I used to date a guy who grew up fundie. His big sticking point was exactly this issue (and I am reporting what he told me, so please don’t hesitate to clarify but don’t flame me, because my representation may be inaccurate).
There were two attitudes about sex: first (BEFORE you are married), that it is dirty and wrong, and if it seems interesting to you, then you are dirty and need some serious prayin’ for.
AFTER you are married it’s beautiful and a powerful way to share God’s love between two people.
My friend wondered: how is it possible to believe both these things truly? How can you switch away from a mindset that’s been indoctrinated into you from day dot, to its polar opposite - just because you’ve gone through a ceremony?
He asked these questions of his elders and was told to “pray about it.” In other words, if you do’t understand then you’re not a good enough Christian.
Me:
…There is every reason that monogamy should be practiced … and only one reason I can think of for premarital/adulterous/whatever sex: satisfying desires.
You:
Au contraire. You fundamentalists need to be constantly reminded that your viewpoint is warped…
I notice that after I gave you a brief argument, you stated your disagreement… and nothing else. If you hope to change any minds, a counterargument might help a little.
Jiminy cricket, reliable birth control? It’s called safer sex because your odds are better with than without, but no form of birth control will absolutely, 100% protect against pregancy or STD’s. Pregnancy happens.
Riiight. I’m being mean because I point out what a difficult time she’s had as a single mother. Frankly, it’s rather disingenuous to pretend that single parenthood is anything but a very difficult road. My kids have seen the amount of extra care and financial assistance and sheer time we’ve invested in helping her and our grandson. It’s what families do. But they’ve also noticed the strain Jenny’s under, all the time. And they’ve noted that all the money in the world does not replace a father. And they’ve noted that this didn’t have to be this way. All you can take from other’s mistakes is the lesson.
Consider yourself lucky. The reason they call it safer sex is because your odds are better, not perfect. You can still have birth control failure, you can still get pregnant, you can still become infected with any one of the 22 STD’s available today. It’s still a risk to engage in sexual activity, and not everyone is as lucky, yes lucky, as you’ve been.
Also, you could be run over by a speeding bus every time you go out walking on the street. You shouldn’t ever do anything that isn’t 100 percent safe. You should just stay in your room, really, all the time. Except there’s always the chance that a speeding meteorite from outer space could be zeroing in on your place at this very moment!
Or to put it more directly, risk is inherent in life. We all manage risk to some extent in how we conduct our lives. My suspicion is that women who educate themselves about birth control techniques and use them when necessary are doing a much better job of risk management than women who go around not having sex or using birth control, until the day when they get jumped by their own hormones.
And it just might be the case that sex might be worth the risk, especially when it’s vastly reduced by effective birth control.
Glad to oblige. First of all, I see absolutely no problem with people satisfying their sexual desires, any more than I see any problem with them satisfying their desire to eat, sleep or stay warm. I feel the onus is on anyone who would tell them they can’t to say why not. You cite STDs as the reason not to have extramarital sex: funny, the rationale fundamentalists USED to employ was morality. You abandoned that one, did you? See, I still see you guys seeking to impose your morality on others, and using STDs as stalking horses.
In any event, there are methods of avoiding STDS, condoms and such, that greatly reduce the risk of STDS and pregnancy. See my previous post on risk management.
Second, there’s an excellent reason for sex before marriage, which is determining sexual compatibility. The woods are full of young divorcees who got married right out of high school or college without experimenting, who subsequently discovered they weren’t at all sexually compatible with their spouses. Shopping around gives everyone a chance to discover if they are a good fit in the marriage bed.
Also, as pointed out earlier, there’s that whole duality thing: sex is evil and bad before marriage, then we do a 180 degree turn and it’s good and wonderful afterwards. It’s like saying “six is evil and bad before marriage, after marriage it’s half a dozen and it’s wonderful and good.” It’s not at all surprising that a lot of people have trouble making that kind of cognitive reversal.
Also, if American society were to turn into one where sex was only practiced within the confines of marriage, I see it as becoming more like Arab Islamic societies, with a lot of very horny, unhappy, frustrated single men walking around loooking for a chance to blow something up and show everybody who’s a REAL man. I don’t WANT American society to be like Islamic societies, my impression of them is, they SUCK. (This may be a bit of an oversimplification, I know, but it’s close enough for govt. work.)
I think that if American society were built on the fundamentalist model, it would suck, too.
I find nothing wrong with people satisfying their desires, but in my belief system, that outlet (outside of marriage) is masturbation. I can find nothing wrong with masturbation in the Bible (unless lust is involved, which the Bible’s very clear about. The two are separable.) If a Christian finds it impossible to masturbate without lustful thoughts, he can abstain. Sexual desires are only desires, while eating, sleeping, and staying warm are definitely needs, without which one would die.
I cited STDs as ONE reason. (Please, Captor, don’t lump me together with other Fundamentalists. I’m not sure if I even AM one. If you’re arguing with me, argue with ME.) Of course, to me, morality is the number one reason, and the only reason I abstain. If God had said “Extramarital sex is OK, go have fun,” I would probably be having fun even with all of the risks involved. I would also be making the wrong decision. I didn’t abandon the morality argument, just omitted it as an example in a very brief argument. And have I tried to ‘impose my morality on others’? No, I was just participating in a discussion, same as you. If I’m imposing, then you are too. The only difference would be that you don’t like mine because you disagree.
