Abstinence iin relationships between 30-40+ year old adults

[yosemite]

@archmichael

If you want to continue the DtC debate, please answer his question:

When did it become the Straight Dope rule that you can’t say someone is wrong for their opinion?

YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION. Sorry for the all caps, but this will be the third time I’m having to repeat this.

The hostility is what’s puzzling. Not the disagreeing, not the “that’s weird,” not the “I could never do that!” It’s the hostility. Acting kind of pissed because of what other people are doing (or not doing).

I don’t see the hostility that you’re talking about.

As I said before, I don’t know if some of you realize that it’s coming off as hostile. But since I’m not the first person to bring it up, I think that it’s safe to say that some of us detect hostility here.

I see people reacting to the judgemental attitude. This is the problem with any religious related debate.

I can’t remember any “judgmental attitude,” but I very possibly missed something. Could you copy and paste the “judgmental attitudes” expressed here on this board? We can match them with some of the “THEY’RE FREAKS!” comments and see who comes out ahead.

I go back to my old friend, the one who was so bothered by this other woman waiting until she was married to have sex. This other woman was by no means judgmental. Was very laid-back, matter-of-fact, and only mentioned her abstinence because my friend brought it up. And yet my friend was wigged out by it. The only “judgmental attitude” was coming from my friend, and I think I’m seeing some of the same attitude here.

THAT’S ALL I’M SAYING. I’m not saying that the discussion can’t be had, I’m just saying that getting so pissed off and worked up about someone else’s private business is weird.

In preview I see this:

@pokey

It came across as strange to me that anyone would accuse people who don't have sex outside marriage as either mentally ill or on a certain path towards mental illness. 

…

It’s not weird to think people who abstain are crazy but it’s weird to be so serious about it.
…

It seems like maybe people have a bitterness towards the idea because they think it’s impossible for someone to abstain without looking down on people who don’t.

Excellent points, all. Especially the “it’s weird to be so serious about it” bit.

The thing I’m seeing here is that the abstaining folks are not really “looking down” on anyone else, at least not to the severity that is (possibly) imagined. I daresay many of them just want to keep a low profile about it and avoid the scorn and derision and the “You’re a FREAK!” comments. While some “judgmental” behavior certainly goes on in some circles of abstaining folks, I’m certainly not seeing any wanton examples of it here. (I think most of the comments here are more along the lines of “I’m not a freak, I have my own reasons, why is that so difficult to understand?”)

But I have seen a few “They’re FREAKS” comments. YMMV in interpreting what that all means.

[JThunder]

@Evil Captor

C’mon, stop sidestepping the issue, JThunder. If you’ve studied biology of indeed watched nature programming much, you’d know that the two major activities are

1. Eating
   and
2. Mating

Didja here that? Mating. Mating! MA-TING!

Congratulations. You have successfully pointed out that these are indeed two major activities. What you have not done, however, is supported your thesis.

Yes, these activities are biologically significant, but they also have dramatic differences between them. Abstinence from eating will lead to death. Abstinence from sex does not. This alone shows that their similarities are quite limited.

Now you insist, quite vehemently, that sexual abstinence will cause lasting mental and emotional damage. I am asking you to provide scientific evidence for that claim. None of this “Of course it does!” claptrap. If you can’t cite scientific evidence to support this specific point, then that clearly speaks volumes about the strength of your claim.

[archmichael]

@yosemite

The hostility is what’s puzzling. Not the disagreeing, not the “that’s weird,” not the “I could never do that!” It’s the hostility. Acting kind of pissed because of what other people are doing (or not doing).

If what you’re saying NOW is that you don’t have a problem with WHAT he said but HOW he said it, I guess we agree more than disagree. However getting offended at the tone of someone’s post must make hanging around forums very frustrating.

DtC is a very frustrating poster. The last post I remember him from is where he claimed that people who have guns are cowards. I really disagree with that statement. I don’t remember the outcome of that thread or really care, but that is his style. I stuck up for him for two reasons.

One- I think his shoot from the hip style is crucial to keeping the Boards balanced. I believe he feels these issues on a gut level, and I don’t want a Board filled with intellectuals trading ephemeral theories. I think that more people who believe in sex before marriage feel the way he does, than the polite “I couldn’t do it but whatever works for you” people who have posted.

