone else disturbed by the notion that all sex is about relationships, but - is anyone else disturbed by the idea that all relationships are potentially about sex. In which case, yes. Yes, I am disturbed by that. I have frequently been disturbed by that notion. Because, despite my actual chasteness, I've often found myself attracted to people that I become close to. Sometimes women as well. Yep, disturbing. As best I can make it out, when thinking it through, it's about wanting to give more of yourself.
Call me naive, but it seems to me that there are a lot of close relationships that develop that are not sexual. It disturbs me to contemplate that people really only have sex in mind when forming those relationships and I really don't want it to be true.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

However, on the narrower question of "no sex before marriage", I would like to know what in the Scriptures informs your view.
Fwiw, I don't think Christian sexual morality has much to do with the bible.
I think it depends partly on how you assess marriage: is it a sacrament? a legal arrangement? a social or relational contract?

(FWIW I think a lot of evangelicals are actually functional sacramentalists on this and other similar matters).

The problem I have with "no sex before marriage" is not so much that it's a bad principle but that like so many other things, it's presented as being self-evident from the Bible when in fact it is one possible conclusion of a whole set of biblical considerations about intimacy, commitment, faithfulness, and so on.

People often parrot the "rule" instead of really thinking through the reasons behind it for themselves, which in relationships can be a recipe for disaster.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think it depends partly on how you assess marriage: is it a sacrament? a legal arrangement? a social or relational contract?

(FWIW I think a lot of evangelicals are actually functional sacramentalists on this and other similar matters).

The problem I have with "no sex before marriage" is not so much that it's a bad principle but that like so many other things, it's presented as being self-evident from the Bible when in fact it is one possible conclusion of a whole set of biblical considerations about intimacy, commitment, faithfulness, and so on.

People often parrot the "rule" instead of really thinking through the reasons behind it for themselves, which in relationships can be a recipe for disaster.
I think we're basically in agreement. If one holds a sacramental view, it is possible to read the bible and see it there. Personally I don't think it is possible to read the bible and get to a sacramental view of sex. Indeed, marriage in the majority of the bible seems to be about property ownership rather than relationship between equals.

These days I tend to believe that almost all evangelical ideas along these lines are built on air and that they're kidding themselves with claims that they're self-evidently biblical. And that very often is destructive.
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
Lamb Chopped.

No flaming here.

I'm old school in that there is no such thing as emotionally, relationally consequence free sex. If there is then you're psychopathic, alexithymic, dead.

My only thought is that there can be nothing special about SBM for Christians apart from being Christlike. Maximally kind. Patient. Considerate. Thoughtful. Decent. Respectful, including of parents. Mature. When you're 15 ...

As I was normally catastrophically parented and schooled and socialized and educated and abused ... no chance.

We still aren't grown up, don't talk enough, about sex and emotional hygiene and health. Especially in the incredibly shrinking church.

[ 14. March 2017, 09:37: Message edited by: Martin60 ]
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
The problem from my partner's point of view is that we are not having sex for different reasons: she because God prohibits it outside marriage, and I because I respect her opinion to choose not to have sex with me (which I would obviously do so if it were a question of faith or simply personal morals/conscience). For me, this needn't be a problem, but she thinks that my opinions are not based on what God thinks.
If I were your partner, I would count my blessings and be very grateful for the respect you show for her, her feelings, her beliefs, her convictions.

Forgive me if this sounds harsh, but it seems to me that you respect your partner a lot more than she respects you.
It may all work out fine in the long run, but if partners do not respect each other in their particular relation to/with God and in their convictions, what basis is their for a longer term relationship?

Disclaimer(s):
I have had sex with only one partner, my wife.
I do not encourage casual sex.
But also I do not judge people on their sexual life-style.

[ 14. March 2017, 10:05: Message edited by: opaWim ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Harsh. If I believe in something and my partner doesn't, it isn't simply about respect. Right and wrong is much deeper than that.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:


Indeed, it seems to me that the vast majority of sexual relationships pictured in the bible are defective and do not follow the "norms" we are all supposed to believe in.

That said, I think there are good reasons to promote long term commitment and monogamy on a purely sociological basis.
[...]
I'm not saying that people who disagree should somehow be disadvantaged, but still think that the church should be "for" long term, committed, monogamous, more-than-sex relationships.

Possibly just me then.
I agree that the Bible doesn't spend much time focusing on happy, monogamous marriages. One reason is that attitudes towards marriage are culturally defined. We expect to find all sorts of personal fulfillment in marriage, but the ancients mostly needed marriage to provide other things.

Also, some would argue that the Bible focuses on 'great men' of action, who are almost never the kind to stay at home and prioritise domestic contentment.

The love marriage does seem to be problematic, though. Disillusionment and divorce are constant risks when expectations are so high. Modernising countries like India have realised that arranged marriages are more likely to last. Which doesn't help us liberal, tolerant Westerners, of course.

As for the church supporting 'long term' etc. relationships - trying to define that is of course more complicated. What length are we talking about? Marriage also has the unfair advantage in that you can congratulate a couple who've just got married. To even things up a bit should the church similarly rejoice when couples just move in together?

The 'more-than-sex' thing reminds me of a situation I read about in Canada, where a minister was faced with two gay men who wanted a church wedding but revealed that they had no intention of being sexually faithful to each other.

It's a brave new world.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:


The love marriage does seem to be problematic, though. Disillusionment and divorce are constant risks when expectations are so high. Modernising countries like India have realised that arranged marriages are more likely to last. Which doesn't help us liberal, tolerant Westerners, of course.
I understand that arranged marriages can indeed be very lasting, wholesome and uplifting. But then they may also be hard to get out of and abusive.

quote:
As for the church supporting 'long term' etc. relationships - trying to define that is of course more complicated. What length are we talking about? Marriage also has the unfair advantage in that you can congratulate a couple who've just got married. To even things up a bit should the church similarly rejoice when couples just move in together?
I'm not sure a definition more than "till death do us part" is really necessary. It may well be unrealistic for many, I'm not sure that the church should be criticised for having a difficult ideal.

On your other point, I have long thought that the church* puts far too much emphasis on the wedding and that this, in fact, perversely can lead to problems and even divorce.

* perhaps more accurately it is society that emphasises the "big day" but the church often seems to be enthusiastically encouraging stupid behaviour.

quote:
The 'more-than-sex' thing reminds me of a situation I read about in Canada, where a minister was faced with two gay men who wanted a church wedding but revealed that they had no intention of being sexually faithful to each other.

It's a brave new world.
I suppose this is one of those situations where even though something might be legal it doesn't mean it is right.

I wouldn't marry someone who was that casual about their relationship. But then I'm not sure I'd marry anyone, I'm probably the last person to ask on this..
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

The love marriage does seem to be problematic, though. Disillusionment and divorce are constant risks when expectations are so high. Modernising countries like India have realised that arranged marriages are more likely to last. Which doesn't help us liberal, tolerant Westerners, of course.
These aren't quite the same thing. You can marry for love, or marry because your families think you'll make a good match. These are both ways of selecting a marriage partner, not ways of behaving whilst in a marriage.

It may well be true that people going into an arranged marriage tend to have a more realistic idea of what is required to make a marriage work than those who marry for lurve. It is almost certainly true that people in societies where arranged marriages are common face more social pressure to remain married than liberal, tolerant Westerners.

But neither of these is necessarily true.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
Certainly, arranged marriages are maintained in communities or societies where there is cultural pressure (or more positively, support) to keep those marriages together.