**
Concerning sexual compatibility, there’s not really much to it. Size? There’s not, generally, too much variation among males, and vaginas are designed to adapt. Especially if she’s a virgin.
Problems in bed are mostly extensions of problems outside of bed. A loving, exclusive marriage bed that’s verbally open and comfortable (comfortable because there’s never a need to suppress any sexuality within marriage) will in almost every instance be trouble-free. Those young divorcees’ problems most likely aren’t simple compatibility, but deeper sexual problems or even non-sexual problems.
**
There is no reversal. Christians are always taught the same thing, and the only difference is the circumstances of the individual. We’re taught that sex is good, but we should wait. We then look forward to marital sex, and have healthy attitudes about it. There’s no repression, and we do not grow up believing that sex itself is bad. If there was a cognitive reversal, I could see there being problems. In an environment (christian or not) with hostile/unhealthy attitudes about sex, I could see your point.
America’s morals are based on Christianity right now. I think it’s done good for the country. I’d say that the country doesn’t suck. Fundamentalist Christianity is nothing like Fundamentalist Islam (or whatever). Marital sex throughout society would not turn everyone into maniacs for explosions. And how could marital sex make men horny and unhappy? Only lack of sex would.
There’s a lot to sexual compatibility. Very little of it has to do with size, and very much of it has to do with the sexual tastes of the people concerned. Some women can’t orgasm in missionary position, but there are religious fundamentalists who believe that any other position is a terrible horrible sin. Some people become frustrated and miserable if they can’t have sex every day, and some people would rather only have sex once a month, if that. There’s a lot of area involved in sexual compability, and it involves every single erotic preference that a person has and whether or not it matches up with a partner is extremely important.
If marital sex is only happening once every other month with the lights off in missionary position, that could certainly cause a man (or a woman) to be horny and unhappy all the time. If you think comapbitility is only a matter of size, which isn’t important anyway, you’ve been fooling yourself for a long, long time.
I pointed out size as the only physical factor. The rest are all mental, and can be worked out in a loving, healthy marriage. If repressive sexual attitudes are present, that’s not healthy.
If some people “become frustrated and miserable if they can’t have sex every day,” that sounds like sex addiction.
And I don’t think more than a very small amount of Christians believe that only missionary is the non-sinful position. What BS.
Masturbation is about as satisfying to someone who really wants to have sex with someone else as throwing a baseball against a wall is for someone who wants to play a 9 inning game.
It’s filler, it’s obvious that it’s filler, and it’s not at all satisfying. It’s something to do if you have an extra 10 minutes before needing sleep, but doesn’t even compare to the real thing.
They can’t ‘all be worked out.’ If one of the partners is only able to orgasm through BDSM and the other is vehemently opposed to anything beyond five minutes of ordinary missionary position at a slow pace, there is no working it out that’s going to happen. Either one or both of them is going to give up on getting what they need, and one or both of them will be miserable.
It actually sounds pretty normal to me. An addiction would indicate that it has a negative effect on a person’s ability to lead a normal life, have a job, put food on their table and roof over their head. Needing sex every day doesn’t necessarily have those negative effects, but it certainly does make some people sexually frustrated if they don’t. I’d find it frustrating to not be able to have sex with the SO every day, and wouldn’t be compatible with a guy who only wanted sex once a week.
That’s your choice, your morality, I’m happy for you so long as you don’t try to impose it on anyone else – something fundies are very into.
(Please, Captor, don’t lump me together with other Fundamentalists. I’m not sure if I even AM one. If you’re arguing with me, argue with ME.)
OK, you’re not a fundie, fine. I was responding to the OP, which is about fundie attitudes.
Concerning sexual compatibility, there’s not really much to it. Size? There’s not, generally, too much variation among males, and vaginas are designed to adapt. Especially if she’s a virgin.
In another thread, there was much discussion of this point, and suffice it to say that a lot of people think issues of compatibility are MUCH more important and complex than you imagine them to be, and not nearly so tractable to general affection.
Problems in bed are mostly extensions of problems outside of bed.
When both partners enter into marriage in a state of sexual ignorance? Hah!!!
There is no reversal.
Well, that’s your doctrine. But I don’t believe that it works out that way in the real world.
And how could marital sex make men horny and unhappy? Only lack of sex would.
You’re assuming it would be feasible for everyone to get married as soon as they reach adulthood. So I guess you don’t think picking the right mate is important … Miss Right Now instead of Miss Right, eh? Oh, that’s right, you think just anybody male can marry just anybody female and it’ll work out fine. Once again, Hah!
No, size isn’t the only physical factor. There is impotence, premature ejactulation, inability to orgasm due to organic causes, issues of comfort (which can include lubrication or similar issues or even the weights of the partners).
Other factors can include fetishes, kinks, unmatched drives, what importance sex will have in the relationship, openness to experimentation and discussion, illness, and the list goes on.
I haven’t tried to impose my morality on others. I do, however, take advantage of situations where I am talking with people who are interested in my faith.
Newlywed virgins aren’t necessarily (and really shouldn’t be) ignorant. There’s a big, big difference between ignorance and inexperience.
Notice how I said stuff after “There is no reversal”? I would prefer you notice the content rather than the topic sentences. But what you are talking about certainly does occur in a small amount of Christian families.
I don’t believe adulthood is when people start desiring sex. There isn’t any reason the normal (abstaining) teenager would become unhappy for lack of sex when he reaches marrying age.