Physical intimacy before marriage

[ImperialPhantom]

Many aspects of today's Amero-Christianity smack of eastern religion to me. Not only is there the trend towards "being as pure as possible" (no touching or kissing before marriage etc), but so many other versions of self-denial (no drinking any alcohol, no watching television or listening to secular music, no this, no that, no no no). This version of Christianity is completely missing the point.

 

[SneakerPimp53]

Many aspects of today's Amero-Christianity smack of eastern religion to me. Not only is there the trend towards "being as pure as possible" (no touching or kissing before marriage etc), but so many other versions of self-denial (no drinking any alcohol, no watching television or listening to secular music, no this, no that, no no no). This version of Christianity is completely missing the point.

Christianity has a very long tradition of monasticism and ascetic disciplines. The bulk of the early church fathers were monks. The denial of self is a fundamental aspect of Christianity. Not everyone is called to go into a monastery, but the point isn't do whatever you'd like and Jesus will cover the tab either.

 

[SullivanZ]

If every early Christian was a monk and celibate, we would probably not be here, nor even have a church.

 

[tapi]

At least for me there is a need for intimacy before marriage. It's an integral part of the relationship and I simply do not see the point in the hard line restricions like no cuddling or hugging or whatever. I actually know some people that go as far as to insist that a third person must always be present in a room with a couple before they are married to supervise that they don't fall into sin..

 

[stan1472]

Many aspects of today's Amero-Christianity smack of eastern religion to me. Not only is there the trend towards "being as pure as possible" (no touching or kissing before marriage etc), but so many other versions of self-denial (no drinking any alcohol, no watching television or listening to secular music, no this, no that, no no no). This version of Christianity is completely missing the point.

What point?

 

[OGM]

Many aspects of today's Amero-Christianity smack of eastern religion to me. Not only is there the trend towards "being as pure as possible" (no touching or kissing before marriage etc), but so many other versions of self-denial (no drinking any alcohol, no watching television or listening to secular music, no this, no that, no no no). This version of Christianity is completely missing the point.

I am U.S. born but have been all of the place. ImperialPhantom you will be happy to know that only a small percentage of Christians in the U.S. are hyper-exclusionary. The problem is that they are often the most vocal. So to many it may appear we are all the same.

Actually I know very few Christians like that. The ones I do know like that stay to themselves because they do not like to associate with others that don't share their beliefs. Which is fine with me because it I could not hang out with them. It would be like combining water and oil.

 

[Miles]

My view is that everything other than sex, and whatever one's personal boundaries happen to be, is fine. Kissing, cuddling etc. is all good as long as neither of you have a problem with it. A good, although imperfect, rule of thumb is to not go farther than you would feel comfortable with somebody else going with your future spouse.

 

[lawtonfogle]

My view is that everything other than sex, and whatever one's personal boundaries happen to be, is fine.

Why then everything but sex? Why can we have full emotional intimacy, but not full physical intimacy. And why is that one act, sex, not allowed? But all other things, such as cuddling naked (which isn't sex) allowed?

 

[lawtonfogle]

Talk about a good place for a Lemon Law to exist. Perhaps it should be called THE MARITAL FRAUD ACT. It never amazes me how the people with the most issues are the best at cloaking their hang-ups until they are married. I am sure she knew that she did not like to be touched BEFORE she was married. She should have successfully dealt with the hang-up before she even started dating. How unfair!

Not actually. She was unaware of this. While she knew she had an aversion to being touched, she had no idea it was this bad.

 

[OGM]

Not actually. She was unaware of this. While she knew she had an aversion to being touched, she had no idea it was this bad.

That is odd because if she had an aversion to being touched it would stand to reason that the aversion maybe more produced when a much higher degree of intimacy is involved.

 

[lawtonfogle]

That is odd because if she had an aversion to being touched it would stand to reason that the aversion maybe more produced when a much higher degree of intimacy is involved.

Not really. For example, I have a supreme aversion to 'swapping spit' with anyone. I cannot stand the idea of drinking after someone. If I have a soda and a family member takes a single swallow, it is their soda. If I leave it in the fridge and later think someone might have taken a swallow of it, I can't drink it. Someone drooling is like fingernails on a chalkboard to me.

This holds true unless it is with a female I am dating. I find the idea of kissing a loved one to be highly romantic and have no problem drinking after someone I'm dating.

While I am not as strongly averse to touching, I have the same issue as well. I can't stand anyone rubbing basically any part of their body on any part of my body. Now, I have had a few friends who are touchy enough they have helped me get over the worse part of this, but I am still averse to general body to body contact. Once again, the same exception holds.

I'm pretty sure the woman in question thought the same exception held as well, but in her case it didn't. This is also one reason I like the idea of intimacy outside of marriage, because without at least some of it, I wouldn't be sure if I actually would have an exception to my 'hang-ups' when my significant other was involved. Without that reassurance, marrying would be taking a gamble.