Two- I think it’s dirty pool to attack the tone of posts, just because you don’t want attack him on his points. We are all adults, why get offended because some anonymous posts harshly.

As far as the issue of hostility, I really don’t see it. DtC is harsh, but I don’t picture him fuming at the keyboard. I don’t agee with Evil Captor, but I don’t think he’s sitting there with a vein throbbing on his forehead. The only hostility I see is from you, yosemite, about the tone, and from Guinistasia with the “Who cares?” comment.

But to get back on topic, the OP asked

@astro

Is a policy of sexual abstinence until marriage a workable real world posture for 30 to 40 something single women if they wish to form attachments with reasonably high quality male suitors in today’s dating and relationship environment?

I think the problem came up with the term “high quality”. Someone claimed they questioned the quality of a suitor who wouldn’t be able to deal with this policy. People claimed that the resulting relationship was better. A value judgement was made. That’s what got the ball rolling.

I think that finding a good match is very hard, and to arbitrarily say that you wouldn’t date this group or that group because of reason X will make a difficult search even harder.

Someone could start a thread stating they they will only date blonde women with a height between 5’11" and 6’2". Can they find a mate? Probably. But if it takes five years for the guy to find the right fit, for me there will always be a question of, “Did the guy unknowingly settle or did he find his match?”

I, along with Voyager, have asked, “If your way is better, please supply a rational reason why it is”. No one has, so I ask again. Is it just a matter of faith? If yes, then the debate comes to a screeching halt.

[yosemite]

@archmichael

If what you’re saying NOW is that you don’t have a problem with WHAT he said but HOW he said it,

ONE MORE TIME: I said it was “puzzling” and “weird.” I was not the only one that noted the “hostility” and I wasn’t the only one that couldn’t figure it out. I don’t believe I ever said I was “offended,” but I do believe that some of the responses here are probably over the top. I would expect people to care more and get more wound up if some actual harm could be proven (to other people), but since that’s not the case, I am puzzled as to why people are getting so serious about this.

DtC is a very frustrating poster. The last post I remember him from is where he claimed that people who have guns are cowards.

As a general rule, I think DtC is a pretty cool guy. I just see something in him (and others here) that I saw in that friend I’ve mentioned. Getting all worked up about something that, as far as I can see, isn’t really hurting anyone and isn’t anybody else’s business. Having an opinion (even a negative one) is one thing—taking it all so seriously—as if these other people have done something bad to you—is another.

Two- I think it’s dirty pool to attack the tone of posts, just because you don’t want attack him on his points.

I have been consistent in expressing what exactly my point here is: that some here (most noticeably DtC) are taking it waaaaay too seriously, and getting far more worked up than is necessary. And I’m curious as to why. That’s been my point.

As far as the issue of hostility, I really don’t see it.

Yeah, well, as I said before, I’m not the only one who is seeing it and I wasn’t the first to bring it up, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

The only hostility I see is from you, yosemite, about the tone, and from Guinistasia with the “Who cares?” comment.

You can call it hostility if you like, but at this point, it’s frustration at constantly being misunderstood and having my comments misinterpreted.

Look—this could be just about any subject. A good comparison might be vegetarianism (though I’m sure people will point out the differences). Some people are vegetarian and just mind their own business. They aren’t hurting anybody, they aren’t preaching to anybody, but there are many meat-eaters who just get so bugged by the concept that these people refuse to eat meat. The meat-eaters often claim that vegetarians “judge” them, but when pressed, it is often revealed that they’ve only encountered one or two vegetarians who actually gave them a hard time. But yet many of us vegetarians (yes, I’m one) will notice how bugged people get over the fact that someone else isn’t eating meat. They are bugged to the point of preaching sermons, starting conversations about it, just focusing on it far more than is really necessary (in many vegetarians’ minds).

When someone carries on like this about vegetarianism, I am apt to wonder the same thing—why do they care so much? Why are they getting so worked up about it? The issue isn’t really about whether or not vegetarianism (or abstinence) is wrong or right, it’s about why some people get so bent out of shape over somebody else’s business.

