What I see here are two types of people, people who are devalueing sex and reducing its power and others who are making sex sacred, which I think is really representative of the haves and have-nots. Speaking as someone who hasn’t gotten any in the last two years and finds sex both powerful and sacred because of infrequency (I’ve gone without for 7 years, and not by choice.), I am a bit jealous of and find it hard to relate to the more casual attitude displayed by some when it comes to sex. I think it represents a sexual cynicism and a jaded atitude, perhaps a function of sexual frequency and habit, it represents the reduction of sex to a base energy level and doesn’t account for the higher function–the “Love” in Love-Making. Personally, I am a bit conflicted, I am by no means a prude when it comes to sexuality, but I am disappointed and a bit tired of sex as “just sex”. I am also a Romantic, so I feel the power of it more acutely and develop strong feelings out of intimacy and sexuality and therefore view it as something not to be taken lightly and commensurate in sanctity. I see both sides but tend to think the celibate are on to something in honoring the power of sexuality and regarding it with a certain respect out of personal belief.
I respect that opinion, devilsknew, but the mistake that is being made here is that anyone who’s had sex outside the bounds of marriage has devalued or degraded the act or themselves. This is simply not the case. I have had very few sexual partners in my life. I value sex as an expression of love. It deepens the connection between two people. It’s a powerful means of communicating the love you feel for your partner. It’s not a thing to be done lightly, just for fun, or because there’s nothing else to do in town tonight.
I don’t agree that sex is just sex. I do think you should save sex for the relationships you deem strong enough and close enough to merit such an expression of trust and love, but, I don’t believe some guy wearing a collar needs to sign a piece of paper to make it okay for me to decide with whom and when I am going to engage in that expression. That’s my decision, and I don’t need or require anyone’s approval other than my own and my partner. Furthermore, my decisions to engage in such an expression of love and trust with a person whom I deeply admire, respect, and love is in no way cheapened or degraded because some old guy in a collar hasn’t signed a piece of paper, nor does it make me or my partner damaged goods.
If you think you can’t have sex without that paper, then don’t. If you think sex without the paper is dirty, you should abstain because it will only create baggage for you. I, however, have no baggage.
For the record, I am married. My husband and I were having sex long before we did make the partnership legally binding, though. The paper filed at the courthouse was incidental to the relationship. A technicality that cemented a legal partnership. I was “married” to him long before that.
Oh, Faeriebeth, I agree entirely. I was just making a comment about the two extremes. I don’t believe in the shame or wrongness associated with sexuality out of wedlock and the general pervasive sexual shaming in Christianity. But you have to admit there is a casual atittude about sex “nowadays” and it is almost expected and urged that people have sex in that same casual atittude. I just believe there should be some greater importance attached to sex, rather than its devolution into a recreational activity or “biologcal function” as one poster put it.
I am reminded of Verse 12 of theTao Te Ching when I think of this thread and how it relates to sensuality. A middle way, sage advice in contemplation for both the oversexed and undersexed. I believe it applies equally.
Sex is not just one thing. Sometimes sex is deeply passionate and loving, and sometimes sex is fun, and sometimes sex is just a quick, desperate f*ck - and all with the same person and after 26 years of marriage.
What’s important are your feelings for the person you are having sex with. But remember, we’re nothing but mammals.
As opposed to, say, your conclusion that people who abstain are somehow acting immaturely and need to grow up? I’m sure that you can back that up with an earth-shaking scientific experiment that will just blow our minds. Right?
Your misinterpreting that remark. The study says that these couples reported greater post-marriage fulfillment than the people who didn’t abstain.
I won’t pretend to know exactly how the researchers compared the two; however, I think it’s clear that you’ve misinterpreted that statement. It is the researchers who are making this comparison, not the people who chose abstinence.
I agree. Where I differ is on the definition of “close enough”. I have made my decisions about what I want from a relationship, what my standards are, what my expectations are, what order I wish to do things and so on. I have stated my case for leaving sex until marriage – at least the non-religious aspect of it. I am not insisting that other people adopt the same view I have taken. Although I am surprised that so many people have not even considered the possibility. It does make me wonder how much forethought went in. (No slight on anyone there. It’s just me thinking aloud, so-to-speak.)
What does astound me though is the number of posters who apparently find the notion of absenence abhorent and in some cases seem threatened by the idea. The assumptions made by some posters also have surprised me: that abstainers are full of insecurities, fears, have a low sex drive, are ignorant or naive, are ruled by heavy-handed dogmatic leaders, have no other choices, have no fun, etc. I hope I have given that myth a bit of a nudge.
j_sum1
OK, maybe you’re right. But the old cynic part of my brain says that it was done by self reporting
As someone who’s probably come across as more hostile that I should have in this thread, I’ll explain my own reaction to your posts.
Many of the ‘wait till marriage’ crowd are like that mean-spirited aunt we all have. The one who’ll visit your new house, come in, and say, ‘well, given your circumstances, I suppose this is the best you can do,’ and then, when called on it, will claim that no offense was meant, or that they are just ‘telling truth.’ This is the sort of person that will then get mad at you for taking offense.
Many of the ‘waiting’ crowd tend to couch their own reasons for abstaining in language that degrades those that choose not to do so. I’ve heard ‘damaged goods’ and ‘clear conscience;’ in real life I’ve been told that premarital sex is ‘cheating’ on your future spouse. I’ve also been told in this thread that having premarital sex in whatever context is synonymous with promiscuity.