If you just have the arranged marriages on their own, without the cultural support, they'll quickly collapse. This has happened whenever a Western reality show has brought a handful of people together, subjected them to personality tests, etc. and married them off to people they don't know. Disastrous.

ISTM, though, that Western love has always been ambivalent about marriage. Courtly love long ago was about adultery, and even today, there's the popular sense that sexual love should be liberating, all-consuming, unshackled by bourgeois norms, religion and legalities - so how can it be constrained by mere marriage?

Sexual variety is obviously a strong impulse, both before and after marriage. Religion has tried to curb that tendency, but over time Christians have expected their religion to work around it. But I think there's a limit to the usefulness of religion, if its purpose is merely to sanction the things that we were going to do anyway....
 
Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :
 
The no sex before marriage thing was always and ever about one thing above all: that the man in a relationship - and the society of which he was a part - thought it the best way of ensuring that the first child, at least, (preferably a boy, of course) could be guaranteed to be his.

Eventually some societies, including British society at least lower down the social scale, it became the custom that while a betrothal might occur when a girl was 12 or so, no formal marriage would take place until either the bride was pregnant or even after the birth. So plenty of people - albeit betrothed/engaged - were having pre-marital sex, and often with the tacit blessing of the church.

While it was acknowledged that men would enjoy sex, there was precious little enjoyment to be expected for the bride - indeed, the act of sex was often referred to as the "marriage debt", in other words sex was the price women "paid" for the respectability conferred by marriage. And it was often seen as a sign of a woman's virtue if she did't enjoy sex, and therefore acceptable if a husband fulfilled his "baser needs" outside the marital bed, so long as he didn't flaunt any such liaisons.

Now we have a situation where not only is it accepted that both men and women can (should?) gain pleasure and enjoyment from sex, it is seen as being the mark of a successful relationship and the linchpin of a "healthy" partnership.

Bearing this in mind, isn't it remarkably stupid to assume that what has come to be an integral part of a relationship is left as a big question mark? It is, after all, accepted that it is perfectly possible for people of different gender to have very close, loving friendships without them being sexually attracted to one another, so why do people assume that "love" means there is sexual attraction or compatability? And what about the rather important fact that libido can differ greatly from person to person?

I realise that some may find the analogy banal, but surely if you were thinking of buying the one car you'd ever own you'd want to do more than just look at a catalogue? You'd want to sit in it and take it for a test drive. Well, so with sex.

As for DaleMaily's girlfriend and the problem she has with them refraining from sex for different reasons: it is about far more than respect, it is about a judgment made as to which is the more "virtuous" reason for abstinence. Not a happy situation for you, DM, and one I'd consider very carefully before committing to anything like an engagement, never mind marriage.
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Is anyone else disturbed by the idea that relationahips and sex are inextricably linked?
It only became possible to split the one from the other in living memory. The invention of reliable and widely-available birth control allows a woman to have sex without worrying that a baby will appear nine months from now. And it is that baby, with its attendant 18 years or so of support, that made having a relationship before sex absolutely essential in the past.

Which is why when you discuss these issues you need to acknowledge that great divide. Before birth control and after birth control -- I suggest that the moral and right behavior has now changed. You can still be emotionally hurt, sustain spiritual damage, even acquire a venereal disease, from that single fling. But a woman can avoid pregnancy, without the cooperation or even knowledge of the male partner.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
The no sex before marriage thing was always and ever about one thing above all: that the man in a relationship - and the society of which he was a part - thought it the best way of ensuring that the first child, at least, (preferably a boy, of course) could be guaranteed to be his.
That's such a bland statement as to be almost entirely unfalsifiable. That clearly is not the case in many Christian communities today, where pre-marital sex is considered a sin.

Unless you stop posting bland statements and give some detail which amounts to more than your idiosyncratic version of the history of religion, it is going to be very hard to discuss this with you.

Who are you talking about and when? What evidence do you have of this tendency?

quote:
Eventually some societies, including British society at least lower down the social scale, it became the custom that while a betrothal might occur when a girl was 12 or so, no formal marriage would take place until either the bride was pregnant or even after the birth. So plenty of people - albeit betrothed/engaged - were having pre-marital sex, and often with the tacit blessing of the church.
Again, you need to be defining which period you are talking about here.

quote:
While it was acknowledged that men would enjoy sex, there was precious little enjoyment to be expected for the bride - indeed, the act of sex was often referred to as the "marriage debt", in other words sex was the price women "paid" for the respectability conferred by marriage. And it was often seen as a sign of a woman's virtue if she did't enjoy sex, and therefore acceptable if a husband fulfilled his "baser needs" outside the marital bed, so long as he didn't flaunt any such liaisons.
Mmm.

quote:
Now we have a situation where not only is it accepted that both men and women can (should?) gain pleasure and enjoyment from sex, it is seen as being the mark of a successful relationship and the linchpin of a "healthy" partnership.

Bearing this in mind, isn't it remarkably stupid to assume that what has come to be an integral part of a relationship is left as a big question mark? It is, after all, accepted that it is perfectly possible for people of different gender to have very close, loving friendships without them being sexually attracted to one another, so why do people assume that "love" means there is sexual attraction or compatability? And what about the rather important fact that libido can differ greatly from person to person?

I realise that some may find the analogy banal, but surely if you were thinking of buying the one car you'd ever own you'd want to do more than just look at a catalogue? You'd want to sit in it and take it for a test drive. Well, so with sex.
That's so inane. Plenty of things are not like buying a car. Close human relationships are not about a checklist of compatibility that you can test-drive.

quote:
As for DaleMaily's girlfriend and the problem she has with them refraining from sex for different reasons: it is about far more than respect, it is about a judgment made as to which is the more "virtuous" reason for abstinence. Not a happy situation for you, DM, and one I'd consider very carefully before committing to anything like an engagement, never mind marriage.
My goodness, you really are attempting to give marriage preparation lessons via this limited information imparted on a bulletin board.
[Mad]

[ 14. March 2017, 13:10: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

I realise that some may find the analogy banal, but surely if you were thinking of buying the one car you'd ever own you'd want to do more than just look at a catalogue? You'd want to sit in it and take it for a test drive. Well, so with sex.
So when you've committed to a particular car, and it no longer performs the way it did in the test drive, what then? Are you trading it in for a new model?

I think your test-drive analogy only makes any sense at all if you think people's sexual preferences and compatibility are constant over time. And I don't think they are.

quote:

As for DaleMaily's girlfriend and the problem she has with them refraining from sex for different reasons: it is about far more than respect, it is about a judgment made as to which is the more "virtuous" reason for abstinence.
That's not my reading. It's not about some kind of virtue-signalling nonsense: it's about faith. DaleMaily's girlfriend seems to be concerned that she and DM are not on the same page with regards to faith. She is saying "God says it would be wrong for us to have sex" and DM is saying "God thinks it would be fine for us to have sex, but I know you don't want to and I respect that."

It's not about sex - it's about God. The question is whether DM and his girlfriend can reconcile their differing beliefs.

[ 14. March 2017, 13:23: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
A few years ago, it seemed to be a fad among fundamentalist churches to get their teens to commit to purity, or chastity, until married. As I recall, the results were, well, disappointing. There was in increase in unwanted pregnancies among the teens. They also found that many of the young adults reported sexual dysfunction when they did get married precisely because they had forgone sexual experimentation that seems to be a part becoming sexually mature.

I am sure the fundamentalist churches still encourage their teens to stay chaste, but the teens are dropping out of those churches in droves because the message does not match with the teen's reality.