[Voyager]

@pokey

Just like some people believe we are wired to need sex, some people believe human beings are wired to be monogamous and that any other arrangement is going to cause emotional problems in the long run. My mother is not religious, but she always told me that you should wait for marriage because she thinks it’s emotionally safer than having many affairs. I think she was wrong, but I see her thinking.

You are accurately describing the false dichotomy. The opposite of abstinence is not “having many affairs,” it is perhaps having sex with your fiance, even, before marriage. It might be having sex with a very limited number of people you care about. We can debate about promiscuity here, but that is not the issue at hand.

[archmichael]

@yosemite

I have been consistent in expressing what exactly my point here is: that some here (most noticeably DtC) are taking it waaaaay too seriously, and getting far more worked up than is necessary. And I’m curious as to why. That’s been my point.

Actually you have not been consistent, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s get the chronology straight. I posted the following, in a response to JThunder:

@archmichael

I think it’s unfair to call foul on DtC for giving his (not so humble) opinion. Last time I checked most of the discussion on this board boil down to people being called ‘wrong for believing as they do’. There are dozens of threads where Kerry/Bush supporters are basically called stupid for supporting their guy. How is this particular instance different? Why single out this particular instance to get offended over?

Until that point, you and I hadn’t really interacted. If your whole point was that some times people get overly worked up, then why did you post the following

@yosemite

I think what makes this a little different is, unlike the Kerry/Bush thing, each side feels the need to persuade the other side, because we’re all affected by who is elected. But this—this is a very personal thing, and it’s something that doesn’t affect anyone else, really. It’s obviously not affecting anyone else. It’s not hurting anyone else. It basically has zero impact on anyone else, because it’s primarily a personal, private issue.

This paragragh does nothing to further your point. I wasn’t arguing the point that some people get worked up. It attacks my point that people tell people other people that they’re wrong all the time, so naturally I assumed the attack on my analogy meant that you agreed with JThunder.

To reiterate. I take JThunder to task. You jump in the middle to attack my point. I assume that you agree with JThunder, that saying people are wrong is wrong. I take you to task. You say, “THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M SAYING”. I reply, “Then what the hell are we arguing about?”

I understand that you are frustrated, but at least admit that you muddied your own water.

[Dog80]

@JThunder

I’ve met several couples who wished they had remained celibate before marriage.

This is very intresting. Why do these couples feel that it would be better had they remained celibate? :dubious: What difference would it make?

[Dog80]

yosemite, first the hotlinkers, now this

[Evil_Captor]

@Bricker

I’ve heard a close cousin of this argument used to suggest homosexuality is unnatural.

Right. Homosexuality as unnatural in terms of evolutionary success. It’s been pretty well countered by genetic altruism – the idea that even individuals who don’t mate can contribute to the success of those who do in other ways. If this is all ya got, ya ain’t got much.

[pokey]

@Dog80

This is very intresting. Why do these couples feel that it would be better had they remained celibate? :dubious: What difference would it make?

They used up all their vouchers.

After I replied to this thread I went back and re-read the question and realized it’s a question for men about female abstainers and not just about abstainers in general.

[yosemite]

@archmichael

Actually you have not been consistent, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let’s get the chronology straight.

Let’s. Here’s quotes from my first post on this thread:

@yosemite

She went on and on and on about this other young woman, and her “bizarre” choice. Frankly, I think my friend was revealing a lot more about her own “issues” than exposing the “issues” of the other woman, who, as far as I could see, was minding her own business.

I think this starts my commentary about “why do some people get so worked up” rant.

And there’s also this:

For someone else, who knows basically nothing about these folks to just assume that they very likely must be ugly (and therefore not gettin’ any anyway), or wallflowers, or have serious hang-ups, or on a power trip, or whatever, is really overreaching.

Like I’ve said again, it’s overreaching. It’s over the top. I mentioned that a few times, but the main point that I’ve repeatedly been trying to make is that I don’t know why some people get so worked up about it. Having an opinion? Fine. Taking it so personally? No. That’s peculiar.