Edit: Just to be clear, I am currently single now. The two relationships I tried for in college really never materialized well, and I don't have enough time left to try for a third (I'm a slow mover).

 

[Miles]

Why then everything but sex? Why can we have full emotional intimacy, but not full physical intimacy. And why is that one act, sex, not allowed? But all other things, such as cuddling naked (which isn't sex) allowed?

If you have full emotional intimacy with a woman, then you should either marry her or do a better job of guarding your heart. Cuddling naked? For what it's worth, I sense legalism in that. Seeing how far one can push boundaries without violating the letter of the law, looking for loopholes etc. is legalistic. Instead, look for the spirit of the law. When one does that, it becomes clear that God has our best interests at heart, and pushing these boundaries becomes less appealing.

Fornication, as with other sinful behaviors, is "allowed". It's just asking for trouble if you're not married to the person that you're having sex with. As Paul explained to the Corinthians... Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Are you fully prepared to support a child if she gets pregnant? Are you ready to deal with potentially lifelong venereal diseases? Are you willing to accept responsibility for any potential emotional harm done to the woman you profess love or to yourself? Just a few things to think about.

 

[SullivanZ]

Here is a link which talks about saving one's self emotionally AND physically before marriage:

Bold Christian Living

Here is an interesting quote:

My father actually taught that it was a sin to "fall in love." He said that when you fall you don't know where you are going to land. The whole love-at-first-sight idea pre-supposes we are ruled by our emotions. Our emotions are fickle and can easily mislead us. Is it possible to "fall in love" with the wrong person? Absolutely! I know. I did it! Thankfully my parents would not bless a relationship they knew was not God's best for me.

In our culture we are taught to marry the one you love. Nowhere in scripture do we find this encouraged. Instead the scripture teaches us to love the one you marry. There is a vast difference between these two. Are we to be led by our emotions or by God's will?

They also have a little chart, outlining the differences between courtship, dating and betrothal for Christians. Might be worth a read:

Bold Christian Living

 

[Blank123]

eh... I do agree we're not ruled by our emotions. We can choose who we love, and we encourage and nurture love through our own dating/courtship rituals in this culture. But to say its a sin to fall in love... I think thats carrying it a bit too far. Scripture may not say anything about how our culture handles love or marriage, but neither does it call it a sin to fall in love.

 

[SullivanZ]

That was just a tiny excerpt. I recommend reading the entire article. They seem to be promoting "betrothal" over courtship or dating.

And the two links I posted are different, it just doesn't show up that way here.

 

[lawtonfogle]

If you have full emotional intimacy with a woman, then you should either marry her or do a better job of guarding your heart. Cuddling naked? For what it's worth, I sense legalism in that. Seeing how far one can push boundaries without violating the letter of the law, looking for loopholes etc. is legalistic. Instead, look for the spirit of the law. When one does that, it becomes clear that God has our best interests at heart, and pushing these boundaries becomes less appealing.

My response was aimed at one who said everything but sex is allowed. Following the spirit of the law leads one to understand that the social institution of marriage isn't even involved.

Fornication, as with other sinful behaviors, is "allowed". It's just asking for trouble if you're not married to the person that you're having sex with. As Paul explained to the Corinthians... Everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. Are you fully prepared to support a child if she gets pregnant? Are you ready to deal with potentially lifelong venereal diseases? Are you willing to accept responsibility for any potential emotional harm done to the woman you profess love or to yourself? Just a few things to think about.

Exactly, but none of those are decided by marriage itself. Someone could be able to handle all of these and still not be legally married.

 

[Fremdin]

Why then everything but sex? Why can we have full emotional intimacy, but not full physical intimacy. And why is that one act, sex, not allowed? But all other things, such as cuddling naked (which isn't sex) allowed?

I bet cuddling naked is a great idea. It's like being on a diet and going to a Russell Stover outlet and just breathing in really, really hard while the little chocolates from the assembly line slowly bury you. Uh oh, one fell on my mouth, I better turn my head. Oops, one fell IN my mouth. I better spit it out. Drat, this one went all the way down my throat and into my stomach, how did that happen? I didn't want to eat this chocolate, I just wanted to be close to it

 

[septemberskies]

Cuddling, kissing, and hugs are all ok with me

 

[SullivanZ]

For the people who believe in the concept of "biblical betrothal", which is an entirely cultural idea, I have to wonder how they will find - or rather how their parents will find - a suitable companion for them who agrees with their outdated notions of relationships and family. In order for this process to work, but families would have to see eye to eye on the whole thing.

 

[lawtonfogle]

I bet cuddling naked is a great idea. It's like being on a diet and going to a Russell Stover outlet and just breathing in really, really hard while the little chocolates from the assembly line slowly bury you. Uh oh, one fell on my mouth, I better turn my head. Oops, one fell IN my mouth. I better spit it out. Drat, this one went all the way down my throat and into my stomach, how did that happen? I didn't want to eat this chocolate, I just wanted to be close to it

Did you see what my comment was in response to?