Am I encouraging promiscuity? I do not think so. I am just saying be careful about what you do when you cross that bridge.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
This is pretty close to what I think--which is why I wish they'd do it right and get the legal and social protections in place so they have a better chance together. Marriages today may have a high divorce rate, but cohabitation is AFAIK even worse for breakup rate--I'd like to see them have every advantage, especially if there are children involved.

Paul appears to have thought that what makes a marriage union is primarily sex--at least, I think that's why he goes off so hard on people visiting prostitutes. He sees that as a real union, possibly a permanent union--and if he sees prostitution that way, how much more cohabitation!

So yeah, I do think of those as marriages--but disadvantaged ones, as there's often at least one person who won't fully commit, and that leaves the other person in an anxious kind of limbo. And then there's the failure to secure inheritance rights and all that. It really sucks when you have to tell a young not-quite widow that her boyfriend's mother is taking the car, the bank account, and everything, because she isn't legally married and has no inheritance rights. And the children lose out because the parents didn't put his name on the birth certificate, and how are they going to prove paternity now?
Indeed. The laws in Canada vary from province to province. In some being common-law is enough to have property divided as if married, in others reverts to family of origin. I expect to try to gently tell one of my children when I visit over Easter, that if never marrying, please see a lawyer and draw up some sort of contract for cohabitation. Parents may also need to revise wills to ensure money goes to descendants and not half of it to siblings.

I realize in this day of satisfying individual aspirations, extended family has limited or no say. But I wonder, at what point do the parents of a cohabiting consider the partner as a common-law in-law, part of the family or whatever. I am told 8 years is enough. I suppose it is. People do try to tell me it doesn't matter, but it does to me. Probably they say it doesn't matter because it doesn't matter to them, and they come from a large extended family, and don't have the refugee symptom of concern for family continuity after a hecatomb of decimation in war. Of course the best is not to say anything at all, which I learned the hard way.

I think it is easier to dismiss marriage with cliché like "piece of paper", men want it to ensure the kids are their's, and empowerment of individuality and doing your own thing when your family is large and there are cousins.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
A few years ago, it seemed to be a fad among fundamentalist churches to get their teens to commit to purity, or chastity, until married. As I recall, the results were, well, disappointing. There was in increase in unwanted pregnancies among the teens. They also found that many of the young adults reported sexual dysfunction when they did get married precisely because they had forgone sexual experimentation that seems to be a part becoming sexually mature.

I've heard that purity rings make the girls targets for male attention. Young men want a challenge, and a girl who publicly declares her vow of chastity is an excellent one. Much wiser, and more dignified to keep your choice private, IMO.

But it's apparently also the case that the fundamentalists involved are often relatively poor, and poverty contributes to high teenage birth rates. This author feels that socioeconomic factors are of greater impact that theology or consumer culture, etc.

Moreover, African American teens have an even higher rate of pregnancy. They don't belong to the True Love Waits white Christian youth culture, although they may well have religious sensibilities. Poverty, again, is probably the most significant factor in their early sexual initiation, and in the likelihood of teen parenthood.
 
Posted by Hilda of Whitby (# 7341) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm older than middle aged and more of the wait for marriage bent. But even though I'm closer to Dale's more conservative partner's view, I also think Dale is doing the right thing.

Further, and not wishing to make more of a muddle, I'm a bit concerned about Dale's partner's belief that it's important that they both believe the same things, and for the same reasons. This won't be the first time you disagree-- about faith matters, or about whose turn it is to empty the dishwasher. Making unanimity on all matters a goal seems to me a recipe for disaster. Much more important is simply having a partner who is willing to work thru disputes in a respectful and reasonable manner, and even make sacrifices at times out of love and respect for the other. It seems to me Dale is exemplifying this (very marriage-able IMHO) quality here, and that is to be applauded more than focusing on different parsing of what is, at best, inconsistent biblical teaching.

This. Based on the OP, It struck me that DaleMalley's GF seems more than a tad rigid or controlling, and isn't showing him the same respect that he is showing to her.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
She may just as easily be young and worried--it took me years to get past what I now realize were minor issues.* And differences of faith (which is what she worries might be going on here) are often not minor issues.

If DaleMaily can continue to be kind and forebearing when she worries, I'd say that's an excellent start to marriage. Particularly because there are almost always these kinds of "x thinks it's important/y doesn't" issues on both sides.

*My understanding is that the human brain isn't really mature until 26 or thereabouts. And it takes longer to gain true wisdom and judgement. Most people don't wait till their 30s or 40s to begin a serious relationship.
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Harsh. If I believe in something and my partner doesn't, it isn't simply about respect. Right and wrong is much deeper than that.
And happily refraining from something out of respect (maybe even Love) for the other is less deep than agreeing on a matter of (perceived) divine law?
The older I get, and the more I read about Jesus Christ and the way He interacted with people, the more I tend to heartily disagree with you.

And also, if a Christian relationship would demand a perfect agreement on perceived christian morality, and that is what one of the partners in this case demands, I fear Christianity would have died out almost immediately.
The practical reality is that a living relationship with God is something that changes and grows during our lives. And when somebody does something right, not out of his own conviction (at that particular point in his journey) but out of respect/love, that goes at least as deep as a formal agreement on right and wrong.

[ 14. March 2017, 16:01: Message edited by: opaWim ]
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by opaWim:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Harsh. If I believe in something and my partner doesn't, it isn't simply about respect. Right and wrong is much deeper than that.
And happily refraining from something out of respect (maybe even Love) for the other is less deep than agreeing on a matter of (perceived) divine law?
I neither said nor intended nor implied that.

Voluntarily renouncing something out of love for your partner is not only the essence of marriage, it is the gospel.

But you seem to want us to cheer you on as you pile up the emotional blackmail on your partner, and I'm not doing that.

If you believe that God is calling you to this relationship, then you need to take up your cross and not get hung up about whether or not your partner should be ditching her sincere beliefs so that you can get your rocks off.

To state the obvious; what God is calling you to is between you and God, and equally what God is calling your partner to (who, I note, is not here to put her point of view) is between her and God.

If you have any future together, then you have to be able to negotiate the disagreements and the sacrifices and the choices you make when one or other of you disagree.

quote:

The older I get, and the more I read about Jesus Christ and the way He interacted with people, the more I tend to heartily disagree with you.

And also, if a Christian relationship would demand a perfect agreement on perceived christian morality, and that is what one of the partners in this case demands, I fear Christianity would have died out almost immediately.
The practical reality is that a living relationship with God is something that changes and grows during our lives. And when somebody does something right, not out of his own conviction (at that particular point in his journey) but out of respect/love, that goes at least as deep as a formal agreement on right and wrong.
Right, now you are arguing with yourself. If you respect your partner, respect her faulty understanding and don't put her in a position where she has an emotional response to breaking her own moral qualms.

If you can't do that, don't come here expecting us all to fawn over you and tell you how terrible she is being.

[ 14. March 2017, 16:25: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
You may not mean to do this, but you make it sound as if the duty of religion is to indulge people whose priority is to find a great job and have fun sex before eventually looking for a spouse! I doubt that St Paul would have approved; he rather than Jesus seems to have been the one to address 'fornication' directly as a problem. (I'm aware that lots of Christians dislike Paul. But in theory, his writings still 'count', for now at least.)
Err, I definitely did not mean to do that. All I was trying to say that having people your age (or younger) who were fortunate enough to meet and marry their spouse very early on lecture you on abstinence and self-control often comes off as insensitive, no matter how virtuous the intention. Dare I say it almost seems like virtue signalling? [Eek!]