You want to make it into something else. But I’m sorry, I’m sticking with what I’ve been saying from the beginning.

Until that point, you and I hadn’t really interacted. If your whole point was that some times people get overly worked up, then why did you post the following

Funny, you quote something that precisely clarifies the point I’ve been making all along.

But let me explain it again: I can understand people getting all worked up and acting as if someone else is doing something to them when it’s an issue like Presidential elections, because the case can be made that these other peoples’ choices are affecting them. (i.e. choosing a crappy President hurts us all.) But stuff like abstinence? Not so much. Well, it doesn’t affect anyone else at all. So why get so worked up about what other people are doing in that case? It’s weird.

This paragragh does nothing to further your point.

I’ve just explained why it does, thanks. I know what I meant when I wrote that paragraph, and I still mean it now.

To reiterate. I take JThunder to task. You jump in the middle to attack my point. I assume that you agree with JThunder,

You assume a lot. That’s part of the problem. What I’m saying has nothing to do with JThunder (hi JThunder! :)). I’ve had a few points from my first post: Mainly, why do people get so worked up about other people’s private business to this level, and also I’ve made a few comments about how some of the opinions here are kinda over the top in their severity. (Mentally ill? Man-hating freaks? Well, you might consider that reasonable, but I’m not the only one who looks upon it with a suspicious eye. And just for the record, I’d be arching my eyebrows just as much if a hardcore abstinent type was claiming that the non-abstient couldn’t have meaningful relationships, or were all immoral, evil sluts, or whatever. Some stuff is just over the top, you know?)

It hasn’t been that one side is right and the other is wrong (because frankly, I can see both sides and I’d be taking the same tone if abstinent folk were getting all worked up about what the non-abstinent were doing). It’s about taking it all so seriously, even though it’s nothing to you, really. This isn’t the presidential election. What these other people aren’t doing shouldn’t really be that big of a deal to anyone else.

Having an opinion is fine however (I know if I don’t repeat that again you’ll accuse me of trying to squelch the expression of opinions). But as others have mentioned before me, it’s the hostility and the being so serious about it all that’s … weird.

You say, “THAT’S NOT WHAT I’M SAYING”. I reply, “Then what the hell are we arguing about?”

I keep on explaining, you keep on missing it. There’s only so much I can do.

I understand that you are frustrated, but at least admit that you muddied your own water.

No. You just aren’t paying attention. Don’t lay this on me.

[Thinks2Much]

As far as why people get so mad about other people abstaining even when it isn’t their business: I had a thread a while back wondering why people got as angry about my parenting style when it really doesn’t matter to anyone except him and me here.

I am not going to take credit for this wisdom, but as **DSeid ** pointed out in my thread, some people seem to think that there is only one way to do something. The fact that someone else does something differently than themselves makes them feel threatened that THEY are the ones who are wrong. They have to prove that the other person’s choice is the one that is wrong, because they can’t both be right! Too many people insist that world must be black and white and can’t seem to deal with shades of gray.

I think it is as close to an answer of “why all the fuss” as we are going to get.

[archmichael]

Good Lord, I give up! So then we agree that we are not really arguing anything. In fact you weren’t arguing with anyone. If fact you are just ranting about how or why people get worked up. So why hijack the thread? Is it because no one was responding to what you were saying? Why insert yourself into a volley I was having SPECIFICALLY ABOUT DtC’S RIGHT TO SAY OTHER PEOPLE ARE WRONG?

No one really disputed or disputes the fact that people can get worked up over something so trivial. Obviously to you, it is this great, paradigm-shifting epiphany. I would say that for most people it is not. For someone with such a high post count, I don’t know why this such a surprise. Have you never been a witness to a Mac vs PC flamewar, or a Star Wars vs Star Trek flamewar? Seen the anger and temper that flares up?

PEOPLE DEBATE STUPID THINGS ONLINE, THAT THEY WOULD NEVER DO IN PERSON

Also since I’m addressing your “why”, did it ever occur to you that your co-worker wasn’t hostile but dealing with a brand new idea she had never been exposed to? I thought people were yanking my chain when I was told about the Amish. I wasn’t hostile in the sense that such people should be purged from the Earth with cleansing nuclear fire… but I thought they were lying. “So wait a minute, you have a group of people who use technology, but only a certain level of technolgy. Shut up! Why would they do that?”

