This post in a related current thread may be of interest to some participating in this discussion.
You know, i think you’re both right. I took astro’s point to simply mean that the originators of doctrine were not insane, or completely unreasonable given the context of their situation. It’s a given to most reasonable adults that times change, and what was good for Abraham is likely not as good for us.
I could be wrong as far as astro’s motivations. But Sexuality is a a powerful force (perhaps the most powerful in human civilization) and the early church sought to yoke that power for its own use. And I think that the church fathers knew exactly what they were doing.
Remember, reliable birth control (and low-risk abortions) is a fairly recent thing, and it has changed the way we view sexuality in many ways. Anything that challenged what was perceived to be the basic unit of society (and the church) -the husband/wife, joint kid arrangement was not only bad, it was Evil. But to dismiss the actions of the early church as ‘crazy’ or ‘primitive’ is a mistake- they were addressing what they saw as the needs of the time.
The current church has the option of doing the same, or adhering to those ancient proscriptions. Either way, it loses out in the long run- it either ‘dilutes’ the gospels and thrives, or is marginalized by a society that has outgrown it.
I apologize beforehand if there is some rule against quoting from a different thread, but I am involved in this thread so I’ll post here.
Sex can be as great a bond as two people choose to make it. I don’t have a problem with people equating sex with love, which is what you are doing. The problem I have is that people who adopt that belief seem to be in denial that there are any drawbacks in doing so. I have seen a few marriages/relationships go down in flames, marriages that work on a emotional level but destroyed because of an instance of infidelity. I have seen married people casually get into internet relationships, confident that there won’t be any problems or it’s not cheating because there isn’t any “real sex”. There are dangers in making sex a focal point.
I don’t know what your point was with the rape analogy.
People who are only involved in abstinence relationships, never end up with baggage?
What if she compares you to former boyfriends, not sexually but in other attributes? Would that hurt you?
In this thread, we are talking about people in their 30’s. Some widowed, some divorced, others never having been married. Would a formerly divorced woman or a widow be less attractive to you because she might compare you sexually to her former husband?
I find this similar to your previous comment. Only people in sexual relationships can get hurt? There isn’t at least one girl out there that feels you ripped out her heart when you broke up with her?
What Stonebow said essentially verbatim. Judging the far past based on our perspective in modernity is a huge distorting lens. If you had these arguments with someone 2000 years ago, I think you would be hard pressed to convince them of the foolishness of their perspective on "healthy sexual attitudes”, and the superior viability of yours, without stepping out of the social and experiential context they were bound in.
It may be fun to imagine yourself going toe to toe rhetorically with village elders in the far past re sexual attitudes, but ultimately it’s just a silly conceit. Your world view in modernity is completely out of context with that scenario. The notion that these ancient historical attitudes, regardless of how repressive and “unhealthy” they seem to us today, have to be defended ethically or morally thousands of years after the fact is an equally silly conceit.
If someone, in some form of fashion, is applying those ancient moral strictures today based on notion that those ancient ethical and moral postures are still perfectly applicable to life in modernity, then you’ve got something to argue about.
In order.
- Celibacy is described in the bible as a deliberate personal choice, and a special gift from God. 2Corinthians 7 for the most explicit references. It is useful to have some who are able to completely devote themselves to Christian ministry without the encumberances that come with a family. THis is particularly true during times of persecution and war. I think it goes without saying that it is not appropriate for everyone. Evidence strongly indicates that celibacy has been an unhealthy imposition in some sectors and there has been some poor doctrines developed around it in some parts of the church. Using a biblical foundation is preferable to following church tradition. I don’t think you will find anything biblical to criticise on that point.
- Masturbation is nowhere mentioed nor implied in the bible. Lust, concupiscience, licentiousness, porn and lasciviousness are. Masturbation may or may not be an expression of one or more of these things depending on the circumstances. A full biblical treatment of masturbation needs to be set in the context of christian character formation, the doctrines of sanctification and grace. It is simplistic and unhelpful in the extreme to say “masturbation is evil” and pile on lashings of guilt.
- Homosexuality is forbidden in both the old and new testaments. Let me dig a little deeper on that one because someone will undoubtedly ask if I am wearing a shirt with two kinds of thread and accuse me of selectivity in biblical adherence. Homosexual activity is expressly prohibited in both the Mosaic and Palestinian covenants. It is also prohibited in the New Covenant; where it is dealt with as a sin on the same manner as idolatry, envy, murder, malice and deceit amongst other things. (I do wish that some Christians had a sense of perspective here and were a little less ready to be judgemental. They do no one any favours.) Homosexuality was punished, along with pride during the time of the Abrahamic covenant. Although, technically those involved were under the Noahic covenant. It is excluded from the Everlasting covenant. No opportunity existed in the Edenic covenant. The other two covenants are silent on the matter to my knowledge. I don’t think it is too much of a stretch to say that, according to the bible, God has an opinion about homosexuality. It behoves the church to be (a) knowledgeable and (b) direct about what the bible teaches. And as always, showing a little grace.
So, yes. You have picked on three issues where there has been some confused teaching on matters of sex. If that is your experience of christianity, then you need to go find a different church.
Yes, I wish there was a single thread this time around too. I have recently posted there some answers to your questions. I’ll address the others next post.
No. Sex is one expression of love. It is one ingredient in the glue that holds a relationship together. I don’t want to spill glue on the floor. And I don’t want to have sex outside of a permanent relationship – one that I am prepared to declare publically is permanent.
I agree wholeheartedly. Which is why I believe there is a proper place for sex. See my comment above.
see my other post.
No. Again see my other post.