On Paul, I do admit I find him difficult to read, with the caveat I haven't read much of the Bible at all - indeed part of the reason for posting this is because I didn't instinctively think "Right, I'm a Christian now, let's go find out what I am now not allowed to do", although I have read some Paul (or "Paul", depending on one's authorship views, not that I really care that much who wrote the epistles...). At times he seems like he still desperately wants to be a Pharisee...


quote:
Interestingly, there are clergymen who accept that long term committed relationships are more or less equivalent to marriages. In that case, when those couples split up, is that equivalent to getting divorced? Dismissing the 'piece of paper' as unimportant or anachronistic doesn't seem to make such questions easier but more complicated....


That is something I've considered, and I think there might be something in that.
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Question, do you love your partner enough to marry her? That solves the problem. If you do not think you can make the commitment, is it time to move on?
Eh? If you read my original post again I stated categorically that I’m fine not having sex before marriage, but I was thinking more about whether (not) doing it out of respect was enough from a spiritual point of view.

(PS Louise, thanks for moving the thread - I just assumed all sex-related discussion was a dead horse)
 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
Err, I definitely did not mean to do that. All I was trying to say that having people your age (or younger) who were fortunate enough to meet and marry their spouse very early on lecture you on abstinence and self-control often comes off as insensitive, no matter how virtuous the intention. Dare I say it almost seems like virtue signalling? [Eek!]
Sorry for double posting, but I should clarify that I haven't personally experienced the abovementioned lecturing, and the leaders at my church have never quizzed me about my sexual exploits pre- or post-conversion, but it is something that I have heard occurring anecdotally, and it's always something that's annoyed me with the "gay Christians" issue as some Christians expect gay people to live up to a standard that they don't have to follow themselves (at least in the same way), but that's an issue for a separate dead horse.
 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Hilda of Whitby:


This. Based on the OP, It struck me that DaleMalley's GF seems more than a tad rigid or controlling, and isn't showing him the same respect that he is showing to her.
(TRIPLE POST - SORRY! [Axe murder] )

I know I introduced my partner into the thread (I toyed with not doing it at all but decided it would just be too hypothetical) but as she isn't here to defend herself (and if she were it would be weird... and if you are, Hi [Smile] [Axe murder] ) and I don't want to go into the internal dynamics of our relationship, do you mind if we don't make judgements on her motives and reasoning? (No offence intended.)

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
She may just as easily be young and worried--it took me years to get past what I now realize were minor issues.* And differences of faith (which is what she worries might be going on here) are often not minor issues.

If DaleMaily can continue to be kind and forebearing when she worries, I'd say that's an excellent start to marriage. Particularly because there are almost always these kinds of "x thinks it's important/y doesn't" issues on both sides.
With the caveat I made above, I can confirm this is closer to the actual situation (worried for her, me and the relationship, and out of love).
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy: (in response to L'Organist)
My goodness, you really are attempting to give marriage preparation lessons via this limited information imparted on a bulletin board.
[Mad]
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy: (replying to opaWim, but apparently addressing DaleMaily)
Right, now you are arguing with yourself. If you respect your partner, respect her faulty understanding and don't put her in a position where she has an emotional response to breaking her own moral qualms.

 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
mr cheesy,

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:

But you seem to want us to cheer you on as you pile up the emotional blackmail on your partner, and I'm not doing that.

If you believe that God is calling you to this relationship, then you need to take up your cross and not get hung up about whether or not your partner should be ditching her sincere beliefs so that you can get your rocks off.

To state the obvious; what God is calling you to is between you and God, and equally what God is calling your partner to (who, I note, is not here to put her point of view) is between her and God.

If you have any future together, then you have to be able to negotiate the disagreements and the sacrifices and the choices you make when one or other of you disagree.

If you can't do that, don't come here expecting us all to fawn over you and tell you how terrible she is being.
Are these meant for me (serious question)? It's just I didn't make the posts you quoted in your response...

If they are, I never once suggested that my partner should be "ditching" any beliefs. On the contrary, I made it explicit that I'm conflicted on the issue generally, and furthermore I would be concerned if she were to change her views as it would almost certainly be for me and not because she's changed her mind, which I would never want her to do, regardless of whether I'm a Christian. I also never said she was being "terrible", and certainly have no need to be "fawned over". For the record, I don't think she's being anything but sincere and loving.

If they're not, then please unread the above.

[ 14. March 2017, 18:15: Message edited by: DaleMaily ]
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
All I was trying to say that having people your age (or younger) who were fortunate enough to meet and marry their spouse very early on lecture you on abstinence and self-control often comes off as insensitive, no matter how virtuous the intention.
The implication here is that in modern times one has to go through several lovers in order to find 'The One'. But this isn't carved in stone; it's merely a cultural assumption. Why is it now suddenly impossible for us to find a decent spouse in our early or mid-twenties, even though we're surrounded by vastly more companions than our ancestors had?

IMO the reason is that this vast increase in choice has made us pickier. There's always the sense that someone better could come along soon. Therefore the young person is wise not too choose too soon; take a temporary partner or three for sex and companionship, but keep looking.

It has a certain logic to it, but it doesn't seem quite Christian to me. It normalises disposability and undermines loyalty. It also seems to create a sort of grey zone, where individuals may not know what their status really is with the other person. Children are routinely conceived by parents under the assumption or mere hope that they have a solid relationship, whereas in reality one or the other partner is still on the lookout, or still in a scenario of probationary feelings. And these practised attitutes risk leaking into any marriage that does occur.

While there may be pressure for churches to become more tolerant of pre-marital serial monogamy my reading and inclination suggest that those groups that reject such a change will ultimately be stronger than those who succumb. People who make a sacrifice for their faith are usually more committed. In an age of declining religious commitment some groups may choose to make few demands; but others would be wise to emphasise what makes them distinctive.


quote:

At times [Paul] seems like he still desperately wants to be a Pharisee...


I think that's a bit unfair.

Paul had very high standards. But if the standards had been lower then the religion probably wouldn't have lasted; those were hard times for Christians. And he wasn't asking other people to do anything that he was unwilling to do himself (assuming, of course, that he wasn't secretly enjoying orgies while urging others to be celibate or to get married).
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
All I was trying to say that having people your age (or younger) who were fortunate enough to meet and marry their spouse very early on lecture you on abstinence and self-control often comes off as insensitive, no matter how virtuous the intention.
The implication here is that in modern times one has to go through several lovers in order to find 'The One'. But this isn't carved in stone; it's merely a cultural assumption. Why is it now suddenly impossible for us to find a decent spouse in our early or mid-twenties, even though we're surrounded by vastly more companions than our ancestors had?
I don't think this is what DaleMaily is trying to say at all. FWIW, I was one of those who was lucky (and yes, I do think it was luck), to meet the person who I eventually ended up marrying, at the age of eighteen. I was twenty-two when I married. I attended church regularly and socialised with church people until I was in my early thirties, and had the opportunity to interact with a variety of people who had still not found a 'decent spouse', as you so blithely put it, at thirty. My memory is that some of them, at least, were in agony about it, and the problem looked very much to be not that they were, or had been 'too picky'. Nor was their issue that they were missing out on all this great sex that everyone else was having. I think the distress often sprang from the fact that it looked like almost everyone around them was paired up, and that the church is very much focused toward this demographic.