I have had talks about race riots where white people simply could not believe that people would close off a city as big Tulsa, OK, and start killing black people.

So maybe your co-worker was never raised religious and as a resulting never had many religious friends, and so the thought of abstaining was alien to her.

[yosemite]

@archmichael

Good Lord, I give up!

Now you know how I’ve been feeling . . .

So then we agree that we are not really arguing anything.

I was making a comment about the “issues” some people have with others’ completely private choices. You wanted to make it into some sort of thing it wasn’t. That’s not my fault.

In fact you weren’t arguing with anyone.

I was making an observation. And in fact, I wasn’t the only one to make it.

If fact you are just ranting about how or why people get worked up. So why hijack the thread?

Good grief. Am I not entitled to make such a commentary on such a thread? It certainly is on-topic. I didn’t require (nor ask) for a long-drawn-out debate over the issue. If anyone hijacked it, it was you, by continually to miss the whole point.

Is it because no one was responding to what you were saying?

Other people said what I was saying. I was commenting on their comments, they were responding to mine. Several of us commented on the puzzle of why there was so much “hostility.” You got in the middle of that, for whatever reason.

Obviously to you, it is this great, paradigm-shifting epiphany.

YOU say that. But you’ve been so monumentally wrong up until now in interpreting my meanings or motives, so I’ll just chalk this latest comment as more of that.

Have you never been a witness to a Mac vs PC flamewar, or a Star Wars vs Star Trek flamewar? Seen the anger and temper that flares up?

I’ve seen 'em. Been in 'em, even. There’s often at least a little touch of tongue-in-cheek with most of them. There’s also that element of “this isn’t something that really matters” in them, even though people get worked up. On the other hand, sex/moral/religious choices are a lot more loaded of an issue. Also, often with the Mac vs. PC debates (at least the ones I’ve seen) the tempers and hostility are more evenly divided. With this, it seemed to be mostly coming from the non-abstinent crowd, but not so much from the other. (At least not on the “They’re all mentally ill freaks!” level.) It is a puzzle. And I hasten to add, I don’t see the “mentally ill freaks!” claims being raised in Mac/PC or Star Wars/Star Trek debates.

Also since I’m addressing your “why”, did it ever occur to you that your co-worker wasn’t hostile but dealing with a brand new idea she had never been exposed to?

She wasn’t my coworker, she was my friend, and trust me, ignorance of such an “idea” was not possible for her. She came from a background where there is 100% absolutely no chance that she didn’t know that some people were abstinent before marriage. You see, I actually know more about her than you do.

In conclusion, I think that Thinks2Much has given me the best answer I’m going to get.

[Thinks2Much]

@yosemite

In conclusion, I think that Thinks2Much has given me the best answer I’m going to get.

[Homer voice]
Wooohoo!
[/Homer voice]

What do I win?

Seriously though, I am glad I could help. It was quite the breakthrough of understanding for me at the time.

[Dog80]

@pokey

@Dog80

This is very intresting. Why do these couples feel that it would be better had they remained celibate? :dubious: What difference would it make?

They used up all their vouchers.

So what difference would premarital celibacy make? Isn’t that like postponing the inevitable?

[vanilla]

@Diogenes the Cynic

I think there has to be something abnormal and emotionally wrong f these frigid, hostile women

I also don’t buy the religion excuse. (and religious whackjobs do not count as healthy).

Gee, DIo, I thought you liekd me. I see you strongly hate me from your post!

I am not frigid, not abnormal, not ugly, but I am a christian.
Theres lots of us!
We believe sex is wonderful and should be saved for marriage, sortof like a diamond that you don’t throw in garbage.

Compatiblity is never a problem, I know that from personal experience.

There is a couple in my church in their 20’s who have dated for years.
They arre marrying in May and are abstinate cause they love each other and think the other is Worth Waiting For.
Its called self control and maturity.

We christians are not whackjobs except to small minded folk who can’t abide anyone not believing what they believe.
I don’t go around calling atheists nutjobs.
I am 45 and have been abstinate 10 years, happily.

