Benefit of Waiting till Marriage to Have Sex

[LinkH]

I saw a Mark Gungor video, where he said that people who wait until they are married to have sex have a fraction of the divorce rate as the rest of the world.

I would love to know where he gets this information. I wonder if it comes from correlations between surveys of when people first had sex and divorce rates in certain countries, or if they asked individuals in high-divorce-rate countries like the US or European countries when they first had sex and found that in those societies, divorce was lower among those who waited.

Either way, that's an interesting piece of information, and something else to tell the kids when they get to be teens or old enough to understand some of these issues.

 

[Kol]

There are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

 

[Kol]

Theologically, it was NEVER a sin for an unmarried man and woman to have intercourse (the only penalty was that the man pay if the girl was a virgin); the "avoid sexual impurity" verses in the NT all refer to the practice of temple prostitution. Inb4, "nuh-uh."

Women and Sexual Sins

Above article does an excellent job. If pre-marital sex was a sin, it was an unforgivable one, since no sacrifice/payment was ever given for it.

As far as whether abstinence is a good idea, it's a horrible idea. It creates a socially, sexually awkward person who has no clear expectation of what kind of relationship should be expected. The concept leads to marrying for the purpose of sex - a horrible basis for a relationship - and on placing a hightened value on intercourse as opposed to friendship, companionship, or love.

People who deny themselves sexual intimacy until marriage may be self-controlled, or they may be deeply sexually repressed. I think most times it is the latter.

Abstinence has nothing to do with Christian theology, moral soundness, or utilitarian benefit. It is a leftover from Victorian principles. That's it.

 

[dallasapple]

Whenever i've researched to find out if there is a correlation between pre-marital SEX adn divorce..it wasnt pre-marital sex per say that pointed to putting you at STATICALLY higher risk..Oddly it was living together before marriage..

The big ones ..the ones that are pretty clear that put you in a catergory at highest risk for divorce though are marrying before the age of 25..and those who have a lower level of education .So IOW the highest risk for divorce to my understanding doesnt have much to do with sex..its age upon marriage and education .

Thats why I cringe when peopel suggest that we should encourage young teeangers to marry..and ESPECIALLY as KOL mentions above for the PURPOSE of nto havign to wait to have sex ..and its been insinuated its becasue the MALE has a super high drive during those years..No mention of the female right?So IOW so the male can unleash his raging sex drive with a young female who is not so hot to trot IOW isnt even desiring that much sex..

Yeah..that will do it..that will stop divorce..NOT! More like a recipe for disatster..

Dallas

 

[Kol]

Thats why I cringe when peopel suggest that we should encourage young teeangers to marry..and ESPECIALLY as KOL mentions above for the PURPOSE of nto havign to wait to have sex ..and its been insinuated its becasue the MALE has a super high drive during those years..No mention of the female right?So IOW so the male can unleash his raging sex drive with a young female who is not so hot to trot IOW isnt even desiring that much sex..

Do you mean arranged marriages? I've never heard of anyone suggesting teenagers marry.

IDK about the validity of the male super high sex drive. There are countless media devoted to females demonstrating the same.

Interesting topic, OP.

Edit: Let me hasten to add, even if you believe Scripture calls for abstinence before marriage, you might do well to avoid thinking that will make doing so easy, helpful, or better in a worldly way. Doing what is right is sometime very hard, no?

 

[dallasapple]

Do you mean arranged marriages? I've never heard of anyone suggesting teenagers marry.

IDK about the validity of the male super high sex drive. There are countless media devoted to females demonstrating the same.

Interesting topic, OP.

Its the stereo type again ..that males have raging hormones like nearly uncontollble beast and females not so much ..Either way the idea that if that were the case or the "norm' that young teeangers shodul be encouraged to marry so the GUY doesnt have to suffer..with what is suggested a female who isnt QUITE AS raring to go is sad..Sounds liek bondage to her from my standpoint..being trapped at an early age int marraige so the male can get out his high needs on her..

And no it wasnt neccesarrily arranged marriage that was being disucussed..it was regular kids who meet and "fal in love"..to the extent even it was suggested that the parents should HOUSE these young couples while they finished school and such ..IOW while they FINISHED growign up and workign towards independence and ability to support themselves...in the meantime they shouldnt be expected to hold back on thier natural urges..IOW just becasue they werent able to provide for themselves..house themselves ..doesnt mean they werent 'ready for marriage" and the "readiness" factor was all based on thier sexual urges..and eagerness to get that started..

Its been discussed here ..as a solution to kids havign "pre-marital sex" ...or having to "suffer' sexual frustration well into their 20's..And the fact that males "reach their peak" during those years was ONE of the main reasons this was being suggested is what I was appalled by..IOW it wasnt that males AND females even are in their peak sexual years..it was that the MALE is..

Dallas

 

[Kol]

I'm not sure how much of a male/female issue this is, rather a question of maturity in general.

The "sexual peak" idea is fabrication, btw. There is no such thing:

The Sexual Peak Myth - The Spearhead

There are also good topics I found at Men's Health (since I go there) and Web MD.