It should also be noted that there is a gender imbalance in churches, which means that if you want to take the line that people should not be yoked to unbelievers, leads to a certain proportion of young women inevitably missing out. I don't think that being prepared to take the approach, in their early twenties, of saying 'well, this might be as good an offer as I'll get', would help very much with such a problem. Nor, in my view, is that the sort of attitude you should take into a marriage.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:

If they are, I never once suggested that my partner should be "ditching" any beliefs. On the contrary, I made it explicit that I'm conflicted on the issue generally, and furthermore I would be concerned if she were to change her views as it would almost certainly be for me and not because she's changed her mind, which I would never want her to do, regardless of whether I'm a Christian. I also never said she was being "terrible", and certainly have no need to be "fawned over". For the record, I don't think she's being anything but sincere and loving.

If they're not, then please unread the above.
I'm not sure what you want anyone else to say, then. You and your partner have different views which means one of you has to sacrifice. Yep. That's how relationship works.
 
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :
 
Ych, sorry I'm coming down with something and confusing things.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Stercus Tauri:
Browsing the 16th century records of the Presbytery of Stirling, as one does*, it was instructive to read that back then they didn't get particularly exercised over the issue of cohabitation before marriage. However, it was failure to follow through on a promise to marry that would incur their wrath, and it could be expensive, with public repentance and heavy fines involved.
In one of George MacDonald's novels he says that in nineteenth century Scotland a man's written proposal of marriage, followed by the birth of a child constituted a legal marriage. I don't know whether he was right.

Moo
 
Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :
 
Increasing the number of choices in anything (not only spouses) increases indecision and follow-on second thoughts and unhappiness. They've tested this with quite simple things like breakfast cereals. If there are four in the menu you can make a choice and be content. If there are 52 on the menu, you not only take much longer deciding (thus using more energy and causing you more stress) but you are more often plagued by second thoughts ("Shoulda gone with the granola, damn."). Apps like Match.com or Grindr are not actually helping people find mates. (If you do not know what these are, I urge you not to try and find out, it will depress you.)
 
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :
 
The problem in this is the refusal of conservative evangelicals and other anti-incarnational fanatics to accept the body and its pleasures as gifts of God in creation. These gifts terrify such people, and they want them regulated: preferably out of existence, but at very least under the control of both an authoritarian institution - their vision of the church - and of a highly authoritarian reading of scripture.


Until it is freed of these shackles, which have nothing to do with God and everything to do with the psychology of human power, the church and the Christian faith with it, will appeal increasingly powerfully to an ever-smaller number of people with a strong authoritarian bent and terror of their own bodies.
 
Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :
 
Someone asked about the Scriptural backing I found for avoiding premarital sex--

Given that the cultures are so vastly different, it's going to be more in the spirit of the law rather than a spelt-out "Thou shalt not." If you were married off by arrangement not too long after puberty (along with most other people), you'd face a very different set of sexual temptations than the ones we face today.

That said, I find that there is a constant viewpoint running through Scripture that treats sex as something more valuable, more important, than just bumping uglies and sparking nerve cells. The fun and pleasure is definitely there (see Song of Songs) but sex is treated as something--shall I say, not to be wasted? Maybe that's a horrible choice of words. But it's analogous to the kind of wine you'd want to serve at your wedding, not at some weekend booze-up, fun as those might be. Enjoy it, sure--but don't cheapen it. And yes, I know that most people here would consider a non-married but serious relationship good enough. I don't think the Bible does, though.

And that's largely because I think the Bible views sex as performative--it doesn't just belong in marriage, it creates marriage, creates a union we normally refer to as marriage. So the question of premarital sex from that viewpoint becomes "Now that you've done it (like gobbling your food instead of taking more time to enjoy it), why don't you at least fold your napkin neatly" and tie up the legal and social loose ends. And leaving such a sexual partner is akin to divorce, not to a simple breakup. Which raises the question of how many divorces is too many, and what it does to a person to be involved in multiple sexual breakups...

I've probably offended somebody. I'm sorry.
 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The implication here is that in modern times one has to go through several lovers in order to find 'The One'. But this isn't carved in stone; it's merely a cultural assumption. Why is it now suddenly impossible for us to find a decent spouse in our early or mid-twenties, even though we're surrounded by vastly more companions than our ancestors had?
That isn’t what I meant, if anything my lesson may well end up being that I went through a few lovers, and then discovered that it was possible find ‘The One’ without that person having to be a lover. It was simply a statement that it’s not easy to take (sincerely meant) advice or instruction from people who don’t seem to realise that they have had a lucky break (anoesis put it better than I did). But like I said in a previous post, that doesn’t make pre-marital sex right or wrong, so I should probably just let that point go.

quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure what you want anyone else to say, then. You and your partner have different views which means one of you has to sacrifice. Yep. That's how relationship works.
Well, yes, I do have a rough idea of how relationships work, but thanks anyway.
The point of whether we have sex or not is moot, as I said originally, and I wouldn’t even call it a compromise or a sacrifice, and I’m happy with it. The reason why I posted was because, having read the full 19 pages of the Oblivion thread, I was confused as to whether my motives should be based on more than just respect, i.e. if I’m supposed to try to live my life as a person who puts God first, am I putting God first.
 
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
I was confused as to whether my motives should be based on more than just respect, i.e. if I’m supposed to try to live my life as a person who puts God first, am I putting God first.
Yes, you should put God first - but you know that. The open question is what God asks of you. Your girlfriend thinks that it's no sex before marriage. You, it seems, aren't sure, and are a bit on the fence about whether premarital sex is OK.

The answer to the question won't affect what you do - you're not going to be having sex anyway - so does it matter?

Yes, I think so, but not because of the sex. The important thing is that, if we assume that your girlfriend will become your wife, there are going to be future subjects on which you have different ideas about what God's will is. We'll stipulate that you're both faithful Christians trying to do your best, but there are going to be things on which you disagree. How do you handle that?

So I think it doesn't matter so much about how you personally resolve the question of whether it would be wrong for you to have sex, but it matters that you and she talk about it.

From your description, you seem to have somewhat more liberal views than she does. So if she's the strict one, it's likely that there will be other things that you think would be OK, but you're going to avoid because she thinks they're not OK.

Can she be OK with that, or does she need you to think like her?

(For what little it's worth, I tend to side with the people who equate sex and marriage. I'm not concerned with whether you have sex before your formal wedding or not, but I find serial monogamy a bit troubling (and anything more casual is right out.) But this is more a consensus impression than a logically reasoned deduction, so it's a position that I don't hold terribly strongly.)

[ 14. March 2017, 21:51: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
 
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :
 
@Lamb Chopped. Fuck 'em.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:
quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
The implication here is that in modern times one has to go through several lovers in order to find 'The One'. But this isn't carved in stone; it's merely a cultural assumption. Why is it now suddenly impossible for us to find a decent spouse in our early or mid-twenties, even though we're surrounded by vastly more companions than our ancestors had?
That isn’t what I meant, if anything my lesson may well end up being that I went through a few lovers, and then discovered that it was possible find ‘The One’ without that person having to be a lover. It was simply a statement that it’s not easy to take (sincerely meant) advice or instruction from people who don’t seem to realise that they have had a lucky break
My point is that it only seems like a 'lucky break' from today's cultural point of view.

Most people in the 1930s, for example, didn't need 'lucky breaks' to find a suitable person to marry, because they didn't have the high expectations that we have today, and didn't live in a heterogeneous community that threw up a load of unsuitable candidates. Most people available in a small town or community would have been suitable, depending on class, denomination, and ideally the ability to hold down a steady job. A non-gambler and a non-alcoholic would be desirable, but some women didn't have much choice. And you didn't have a huge array of people with different lifestyles, hobbies and political opinions to confuse your choice.