So the abstinence argument starts with a value judgment that demeans the opposing viewpoint from the outset. But then, when called on it (and I admit, this response is not always articulated well), the abstinence side falls back on the tone of the response rather than examining its own definitions.
Please, do whatever works for you personally. But bear in mind that your comments can be offensive to those that don’t subscribe to your morality. If you’re scared of disease and pregnancy, no problem. If you don’t feel like you, personally, can handle sex outside of marriage, more power to you. But when you start throwing out terms like ‘damaged goods’ like it was a universal modifier for those that don’t have your hangups, that’s when we’re going to butt heads.
And yes, they are your personal hangups, whether you got them from your upbringing, church, or health class. We all have some hangups- it’s when we start telling ourselves that folks that don’t share them are bad, or better yet, Evil, that we get into trouble.
hmm.
What makes you think sex without marriage isn’t a hangup?
I think to some degree you are correct that there is a generalized sense of exasperation by some, toward 30 something, and 40 something plus year old people, who maintain a posture of abstinence based on the concept of sexual relations as a extremely sacred bonding that should not be done with anyone you are not completely emotionally and spiritually invested in.
As I expressed in my OP, and I think is reflected in the thread, different people have different takes on how they want to approach and embrace their sexuality. In my case I have to admit, that while I would respect a 30-40+ year old person’s personal decision to abstain based on religious grounds, to be frank, I think emotional and interpersonal timidity is a significant component of why some deeply religious people make the decision to abstain, and other deeply religious people do not.
Sex can be sacred and glorious, but it is also quite lot of fun. For a single 30 to 40 year old person who has had sex hundreds and hundreds (or more) of times with one or more partners in their life, to cling to abstinence into their 30’s and 40’s smacks (IMO) of a deliberate personal and emotional retrogression of some kind, where some kind of spiritual innocence or purity is trying to be recaptured, and abstinence is seen as a way of recapturing the state of innocence they had before life put them through the spin cycle.
It’s like a grown woman or man making baby talk. It not polite but the visceral response by many (including myself to some degree) is “Come On! You’re an adult! Grow up!".
I find that view odd, myself.
2 aquaintances of mine were having sex at age 11 and they weren’t grown up.
Why does it bother you so?
Sex is cheapened and devalued by having it indiscriminately.
Have as much as you want, its not my business, I’m not telling anyone not to.
Why do those who live differently than you seem to be not grown up?
As a term, a ‘hangup’ refers to something you abstain from doing. Presumably, you’d like to be having sex, all things considered…but you have a hangup- you need to be married first. If you’re someone with a low or non-existent sex drive, then it’s not a hangup at all- it’s just an excuse for why you’re not.
I have a hangup -I have only been able to have sex with someone I feel deeply for. No one-night stands for me. But I don’t deny that there are people out there for whom this works, and who can function like this. It just does not for me.
But thank you for ignoring the rest of my post in favor of making me parse that one statement for your edification.
You are welcome.
But it stood out as another put down of those who disagree.
Stonebrow, vanilla’s right here. In the very post you’re talking about terms couched with negative connotations, you talk about other people’s ‘hangups’. FWIW, I agreed completely with your whole post, but then got to the hangup line and started thinking about a pot and a kettle.
No, pre-marital sex (which in itself is a funny term; I mean, what if you never get married, is it still pre-marital?) is not bad or wrong or synonomous with loose morals (at least in a general, non-religious sense). Likewise, choosing to abstain doesn’t have to mean that a person has psychological issues that need to be worked around. Maybe they don’t have a ‘hangup’, maybe they just made a choice.
Maybe, generally, we all are just making choices that are right for us. Because you can’t see choosing abstinance as a viable option without having some emotional/psychological ‘barriers’ doesn’t mean that that is why everyone else would come to that decision. Just because you have a sense that sex outside of marriage ‘cheapens’ it or means you are ‘loose’, or what have you, doesn’t mean that love or sex is cheapened for everyone who participates in it; it’s just for you.
It’s all so personal that having this argument seems kind of ridiculous. If we were talking about how to talk about this with our children it would be something, but we’re not; we’re just throwing names at other adults because of choices they are fully within their right to make that don’t harm anyone.
Actually Stonebow, you are the only poster who went through my dozen or so points in a systematic fashion and commented on them. And it seems to be only about a third of those that have raised any hackles. I would be interested in comments on the others.
In answering questions I have been very careful to speak only of myself. For example, I believe I used the phrase, “I am not damaged goods.” I am no way implying that everyone who does not share my views is somehow irreversibly scarred or on a fast track to some dire consequence. What I do mean is that I have observed situations where extramarital and premarital sex has caused problems that I am keen to avoid.
However, rather than focus on the negative arguments: “If you have sex you will (or could) have horrible things happen to you” etc., I would prefer to focus on the positive. Several of my points are along the lines of, “I am abstaining because of the positive effect of doing so.”
Let me add at this stage that I have not disclosed all of my reasoning for abstinence. The thread I originally posted to specifically asked for non-religious reasons. I am not going to go into religious reasons at the moment. It deserves a new thread. And in any case I will soon be computerless for about a week so it is not a good time to start. But I will say (just as a teaser) that both sex and abstinence have consequences at what I would term a spiritual level.
I was going to amplify on that statement; what I mean by “spiritual”, and on preview I notice that astro has mentioned it, but I think I will leave it hanging. Sorry Diogenes we can battle this one out another time.
j_sum1.
(And now the post won’t submit. My apologies if this particular one reads well out of step with the current chain of discussion.)