You should be appalled, though not surprised. Your "someone" didn't know what they were talking about.

I believe what you describe in your second paragraph is a cultural norm in a lot of different places, or so I've heard.

 

[peckaboo]

Theologically, it was NEVER a sin for an unmarried man and woman to have intercourse (the only penalty was that the man pay if the girl was a virgin); the "avoid sexual impurity" verses in the NT all refer to the practice of temple prostitution. Inb4, "nuh-uh."
...
Abstinence has nothing to do with Christian theology, moral soundness, or utilitarian benefit. It is a leftover from Victorian principles. That's it.

If this is true (and I have to confess I didn't read the article you linked to as I'm technically supposed to be working... so maybe my question was answered in there) then why was it so shameful for Joseph when Mary was found to be pregnant? Surely if it was totally cool for people to be sleeping around until Victorian times, it wouldn't have been a big deal for her to have gotten pregnant before marriage?

Also, if, when a man slept with a virgin he had to pay her for the act, surely that does constitute prostitution. It doesn't seem to make sense for temple prostitution to be wrong, but normal prostitution to be fine...?

Whenever i've researched to find out if there is a correlation between pre-marital SEX adn divorce..it wasnt pre-marital sex per say that pointed to putting you at STATICALLY higher risk..Oddly it was living together before marriage..

Yes, I've heard this statistic too, about living together before marriage. Though I can't remember where any more. Sorry, that's kind of a pointless anecdote I guess, if I've no references to back it up with!

 

[Kol]

If this is true (and I have to confess I didn't read the article you linked to as I'm technically supposed to be working... so maybe my question was answered in there) then why was it so shameful for Joseph when Mary was found to be pregnant? Surely if it was totally cool for people to be sleeping around until Victorian times, it wouldn't have been a big deal for her to have gotten pregnant before marriage?

Also, if, when a man slept with a virgin he had to pay her for the act, surely that does constitute prostitution. It doesn't seem to make sense for temple prostitution to be wrong, but normal prostitution to be fine...?

Joseph and Mary were Jews, so I would suggest their shame was due to their culture. Not "totally cool."

If I'm not mistaken, the man would actually be paying the father of the bride, since such a man would be losing out on a vast sum of wealth in marrying off his daughter.

I'm sure any prostitution would be prohibited. Also, if I may clarify, I'm not at all that suggesting wild, carefree sex should be the norm. But it's definitely not listed anywhere as a sin.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

I saw a Mark Gungor video, where he said that people who wait until they are married to have sex have a fraction of the divorce rate as the rest of the world.

I would love to know where he gets this information. I wonder if it comes from correlations between surveys of when people first had sex and divorce rates in certain countries, or if they asked individuals in high-divorce-rate countries like the US or European countries when they first had sex and found that in those societies, divorce was lower among those who waited.

Either way, that's an interesting piece of information, and something else to tell the kids when they get to be teens or old enough to understand some of these issues.

There's a ton of literature on this. I would do some Google searches on premarital sex / divorce or something like that. You will find all the studies.

 

[peckaboo]

Joseph and Mary were Jews, so I would suggest their shame was due to their culture. Not "totally cool."

Sorry, I shouldn't have used such flippant language - I was just using Mary and Joseph as an example to dispute your point that the concept of pre-marital sex as a sin came about during Victorian times. Joseph and Potiphar's wife would be another example (though I guess that was extra-marital sex more than pre-marital.)

If I'm not mistaken, the man would actually be paying the father of the bride, since such a man would be losing out on a vast sum of wealth in marrying off his daughter.

But even so, (if I'm understanding you correctly that the man was paying the father a dowry, and marrying the girl he'd slept with) the implication of such a ruling is that sex should take place within marriage. That it's not ok to sleep with someone casually, and that if you do sleep with someone you're not married to, you'd better be prepared to make it right by marrying them and providing the *correct* context for marriage.

Sorry Link, this wasn't the question you were originally asking. Will try and get back on track...

 

[WolfGate]

Theologically, it was NEVER a sin for an unmarried man and woman to have intercourse (the only penalty was that the man pay if the girl was a virgin); the "avoid sexual impurity" verses in the NT all refer to the practice of temple prostitution. Inb4, "nuh-uh."

Women and Sexual Sins

Above article does an excellent job. If pre-marital sex was a sin, it was an unforgivable one, since no sacrifice/payment was ever given for it.

As far as whether abstinence is a good idea, it's a horrible idea. It creates a socially, sexually awkward person who has no clear expectation of what kind of relationship should be expected. The concept leads to marrying for the purpose of sex - a horrible basis for a relationship - and on placing a hightened value on intercourse as opposed to friendship, companionship, or love.

People who deny themselves sexual intimacy until marriage may be self-controlled, or they may be deeply sexually repressed. I think most times it is the latter.

Abstinence has nothing to do with Christian theology, moral soundness, or utilitarian benefit. It is a leftover from Victorian principles. That's it.

7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ...8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.


I cannot reconcile your post or that tens of thousands of words circular link with Paul's teaching. If premarital sex is acceptable, then how would an unmarried man ever burn with passion in a way that marriage would be prescribed to fix? The unmarried could just have sex and the above verses would be meaningless.