Some commentators suggest that the very idea of 'the One' inevitably complicates marriage, because in reality there are probably 1000s of people out there who could make any of us a decent spouse. The concept of 'the One' therefore has a potential dark underbelly of uncertainty; how do you (I mean a general not a personal 'you') know you've really found 'the One'? And if you think you have now, what about after 5 or 25 years of marriage when you're bored and grumpy? Realising that the grass isn't greener elsewhere could be more important for marriages in the long run than the myth of 'the One'. Perhaps. (This isn't very romantic, is it? Sorry about that! I don't mean anything by it.)

I'm wondering what kind of CofE church you attend. If it's not an evangelical church I'm surprised that your fiancee is so concerned about these issues. There are certainly more liberal CofE congregations around. Anyway, it might be helpful for you to discuss this subject with your vicar.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:


It should also be noted that there is a gender imbalance in churches, which means that if you want to take the line that people should not be yoked to unbelievers, leads to a certain proportion of young women inevitably missing out. I don't think that being prepared to take the approach, in their early twenties, of saying 'well, this might be as good an offer as I'll get', would help very much with such a problem. Nor, in my view, is that the sort of attitude you should take into a marriage.
I missed this response earlier.

Your last few lines make me smile. There are always better offers out there - or so it seems! So one could be waiting for ever! Some women do. But I take your point.

As for women marrying out, that's true. I'm a child of one such. It frequently leads to non-believing children, which may be a good thing from your perspective, but not for the future of the church itself, of course. The real problem is how to address the shortage of men, which is a whole different thread.

Otherwise, there are many MOTR or liberal congregations which make no demands on who should marry whom, and which don't try to dominate (lay) members' sex lives, on the whole. So there should be a church for everyone, whether they want a church that keeps well out of the bedroom, or whether they want the guidance of clear cut teachings on sexual morality.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The problem in this is the refusal of conservative evangelicals and other anti-incarnational fanatics to accept the body and its pleasures as gifts of God in creation. These gifts terrify such people, and they want them regulated: preferably out of existence, but at very least under the control of both an authoritarian institution - their vision of the church - and of a highly authoritarian reading of scripture.


Until it is freed of these shackles, which have nothing to do with God and everything to do with the psychology of human power, the church and the Christian faith with it, will appeal increasingly powerfully to an ever-smaller number of people with a strong authoritarian bent and terror of their own bodies.
The weird thing is that conservative evangelicals does not seem all that concerned about regulating other forms of bodily pleasures such as eating burgers at the local McD's or listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

Amy Frykholm makes this point in her book about Christians and sexuality "See Me Naked". There are many, many things we do as human beings that give us pleasure and delight, but for some reason it is only sexual pleasure that is seen as the big sin against God.

[ 15. March 2017, 00:12: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
The problem in this is the refusal of conservative evangelicals and other anti-incarnational fanatics to accept the body and its pleasures as gifts of God in creation. These gifts terrify such people, and they want them regulated: preferably out of existence, but at very least under the control of both an authoritarian institution - their vision of the church - and of a highly authoritarian reading of scripture.


Until it is freed of these shackles, which have nothing to do with God and everything to do with the psychology of human power, the church and the Christian faith with it, will appeal increasingly powerfully to an ever-smaller number of people with a strong authoritarian bent and terror of their own bodies.
The weird thing is that conservative evangelicals does not seem all that concerned about regulating other forms of bodily pleasures such as eating burgers at the local McD's or listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.
Drinking. You forgot drinking.

And then, they don't like you listening to AC/DC so much, far as I recall. Which is one of life's little guilty pleasures. There's a bit less crotch-grabbing in classical music, for sure, but the eroticism is still there, if you ask me.

Also (I am not an historian), but I seem to remember that the original Puritans had a bit of a thing about gluttony.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
They don’t smoke, but neither do they breathe fresh air really deeply.

They don’t drink wine, but neither do they enjoy lemonade; they don’t swear, but neither do they glory in any magnificent words, neither poetry nor prayer.

They don’t gamble, but neither do they take much chance with God;

They don’t look at women and girls with lust in their hearts, but neither do they roll breathless with love and laughter, naked under the sun of high summer.

It’s all rather pale and round-shouldered, the great Prince lying in prison.
George Target, quoted in “View from a Bouncy Castle”, by Adrian Plass.

Although I must confess to warming up on Sunday mornings with the opening riff of Highway to Hell [Hot and Hormonal]

Why should the devil have all the good music?

[ 15. March 2017, 06:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Highway to Hell is good music ...?!!!?
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
Coming back to the OP. If you are doing the right thing by your girlfriend by abstaining then that's justification enough.

Why over-think it?

I rather dramatically accosted (not physically) a particular individual after a council planning meeting recently and waved a copy of a document he'd denied existed under his nose.

Afterwards, I worried whether this was a somewhat vainglorious act on my part, an act of vanity or virtue-signalling. Who knows? Whether I was right or wrong he still deserved to have it waved under his nose if only to show him that local residents shouldn't be taken for mugs.

If we're doing the right thing, we're doing the right thing.

Sure, the scribes and the Pharisees practiced their acts of piety in public 'to be seen by men'.

We need to avoid that.

God can discern the thoughts and intentions of the heart. If we bob a few quid into a charity box to salve our conscience, look good or to feel better about ourselves, then the motive is wrong but at least the charity benefits.

I wouldn't worry whether your response is 'sufficient' from any theological point of view, MaleDaily, but whether you are doing the right thing by your girlfriend / potential spouse.

That's the issue, not a set of tick boxes or a score-card that measures how 'sound' or spiritual we are supposed to be ...
 
Posted by opaWim (# 11137) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't worry whether your response is 'sufficient' from any theological point of view, MaleDaily, but whether you are doing the right thing by your girlfriend / potential spouse.

That's the issue, not a set of tick boxes or a score-card that measures how 'sound' or spiritual we are supposed to be ...
Amen!
 
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Highway to Hell is good music ...?!!!?
Better than 90% of the bleepy shite that doninates the airwaves, yes. You got a problem with that?
 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Yes, you should put God first - but you know that. The open question is what God asks of you. Your girlfriend thinks that it's no sex before marriage. You, it seems, aren't sure, and are a bit on the fence about whether premarital sex is OK.
The answer to the question won't affect what you do - you're not going to be having sex anyway - so does it matter?
That is essentially the question I’ve been asking myself; thank you for putting it better and more succinctly than I did in my muddled way earlier.
quote:
From your description, you seem to have somewhat more liberal views than she does. So if she's the strict one, it's likely that there will be other things that you think would be OK, but you're going to avoid because she thinks they're not OK.
That might be the case, but on many subjects we are either in agreement (my tendency towards a more conservative position on marriage, which I held before becoming a Christian, being one such example) or neither one of us holds “absolute” positions, but this is the first and only one (so far) that has had any tangible effect on our actual relationship in the here and now.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The weird thing is that conservative evangelicals does not seem all that concerned about regulating other forms of bodily pleasures such as eating burgers at the local McD's or listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.
That last bit made me think of Mme Verdurin in In Search of Lost Time, who when she hears a particular piece of music (I forget which one but I recall it was in F#) had to go lie down for hours at it put her in such a state (not sure if this Marcel meant this to be an erotic state, but I chuckled none the less).
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I wouldn't worry whether your response is 'sufficient' from any theological point of view, MaleDaily, but whether you are doing the right thing by your girlfriend / potential spouse.
That's the issue, not a set of tick boxes or a score-card that measures how 'sound' or spiritual we are supposed to be ...
Thank you. I appreciate that, along with all the other contributions, especially Lamb Chopped re. the "spirit" [pun intended?] of the law. It's going to take a lot of catch-up reading for me to discern what I think it is, but it's helpful to discover that the issue is more nuanced - nuance is staple for us fence sitters.
 