I willnow go read pages 2 & 3.
ta!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@vanilla

Gee, DIo, I thought you liekd me. I see you strongly hate me from your post!

You know that’s not true.

[quote]
I am not frigid, not abnormal, not ugly, but I am a christian.
Theres lots of us!
We believe sex is wonderful and should be saved for marriage, sortof like a diamond that you don’t throw in garbage.[./quote]
I don’t understand what you mean by 'saving" it. What is “lost” if you have sex before marriage? What is the “diamond?”

Compatiblity is never a problem, I know that from personal experience.

Sexual compatibility is a huge issue in amy relationships. Don’t kid yourself. And it’s not something that can be learned about by talking.

There is a couple in my church in their 20’s who have dated for years.
They arre marrying in May and are abstinate cause they love each other and think the other is Worth Waiting For.
Its called self control and maturity.

What’s “mature” about it? Why is depriving yourself of something good “mature?”

We christians are not whackjobs except to small minded folk who can’t abide anyone not believing what they believe.

I didn’t call all Christians whackjobs and I didn’t say I couldn’t abide them. I do think the abstinence thing is irrational, I admit it. But I don’t want to control anyone’s life or tell them what to do. They are free to live as they please. I won’t stop them or treat them any differently, nor do I hate them. I just think they’re out of their minds. Doesn’t mean I don’t like them. ;).

I don’t go around calling atheists nutjobs.

I know. You’re a more consistently tolerant poster than I am. I’ve noticed that.

I am 45 and have been abstinate 10 years, happily.

I believe you and I will reiterate once more that I was mostly only talking about people who are already in good loving relationships but who still abstain for what are (IMHO) irrational reasons. I’m not suggesting that a person who is not in a relationship should have sex just to have it.

Oh, and vanilla…the word is spelled a-b-s-t-i-n-e-n-t, not “abstinate.” My apologies for being a spelling cop but I thiught you should know.

[EllisDee]

@vanilla

We believe sex is wonderful and should be saved for marriage, sortof like a diamond that you don’t throw in garbage.

This is the kind of attitude that can cause sexual dysfunction. If you put too much emphasis on sex, it can be difficult for the man to perform or the women to climax.

ompatiblity is never a problem, I know that from personal experience.

'the hell? Is this a whoosh? Or are you saying that all people are sexually compatible? If so, believe me that your position is most assuredly incorrect. I could name a dozen sexual tendencies of men that would send you screaming from the room should you walk into the bedroom and find him set up and waiting for you.

Some people are turned on by things that other people find unpleasant, if not downright repulsive. It would be a good idea to verify that the two partners are into similar types of play.

There is a couple in my church in their 20’s who have dated for years.
They arre marrying in May and are abstinate cause they love each other and think the other is Worth Waiting For.
Its called self control and maturity.

Maturity, naivete, tomato, tomato.

In what way is sex different from making out and petting? If (editorial you) you abstain from all forms of physical affection, then you are at least being consistent, if somewhat naive, about your “self control”. If (still editorial you) you indulge in kissing, but not sex, then you are simply applying an arbitrary moral restriction that really doesn’t serve any purpose other than offering life support to an otherwise terminal self esteem. In any case, the root cause of adult abstinence is, IMO, nothing but fear. Fear of intimacy, fear of STDs, fear of losing self esteem, fear of a vengeful god, fear of whatever. I see no maturity in that.

@Diogenes the Cynic

Oh, and vanilla…the word is spelled a-b-s-t-i-n-e-n-t, not “abstinate.” My apologies for being a spelling cop but I thought you should know.

That’s an unfortunately Freudian misspelling, being that it’s one letter away from “obstinate”.

[vanilla]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
You know that’s not true.

Why is depriving yourself of something good “mature?”

Oh, and vanilla…the word is spelled a-b-s-t-i-n-e-n-t, not “abstinate.” My apologies for being a spelling cop but I thiught you should know.

Did you do that on purpose? misspelling thought?

Depriving onesself of spending money the minute they get it is good; saving up for a more valuable purchase is good.
Thats one example of depriving yurself being good.