 

[Lilymay]

It would be nice to know how he arrived at his conclusion.. what kind of study he did on this.. or if it is just conjecture on his part.

Just from my personal experience... I am in the process of getting a divorce.. and was not a virgin when I got married... so on the surface his conclusion does seem plausible.

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Theologically, it was NEVER a sin for an unmarried man and woman to have intercourse (the only penalty was that the man pay if the girl was a virgin); the "avoid sexual impurity" verses in the NT all refer to the practice of temple prostitution. Inb4, "nuh-uh."

Women and Sexual Sins

Above article does an excellent job. If pre-marital sex was a sin, it was an unforgivable one, since no sacrifice/payment was ever given for it.

As far as whether abstinence is a good idea, it's a horrible idea. It creates a socially, sexually awkward person who has no clear expectation of what kind of relationship should be expected. The concept leads to marrying for the purpose of sex - a horrible basis for a relationship - and on placing a hightened value on intercourse as opposed to friendship, companionship, or love.

People who deny themselves sexual intimacy until marriage may be self-controlled, or they may be deeply sexually repressed. I think most times it is the latter.

Abstinence has nothing to do with Christian theology, moral soundness, or utilitarian benefit. It is a leftover from Victorian principles. That's it.

Wow you really read some really bad theology. The New Testament is crystal clear that sex outside of marriage is not permitted for a Christian.

 

[ImaginaryDay]

I'm sure any prostitution would be prohibited. Also, if I may clarify, I'm not at all that suggesting wild, carefree sex should be the norm. But it's definitely not listed anywhere as a sin.

Oh??
"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21, ESV).

 

[Jim the Puritan]

Oh??
"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21, ESV).

Absolutely on the money, see also this, some of many other verses in Scripture:

"Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men, nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (I Cor 6:9-10)

"Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body." (I Cor. 6:18)

"Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral." (Hebrews 13:4)

"We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me." (I Timothy 1:9-10)

 

[JaneFW]

Joseph and Potiphar's wife would be another example (though I guess that was extra-marital sex more than pre-marital.)

Joseph and Potiphar's wife did not have sex. He fled the temptation.

 

[BigDaddy4]

Joseph and Potiphar's wife did not have sex. He fled the temptation.

Which is why he went to jail...

 

[JaneFW]

Which is why he went to jail...

Exactly!

But it's not pre- or extra-marital sex when you don't have any .. sex.

 

[Kol]

But even so, (if I'm understanding you correctly that the man was paying the father a dowry, and marrying the girl he'd slept with) the implication of such a ruling is that sex should take place within marriage. That it's not ok to sleep with someone casually, and that if you do sleep with someone you're not married to, you'd better be prepared to make it right by marrying them and providing the *correct* context for marriage.

Yes, but whether that "should" you mention is based on cultural or moral ground isn't clear. Sex outside of marriage is a bad idea (this is clear), but whether that "badness" is because it's sinful or just not helpful to society isn't mentioned. To me, this is clarified by the fact that the act isn't listed as a sin (thus implying there were social ramifications, but not spiritual ones.)

7 Now for the matters you wrote about: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But since sexual immorality is occurring, each man should have sexual relations with his own wife, and each woman with her own husband. ...8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

This was the verse I heard as a kid. Paul is clearly advocating celibacy. And it's also plainly implied the answer to sexual desire is marriage (also plain from Genesis, no?) But again, I don't see where "sexual immorality" is pre-marriage sex. Instead, isn't it temple prostitution, beastiality, homosexuality, etc? So yeah, each man should have relations with his own wife. The fact that he emphasizes the word "own" implies what people were doing instead. And yes, marriage is the ideal. But the fact that Paul is talking about prostitution (temple prostitution) is shown in the preceeding chapter.

I cannot reconcile your post or that tens of thousands of words circular link with Paul's teaching. If premarital sex is acceptable, then how would an unmarried man ever burn with passion in a way that marriage would be prescribed to fix? The unmarried could just have sex and the above verses would be meaningless.

I understand. But those circular links all work like a math equation. If you start with the idea that "sexual immorality" meant pre-marriage sex, all your answers will be wrong.

Oh??

"Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God" (Gal. 5:19-21, ESV).

No contest to that. I understand that some very liberal people are using this same argument (as I have) to justify anything and everything sexual, but you're 100% right with your verse. Those things are clearly wrong.

Sexual immorality refers to temple prostitution.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7498838-7/

This helpful person pretty much spells out what I was trying to say as well:

Sex with someone other than your spouse is o.k with God as long as it is "o.k." with all parties involved. If permission is given there is no breaking of the marriage covenant and therefore no adultery (theft of anothers. There are many OT examples of sex outside of the bonds of marriage and in most of those cases no condemnation of the act...no atonement required.

I won't debate that it's incredibly sexist, culturally reprehensible, etc. But that's the theology of the OT. The wrong you committed was only to the lost worth of the virgin. It is true though, that a loss of virginity was a shame (at least to a certain degree)...or so I think. I can't remember the verses right now.