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
That said, I find that there is a constant viewpoint running through Scripture that treats sex as something more valuable, more important, than just bumping uglies and sparking nerve cells.
That's what I would instinctively think, too, but in actual fact I wonder whether you're not channelling CS Lewis, not the Bible:
quote:
wherever a man lies with a woman, there, whether they like it or not, a transcendental relation is set up between them which must be eternally enjoyed or eternally endured
I don't think that can be as absolutely true as we might imagine it to be. The nearest chapter and verse I can find is Paul's comments in 1 Cor 6:16
quote:
Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
but over and against that you have stories like Esther in which, bluntly put, Mordecai is pimping her for the greater good and honoured for his pains. Not that I recommend this.

[ 15. March 2017, 08:35: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:


Why over-think it?

<snip>

I wouldn't worry whether your response is 'sufficient' from any theological point of view, MaleDaily, but whether you are doing the right thing by your girlfriend / potential spouse.

That's the issue, not a set of tick boxes or a score-card that measures how 'sound' or spiritual we are supposed to be ...
Amen! [Overused]

This is worth putting on a large poster and pinning up at Church! (supplementing 'girlfriend' with whatever the latest issue is.
 
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Conservative evangelicals do not seem all that concerned about regulating other forms of bodily pleasures such as eating burgers at the local McD's or listening to Beethoven's Fifth Symphony.

[..]For some reason it is only sexual pleasure that is seen as the big sin against God.
You'd have to blame the Bible for that. How often does any biblical character get into trouble for listening to too much harp music? How many of Paul's churches are attended by gluttons?

The basic problem with sex is that it risks creating children, and it's in the interests of monotheistic religions for children to be raised in a stable environment, without sexual jealousy, or questions about paternity.

In the brave new world of the future maybe our scientists will find a way to completely separate the sex act from conception, without the need for individuals to be responsible about contraception. And our religions will gradually divorce themselves from ancient religious texts whose example is deemed to be inapplicable, or irrelevant.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Highway to Hell is good music ...?!!!?
Better than 90% of the bleepy shite that doninates the airwaves, yes. You got a problem with that?
If a turd is better formed than 90% of the others that pass through the U-bend, it doesn't stop it being a turd.
 
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :
 
That said, as much as I abhor 'metal' - me-DULL more like ... 'The Ace of Spades' wouldn't be a bad way of kicking things off if one feels the need, as Eutychus evidently does, of riffing oneself into action on a Sunday morning.

Perhaps Black Sabbath's 'Paranoid' might also be a suitable alternative to the bollock-numbingly turgid Highway to Hell.

Highway up their own arses more like ...
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by DaleMaily:


quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
She may just as easily be young and worried--it took me years to get past what I now realize were minor issues.* And differences of faith (which is what she worries might be going on here) are often not minor issues.

If DaleMaily can continue to be kind and forebearing when she worries, I'd say that's an excellent start to marriage. Particularly because there are almost always these kinds of "x thinks it's important/y doesn't" issues on both sides.
With the caveat I made above, I can confirm this is closer to the actual situation (worried for her, me and the relationship, and out of love).
Not knowing you of course, this also struck me as the most likely scenario and sound and compassionate reasoning, as we've come to expect from Lamb.

As someone, again, closer to your partner's position but old enough and married long enough to be past this angst-ridden stage, I can remember feeling very much like this. If you have a more conservative view toward marriage/divorce, it really ramps up the anxiety about "choosing rightly" and, at least for some of us, that leads to lots of 2nd guessing. As Lamb suggests, with time what seemed so vital and potentially deal-breaking in the courting phase turns out to be small potatoes, but at the time the internal pressure can be intense. So your tender and respectful compassion for your partner is well-placed and bodes well.

And, to hopefully encourage you further: to the point made above that "experimentation" may be essential to sexual maturity-- that was, um, very much not my experience. IMHO the reason (some) young couples in the purity culture experienced sexual dysfunction was not lack of experimentation but rather the implicit poor education they rec'd as part of that culture (sex is dirty-- a "deflowered" girl is like a used kleenex), the inherent sexism/patriarchy involved (the daddy issues will make you shudder) and the unrealistic wedding night expectations as a "reward" for your righteousness. It doesn't sound like any of that is a factor here.

In my limited experience (2 marriages/2 partners) "experimentation" had really nothing to do with sexual satisfaction one way or the other. What mattered, rather, was the sort of character that lies behind your sexual relationship and really every aspect of your relationship: good sexual partners are those who are caring, giving and respectful. All sorts of life events from pregnancy to work stress to menopause and prostate cancer are going to effect your sexual relationship, things that no amount of prior "experimentation" will provide any wisdom. What will serve you well in those lifelong ups & downs (tee hee) are the qualities you've already demonstrated-- the ability to have frank, honest conversations about sex with grace and compassion, and the willingness to make sacrifices to serve the other-- things you are, in fact, demonstrating. In my experience, those qualities are the things that will make for a... um.. pleasurable partnership. [Biased] [Axe murder]
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Someone asked about the Scriptural backing I found for avoiding premarital sex--

Given that the cultures are so vastly different, it's going to be more in the spirit of the law rather than a spelt-out "Thou shalt not." If you were married off by arrangement not too long after puberty (along with most other people), you'd face a very different set of sexual temptations than the ones we face today.

That said, I find that there is a constant viewpoint running through Scripture that treats sex as something more valuable, more important, than just bumping uglies and sparking nerve cells. The fun and pleasure is definitely there (see Song of Songs) but sex is treated as something--shall I say, not to be wasted? Maybe that's a horrible choice of words. But it's analogous to the kind of wine you'd want to serve at your wedding, not at some weekend booze-up, fun as those might be. Enjoy it, sure--but don't cheapen it. And yes, I know that most people here would consider a non-married but serious relationship good enough. I don't think the Bible does, though.

And that's largely because I think the Bible views sex as performative--it doesn't just belong in marriage, it creates marriage, creates a union we normally refer to as marriage. So the question of premarital sex from that viewpoint becomes "Now that you've done it (like gobbling your food instead of taking more time to enjoy it), why don't you at least fold your napkin neatly" and tie up the legal and social loose ends. And leaving such a sexual partner is akin to divorce, not to a simple breakup. Which raises the question of how many divorces is too many, and what it does to a person to be involved in multiple sexual breakups...

I've probably offended somebody. I'm sorry.
fwiw, I found it quite lovely-- and true.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Apologies, but I disagree. Yes, a shocker, I'm sure. [Biased]
Culture cannot be separated from writings, and this includes works of religion. Intertwined within the bible is the culture of those who wrote it and their attitudes towards sex and marriage. Of which much is decidedly opposed to contemporary Christian teaching.
Culture and its temporal nature is also a factor in this discussion, IMO.
 
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 
You have a little too much to drink, sleep with someone who - in the cold light of day - you don't feel is even interesting, never mind partner material. And leaving them is akin to divorce??

I think not!