Irrelevant in my case. But I think you miss the point. The objective is to preserve sexual intimacy for marriage so that there is something unique and special in that relationship. And at the same time avoiding such behaviour that is likely to create future difficulties.
For me, no. But I stress that is my own opinion. And in any case, it is irrelevant in my particular circumstances the way things have panned out.
Nope. Great isn’t it? 
If I may add more to this without stirring it up too much;
when your mate is able to control themselves before marriage, they are likely to be able to keep from cheating after marriage.
I don’t know if theres a study on this but it seems right.
As I said in the other thread, I believe that requiring your husband/wife to stay monogamous is too possesive.
Do you extrapolate this to everybody? Do you think that only people in sexual relationships can be hurt? If your fiancee decided tomorrow that you weren’t the right person for her and broke off the engagement, you wouldn’t be hurt?
I merely answered the question. I am glad that I do not have a train of hurt people in my wake. Is it not a good goal to conduct oneself and communicate in such a way that hurt is minimised even if it transpires that the relationship cannot proceed?
Of course that is not always going to happen. As I said elsewhere, break-ups hurt. Just in case anyone get me wrong on this, I am a firm believer in the value of taking risks – in all areas of life. And relationships require vulnerability. You take risks when you trust someone and you expose yourself to the possibility of hurt when you are vulnerable. So a break-up is not generally going to look pretty. But it is possible to avoid betraying a trust. It is also possible to be sensitive to vulnerabilities in another. It is possible to grieve in a healthy manner. It is possible to say goodbye to someone in an amicable fashion without holding onto bitterness.
In my case I do not have a list of women who are hurt because of me. I think that is a good thing.
What the hell does sex have to do with the relative pain of a breakup?
I don’t have a trail of “hurt” women either…and I did have sex with them. Please spare us the holier-than-thou bit. I’m a really good person AND I had sex before marriage. One has nothing to do with the other.
In my observation, sex can contribute to the pain of a breakup. There’s nothing formulaic here. And no attitude or posturing. I have merely answered quite candidly questions relating to one of the many points I made in regard to the post about non-religious reasons for abstinence. I know that some matters are tangential to the OP, but then I didn’t ask the questions.
For what its worth, this is IMHO. I know I am in the minority at my age with the stance I have taken. I have been asked for my opinion. I have given it. I would think that there are a few dopers who, agree or disagree, find my position interesting and thought-provoking.
This seems relevent here:
Amen. I’m so glad you said that, Dio.
After reading this thread, I was beginning to worry that I was damaged, degraded, untrustworthy garbage, and I didn’t even know it! :rolleyes:
damaged, degraded?
no.
Sarcastic, yah…
The innate assumption here is that the abstinent have sex drives that are just as strong as that of the non-abstinent, and that they exercise greater control over said sex drives than the non-abstinent do. This seems unlikely to me. More likely, the abstinent just like abstaining or they don’t have much in the way of a sex drive in the first place. So they don’t have to control their drives so much, though I’m sure there’s SOME control involved if there’s any sex drive at all involved.
Most likely, what you get when you marry is someone who won’t have sex outside marriage … or in it, either.
I do agree, when the abstinent marry the abstinent there’s a good chance for happiness … they both like abstaining, after all.
You know, maybe I’m crazy, or something, but I believe that calling people who don’t believe in sex outside of marriage “prudes”, “freaks” and “frigid” is no better than calling people who do have sex outside of marriage “sluts,” “perverts” and “garbage”.
Double standards, anyone?
bzzzztttt
Sorry, that’s the incorrect answer EC
Perhaps you could actually ask rather than making assumptions. Vanilla is sure to have an opinion since she has experienced both situations. I don’t think libido even comes into it.
In the meantime, you could perhaps do a bit of research. Here is a starter.
http://www.lifeinnovations.com/pdf/ccoverview.pdf
http://marriageandfamilies.byu.edu/issues/2001/January/cohabitation.htm
Or perhaps this
http://www.foreverfamilies.net/xml/articles/benefitsofchastity.aspx?&publication=full
I haven’t found the precise articles I have been looking for – those that detail the correlation between premarital abstinence and increased marital sexual fulfillment.
Nevertheless, I am confident that I stand on good ground, have made good lifestyle choices and can look forward to a good future. FWIW, I have observed couples who have chosen to make the same kind of (sometimes difficult) lifestyle choices that I have. Their advice and the satisfaction they report convince me more than research ever could.
Yeah, those look like some real objective sources. :rolleyes:
All I know is that I have been happily faithful and content with my wife for 14 years. I had sex with multiple other women before I met my wife and I firmly believe that my sexual experiences before marriage have made me a much better husband and grounded human being.
I’m not knocking you. I’m answering for me. The OP asks about people in my position.
I told you I haven’t found the cites I was looking for. Is it any real surprise that Christian websites report this stuff? Yes I would prefer to dig down to original research and raw data. But then, this is IMHO not GD. I am presenting my opinion. I’m not trying to prove a point here. But the presence of a few papers and articles is interesting for those who want to know why people in their 30s and 40s might choose abstinence.
It is interesting to be called (or implied) frigid, immature, naive, ignorant, dogmatic, judgemental, skewed, negative, or unscholorly for a personal decision that I have made and about which some have asked. (For cites on those read this and the other thread)
** Couples who did not engage in sexual activity before marriage report greater sexual fulfillment after marriage (LaHaye & LaHaye, 1994; Waite & Gallagher, 2000).**
If they didn’t have sex before marriage, then they don’t have a benchmark to make a meaningful comparison. Even bad sex will look great to them.