Truly I am a repeat felony spelling offender.
This brings up an interesting point. I guess we should clarify abstinence and what that means to some people. For some people this means, no vaginal intercourse with everything else being negotiable. For others it means nothing past ‘second base’.
See, I don’t think this analogy works because sex is not something that can be expended or used up. You can have all the sex you want before marriage and still have as much as you want afterwards. Nothing is being “saved,” only denied.
I would comapare it to hugging. Is there any reason not to hug somebody you love before marriage? Does hugging before the wedding take anything away from hugging after the wedding?
But, Diogenes, can you see how this statement could come across as itself being “hostile”?
Now, let’s be clear, I can understand how to someone who cannot find any conceivable rational explanation or foundation for self-denial, taking the concept to the point of premarital celibacy in an already active relationship of two consenting informed adults harming no third parties, must seem odd.
But the undertone of some of the claims that it must be somehow pathological did seem… I don’t know, almost dogmatic itself. I just feel the need for something more substantial than my (or our) anecdotal evidence and gut feelings (which is all that appeals to “common sense” and to “nature” are) before I conclude that the rightness or wrongness of abstinence in such a relationship is anything but a matter of individual tastes.
(BTW, the almost mandatory “magical sky pixie”-type putdowns of the religiously motivated are so trite to barely register as hostility by now; I prefer DtC’s honest expression that he thinks they’re out of their minds for believing something not rationally based: at least we now know he subscribes to a parallel of the “Love the sinner, but hate the sin” doctrine 
. That said, I do/will respect those who abstain for religious conviction.)
Don’t joke about that…as I said before, there is very popular school of thought around here that promotes that sort of thing. No physical intimacy at all before marriage…and even then, marriage is about being ‘brothers and sisters in Christ’ rather than a romantic bond as I understand it. Of course, I would find the idea of having relations of any sort (let alone the freaky nasty kind I’m partial to) with my ‘sister’ oogy, but to each their own.
As for vanilla- it seems clear to me that your abstinance is the result of some bad experiences in your past. And that’s okay. Especially having a child, you should be careful of the sorts of relationships you engage in.
However, drawing the line for sexual intimacy at marriage seems really arbitrary. If you are dating someone, and share a mutual love for each other, does having sex hurt anything? Is the waiting just another hoop for a suitor to jump through to prove he ‘really’ loves you? Whether he abstains or no, do you not have other indicators as to whether he is right for you or not?
Sexual frustration can screw up your perceptions just as badly as sex itself. They can both lead to bad decisions.
And i can’t disagree more with your ‘sexual compatibility is never a problem’ unless you are a no-sex type of person. I am lucky in that my wife and I are very compatible- but there are some interests that we each have that would freak a lot of people out!
I don’t find hugging analygous.
Let me try to explain.
Us Christians believe that sex is good and from God.
Its purpose is to bond a couple in matrimony.
It bonds people together, no matter whether its a one night stand or 100 trysts in ones life.
Youre emotionally stuck together, and when you break up, its a rip.
Its simply commitment.
Do you want to give yourself to your mate forever in trust?
Then how can you give yourself to someone who in a sense is saying I will leave at any moment if I should so feel like it.
Commitment and trust make great sex, no matter your personal kinks or fetishes.
I enjyed sex with my husband because I loved him, I didn’t enjoy it with the 4 other men because I did not (yes, I should not have had sex with them without being in true love).
Trust me, they were more skilled and longerlasting than my husband(10 minutes tops) and yet I did not have my heart commited so I felt nothing.
Its sortof like taking a prized possession and using it to prop up an uneven chair, it degrades it.
Thats as best as I can explain it.
You may want to find a christian in real life and ask them also.
and
and
I believe it is statements like this, that incite folks to name-calling. Vanilla, I will stand by your right to do with your body as you please, but I have had sex outside the bounds of marriage. It was not a “diamond thrown in the garbage”, nor was it degrading. It certainly does not make me an untrustworthy person.
This is the first thing that you’ve written that I agree with. I think that you are right, though over time, it seems that one partner or the other will feel the lack of stimulation should their spouse be non-responsive to their sexual preferences.
That said,my biggest issue is with the rather arbitrary line you’ve drawn, saving sex for marriage only. I think that this thinking can lead to as many bad decisions as any other path- it’s not any ‘safer’ unless you are the sort of person that can basically take it or leave it when it comes to sex. In which case, good luck in finding a match on that score- so long as you end up with another no-sexo, it’ll all be fine.
I just have a hard time beliveing that you can turn your sex drive on and off like that. People that are raised or come to believe that sex is bad before marriage tend not change views a lot after marriage. And for those that are part of the ‘sex is sacred’ crowd, quite often it’s hard to reconcile the expression of ‘godly’ love with the grunting, sweaty, animal acts that go along with it.
And I think that my Lady wife has already explained why some of your comments might be construed as hostile, and invite hostile response.
In my case, it couldn’t happen. Mine was overwhelming (waiting 24 years will do that to you) and his was so-so at best. I eventually did just shut it off to match his lack of interest, but that was also one of the death knells too. However, the good news is that despite my previous over-the-top religious views, I have changed. Now, I like the “grunting, sweaty, animal acts” just as much (or more) than the sweet, romantic stuff.