The sex may have been unwise. It may, or may not be regretted. But there is no bond or tie there besides a bit of fun at the time imo.

Yes, this is personal experience a million moons ago at university - I couldn't even name the bloke(s)!
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Reread your post.

quote:
I'm still not convinced that what I did was sinful. Or is my pride getting in the way?
Frankly, what is did is done. "Sinful" is really hard to quantify. As I said, above some sexual experimentation is healthy, normal. We know that David of OT times experimented. I can also think of other examples in the OT in particular that also suggest there was experimentation outside what would be considered marriage.

To me, when the 10 commandments say: "Do not commit adultery," it simply means, "Once you are hitched (as in married), stay true to your spouse."

Of course, when Jesus says "You have learned, do not commit adultery, but I say to you if you so much as look on another with lust, you have committed adultery," the rule is greatly expanded. We all look, and we all are attracted to other people.

Then there is Paul--he would have wanted everyone to stay chaste, but if the church had it would have died out within 20 years after Paul had written those words.

The question is, where do you go from here? Is your current partner able to forgive you of your past? You have to remember that when she does eventually have sex with you (assuming she will marry you) she is in effect having sex with all your previous partners--which is all the more reason to get tested to make sure you have a clean bill of health. Which goes to my original question: where do you see this relationship going? If she is struggling with your past, I really wonder if it is going to go beyond a platonic relationship. Your past is quite a barrier for her, I take it.

I would hope she can get beyond it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:

Of course, when Jesus says "You have learned, do not commit adultery, but I say to you if you so much as look on another with lust, you have committed adultery," the rule is greatly expanded.
I think this one needs unpacking. ISTM, it isn't about stray thoughts, but a more persistent behaviour.
quote:

Then there is Paul--he would have wanted everyone to stay chaste, but if the church had it would have died out within 20 years after Paul had written those words.
To be fair to Paul, IIRC, he kinda thought the second coming was much sooner than it has turned out to be.
Though, it seems to be a source of the "no fun until after you're dead" Christian variants.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Apologies, but I disagree. Yes, a shocker, I'm sure. [Biased]
Culture cannot be separated from writings, and this includes works of religion. Intertwined within the bible is the culture of those who wrote it and their attitudes towards sex and marriage. Of which much is decidedly opposed to contemporary Christian teaching.
Culture and its temporal nature is also a factor in this discussion, IMO.
Who exactly are you disagreeing with???
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Apologies, but I disagree. Yes, a shocker, I'm sure. [Biased]
Culture cannot be separated from writings, and this includes works of religion. Intertwined within the bible is the culture of those who wrote it and their attitudes towards sex and marriage. Of which much is decidedly opposed to contemporary Christian teaching.
Culture and its temporal nature is also a factor in this discussion, IMO.
Who exactly are you disagreeing with???
Sex creates marriage and that the bible's writers' view of marriage and sex are necessarily what God wants. Accepting the whole concept for the sake of argument, of course.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Reread your post.

quote:
I'm still not convinced that what I did was sinful. Or is my pride getting in the way?
Frankly, what is did is done. "Sinful" is really hard to quantify.
I would go further than this, and say that things you may or may not have done, in a past life, when you were not living your life according to the, broad, general, set of beliefs we might all agree to call Christian, are just completely beside the point. They do. not. matter. any. more. And, (this is just my opinion, of course), if they don't matter, then it's wasted effort either wondering how you should feel about them, or trying to feel differently about them.

This is how I interpret Romans 6:1-14. Verse 4 in particular. It is the new life that matters, not the old.
 
Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :
 
Boy, I need to learn to proofread my texts before I post them.

I have been thinking more about this all day.

Your partner has a lot to unpack. As I said, the only forgiveness you need is from your partner. I am also thinking that your partner may also have two other concerns. One is that she may be concerned that she can perform as well as your previous partners, but you know no one person can match any other person's performance. You have much more experience than she apparently has, and that can be threatening to her. Two, given your experience, can she be assured you will stay committed to her should you do marry?

Like I said, you have presented several obstacles for her. Are you willing to give her the time to work through them?
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
Yeah, but.

When you love someone, you love them for who they are. And their past is part of who they are. That's just how it is. I don't think any special pleading is needed here.
 
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :
 
Virginity is something to unpack from this. Your daddy doesn't marry off daughters as owner of their virginity any more as in bible times.

I'd like to unload the eternal virginity of Mary as well. An anachronism.
 
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Virginity is something to unpack from this.
Agh. Let's not. Especially if we're only going to focus on the female sort.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by anoesis:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Virginity is something to unpack from this.
Agh. Let's not. Especially if we're only going to focus on the female sort.
Penises are magic. They remove all such notions as virginity and accountability from their owners.
 
Posted by DaleMaily (# 18725) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
Your past is quite a barrier for her, I take it.

I would hope she can get beyond it.
I don't actually think it is. Perhaps it would be if I had more of an "illustrious" past, but in truth it's rather banal.

quote:

I am also thinking that your partner may also have two other concerns. One is that she may be concerned that she can perform as well as your previous partners, but you know no one person can match any other person's performance. You have much more experience than she apparently has, and that can be threatening to her. Two, given your experience, can she be assured you will stay committed to her should you do marry?

Like I said, you have presented several obstacles for her. Are you willing to give her the time to work through them?
This is actually the part of the whole topic we've found (at least from what I can tell) to be the easiest to discuss, and whilst she (understandably) has her hang ups about experience or lack thereof, one positive that I've been able to impart from my experience is that it takes practice and even if you've been with someone else before you're still both starting from zero and the first time with anyone new is unlikely to be any good; more likely it's going to be more than a bit awkward. If we were to marry (long, long way off) I think I'd personally much rather rule out sex on the wedding night and enjoy the wedding and get suitably merry without worrying about what may happen later.

As for commitment, obviously I'm wary of hubris, but I wasn't unfaithful in previous relationships so there's nothing to suggest that I will be in the future; it's a "conservative" (in quotes because I'd prefer to think of it as universal) moral of relationships that I probably hold above anything else.
 
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
......I find that there is a constant viewpoint running through Scripture that treats sex as something more valuable, more important, than just bumping uglies and sparking nerve cells. The fun and pleasure is definitely there (see Song of Songs) but sex is treated as something--shall I say, not to be wasted? Maybe that's a horrible choice of words. But it's analogous to the kind of wine you'd want to serve at your wedding, not at some weekend booze-up, fun as those might be. Enjoy it, sure--but don't cheapen it. And yes, I know that most people here would consider a non-married but serious relationship good enough. I don't think the Bible does, though.

And that's largely because I think the Bible views sex as performative--it doesn't just belong in marriage, it creates marriage, creates a union we normally refer to as marriage. So the question of premarital sex from that viewpoint becomes "Now that you've done it (like gobbling your food instead of taking more time to enjoy it), why don't you at least fold your napkin neatly" and tie up the legal and social loose ends. And leaving such a sexual partner is akin to divorce, not to a simple breakup. Which raises the question of how many divorces is too many, and what it does to a person to be involved in multiple sexual breakups...

I've probably offended somebody. I'm sorry.
You haven't offended me, on the contrary, those are inspired paragraphs IMO

If a person passionately believes they must wait until Christmas Day to open their presents then that belief is to be respected. If someone doesn't want to go along with that then maybe it's better to party at a different house with different rules.

Most humans have an underlying bohemian tendency in them which is at war with the *other*. The old 'order/chaos' thing, a place where religion gains much of it's traction.
St Paul alludes to that somewhere in his Letters.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0