And as far as feeling degraded about sex when it’s outside of marriage; again, I’ll go on record as saying THAT has been some of the most maturing that I’ve ever done. Having to deal with the emotional side isn’t something you should be catching up on in your early to mid 30s. I wish my convictions hadn’t been so skewed and my perception of intimacy more realistic with what I’d need to know and nature than something so stifled, artificial and scary. I truly could have done without deciding simply because I’d prior been terrified to death. All in MHO, of course. I know how persuasive and mesmerizing dogma can be. It was exceptionally difficult to choose differently than what I believed. Best thing for me, but it shook me to the core. So I definitely respect those who have that to deal with and understand the hardships they face. It ain’t easy, certainly when you perceive the whole world to be against you and your opinions/faith.
My comments were not intended as hostile, I was attempting to explain how us christians see sex.
The men in my dating age range are usually divorced so its not like they are virgins.
But, some things we see as worth waiting for.
As to the OP, yes, there are many attractive, normal guys (in churches) who also agree with sex only in marriage so I do have good prospects.
Now if only I could find a christian who isn’t an avid Bush supporter…
Are you sure that’s the stated purpose in the bible? I thought it was purely for procreation.
That is the sentiment that concerns me. If that statement were my heartfelt belief, I cannot imagine I wouldn’t view masturbation as sinful. And that is a very unhealthy attitude.
Actually, isn’t that self-love thing a sin all by itself? That’s a red flag. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of human sexuality. Toss in the celibacy oaths artificially imposed on the clergy, (plus the evidence of how well that has been working out,) and I would suggest that Christianity, specifically, is a very bad source from which to form your ideas of sexuality. The writers of the bible clearly did not understand human sexuality well enough to offer up healthy attitudes about sex.
I suppose it is possible for the “no sex before marraige” doctrine to be the best option, but it would be an amazingly rare anomally in the otherwise seriously flawed worldview of christian sexuality.
That’s a double whammy. It not only is more inflammatory than I intended, but I know precious little about the bible, so it’s also uninformed. For bonus points, it doesn’t even convey the message I intended. Good job, Ellis! Correction:
The leaders of the church clearly did not (and do not) understand human sexuality well enough to offer up healthy attitudes about sex.
Really, the phrase I’m looking for is the “originators of the doctrine”, but it just doesn’t sound right in the sentence.
I think one of the worst and most arrogant mistakes we can make is to assume that our proto-Christian ancestors did not “understand human sexuality well enough”. On the contrary I think many of them did “understand” the nature of sexual desire and impulses exceedingly well. Their “attitudes” did not derive from ignorance but were embedded in their surrounding historical and social context.
The range of sexual choices and sexual behavior options available to a villager or member of a tribe 2000 years ago are quite different than those in modernity. Some of the sexual prescriptions in that context, which we see as exceedingly repressive in hindsight, might have had valid and logical reasons for being implemented in that context.
Our ancestors may not have been convergent with our modern notions of what “healthy sexual attitudes” should, be but they certainly weren’t ignorant about the nature and power of sexuality.
Nowhere does the Bible say that it’s purely for procreation. Indeed, the Song of Solomon extols it as something which is inherently desirable within marriage, using exultant and poetic language.
I would agree with that, myself.
Theres nothing wrong with not wanting to have children.
Back then, though, it was deemed necessary to populate, as the diseases and life span were not what they are now.
It’s one thing to not throw the diamond in the garbage. It’s another to store it away somewhere and never look at it.
Quite frankly, I just don’t get this idea of sex being this magical special thing. It’s just sex. it feels good, but it’s a biological function just like eating or taking a shit.
“If you like fuckin’…marriage ain’t for you. I haven’t fucked in seven years. I’ve had ‘intercourse’…”
–Chris Rock
Just curious.
Do you believe you speak for all christians on the subject of sex?
Can someone who does not see sex as you do be a christian?
Of course.
I believe it takes believing Jesus was God and died for our sins to be a christian.
All the christians I’ve known in real life believe sex is only good inside marriage.
They get this from the Bible.
I’ve also known some christians who have had sex outside of marriage.
They are all sorry they did.
Go figure.
And I know Christians who have had sex outside of marriage who aren’t the least bit sorry that they did. What can you figure from that?
[sub]Honest question, there. I don’t mean for it to come off as sounding hostile.[/sub]
I’m not sure what the official name of this debate tactic is, but I consider it far more arrogant than my assertions. I actually provided examples of why I feel the church doctrines regarding sexuality are unhealthy, and you didn’t respond to either of them. Instead, you offer platitudes on how in touch humans in general were at the time the doctrines were hammered out. I agree that humans understood sexuality perfectly well; just look at the Kama Sutra. My position is that Christian doctrines, specifically, are unhealthy and out of touch.
Well, the celibacy requirement isn’t 2000 years old. I believe it was added roughly 800 years ago.
But please defend your position against my original assertions that you ignored. Masturbation is normal and healthy for humans, yet the church fosters feelings of shame, guilt, and sin regarding masturbation. That is unhealthy and out of touch, even 2000 years ago.
The second assertion is that celibacy is an unhealthy and out of touch view of sexuality, demonstrating ignorance of the subject.
I’ll toss in a bonus third example. Homosexuality is, hmmm, let’s say “not exalted” by the christian church. I believe it’s viewed as unnatural. That’s yet another unhealthy and out of touch stance regarding human sexuality.
Okay, I’ve given you three distinct stances the church holds that I assert are unhealthy and out of touch. Refute my argument by showing me how those three stances are actually the healthiest way to view sexuality, and then we can have a meaningful conversation. But please refrain from irrelevant platitudes about how progressive humans in general were at whatever arbitrary point in history applies. It is irrelevant.
To recap, my argument is that the church holds three different unhealthy attitudes about sex:
- Celibacy works
- Masturbation is a sin
- Homosexuality is unnatural
Therefore, my conclusion is that taking your cues about sexuality from the church is unwise at best.