C/mon guys Own up

[Johnnz]

Many posts have shared pain at sexual relationhips that are now regretted. Many are from females.

How much responsibility should us guys take for what happens sexually in a relationship?

John
NZ

 

[silentpoet]

It depends on the circumstances. But as much responsibility as we owe given whatever we have done. Men are usually initiators, so usually the man should take more of the blame for the actions he has done in a relationship.

 

[MagicStar723]

I feel that it is equally the guy and girl equally can say no to a temptation.

 

[ChristianWarrior]

Hmmm...my policy i that the guy is fully responsible. I know in a family, the man, as the head of the household, is also the one responsible to God for that households actions. And I can't help feeling its very similar in any relationship with the opposite sex. Especially since I look at it with the thought in mind that, this girl could one day be my potential wife. So I don't want to screw up with my wife, do I? So yeah. While technically it takes two to tango, the guy could have at any time stopped it...so at least in my relationship I'll take the blame for it...and I don't want the blame..so I don't think I'll do it

 

[KristianJ]

Both the guy and the girl can say "no" when it comes to situations like that as MagicStar said. My girlfriend has told me that she has promised to be pure until marriage, and I have done the same. I think any "blame" would be mutual if both parties consented to sexual intimacy before marriage, but if one was the initiator, I think he or she would have more to answer for...

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Well, you could be observing the females regretting their sins because Christian women may compromise their purity to non-Christian men more than Christian men to non-Christian women. (I am by no means saying that Christians don't compromise their purity together or that Christian women do it far more than men... but for this forum, it's quite possibly the case)

 

[Jakobray]

Hmmm...my policy i that the guy is fully responsible. I know in a family, the man, as the head of the household, is also the one responsible to God for that households actions. And I can't help feeling its very similar in any relationship with the opposite sex. Especially since I look at it with the thought in mind that, this girl could one day be my potential wife. So I don't want to screw up with my wife, do I? So yeah. While technically it takes two to tango, the guy could have at any time stopped it...so at least in my relationship I'll take the blame for it...and I don't want the blame..so I don't think I'll do it

I am very much torn by this. See I really agree with ChristianWarrior. Men are the head of the household and the men are responsible for the actions of their families. I could very easily see this translate into dating etc. We are the heads of the relationship and are supposed to be there to protect the purity of the women in our lives. While I do agree that both people have the opportunity to say "NO" and both people should, I really do believe that it is ultimately our responsibility as Men. to step up and protect the women whom we become close to.

I don't say this innocently either. If I go by what I write here then I could definitely be in trouble for the mistakes I have made in the past. All I can do I guess is to move on and make sure it never happens again.

Peace

 

[rwl]

The blame falls on both parties. It's a 50/50 split. Both could equally say no.

 

[hischildsindik]

As long as there was no coersion done, whether overt or underlying then both parties take equal responsibility. But I know as a woman, sometimes it can feel as if, if we don't give in and do what the men want, then they will split. That's probably way more common among non-Christians, but it could be present in Christian relationships. It depends on the level of commitment and respect that is shared and the love relationship with Christ.

 

[Living4Him03]

I think it should be an equal responsibility. I know there were times when I was typically the initiator, so I was a stumbling block for the guy, other times it was the other way around. You both have to commit to specific boundaries and work to keep those boundaries, it can't be one person blaming the other for being too sexy or trying to turn them on all the time lol.

 

[Living4Him03]

I am very much torn by this. See I really agree with ChristianWarrior. Men are the head of the household and the men are responsible for the actions of their families. I could very easily see this translate into dating etc. We are the heads of the relationship and are supposed to be there to protect the purity of the women in our lives. While I do agree that both people have the opportunity to say "NO" and both people should, I really do believe that it is ultimately our responsibility as Men. to step up and protect the women whom we become close to.

I don't say this innocently either. If I go by what I write here then I could definitely be in trouble for the mistakes I have made in the past. All I can do I guess is to move on and make sure it never happens again.

Peace

You are not the head of a dating relationship. You have no right to be since you have not made the committment of marriage to the girl. You can show that you have the ability to lead a family, but you aren't the leader yet if you are only in a dating relationship. Committment and the trust and support that goes with marriage are necessary. God did not intend dating relationships to be the same as marriage.

 

[Pope Gonzo]

I'm not sure if God intended for dating relationships to exist at all, but they do. I think it's important to excercise how we would act in a Godly marriage in our dating relationships.

 

[Living4Him03]

Pope, but in what ways? I don't think a woman should submit to her boyfriend. God intended for the submission/headship/becoming one flesh thing for marriage only. Anything outside of that lacks the committment and trust (no matter what anyone says about how committed they are) necessary for such a relationship, thus the reason that type of relationship is intended for marriage.

 

[Jakobray]

You are not the head of a dating relationship. You have no right to be since you have not made the committment of marriage to the girl. You can show that you have the ability to lead a family, but you aren't the leader yet if you are only in a dating relationship. Committment and the trust and support that goes with marriage are necessary. God did not intend dating relationships to be the same as marriage.

God didn't intend dating relationships at all. Try to find in the Bible anywhere where it talks about dating. See the thing is that God sets guys up to lead. Look anywhere in the bible and you will find this. It is our Job to take a leadership role in a "dating" relationship. It is our Job to try to lead spiritually. It is our Job to set ourselves to a higher standard physically, emotionally and spiritually. Where I think that you disagree with me is the meaning behind "head" of a dating relationship. By no means does it mean that we are the boss. More it means that we are held to the higher standard and we should try to help make sure that the girl doesn't fall, because in small ways it is our responsibility. Look at it this way, could you date a person whom you didn't look up to at all? At their actions and the way they handle themselves? Just curious.

 

[Living4Him03]

But in a relationship that is not marriage, how can a woman submit to your leadership when the committment and trust that are needed are absent because you have not married her? If you're dating the simple fact is that she is just some girl, not your wife. I believe there is a big difference and I won't waiver on this belief. That doesn't mean a man can't display or practice Godly SERVANT leadership qualities in a dating relationship or that a woman can't do the same with regard to submission. I still have a big problem with Christians looking at the relationship between husband and wife as headship and submission only, ignorning the part about becoming one flesh. There are also varying views of what submission is...I was raised to believe that submission was synonymous with obeying your husband and doing what he told you and if he abused you oh well, God would take care of him. Well, I no longer believe that. But, if you aren't married yet, and you are not close to that point and are just dating, then how can you know how to be the leader you should be? The men that stand out to me are the ones who are self-sacrificing for the good of others, care for others and the community, put God first, and are constantly servants of others instead of treating leadership as a "business" role. It seems many men I know think of leadership in the way society thinks of it...even if they say they know they aren't the boss, I believe it is very easy for men to abuse such a role. Headship is intended for marriage.

 

[Jakobray]

The men that stand out to me are the ones who are self-sacrificing for the good of others, care for others and the community, put God first, and are constantly servants of others instead of treating leadership as a "business" role. It seems many men I know think of leadership in the way society thinks of it...even if they say they know they aren't the boss, I believe it is very easy for men to abuse such a role. Headship is intended for marriage.

You see but that is the very thing that I am talking about. I am not by any means saying that a guy should be the leader in a dating relationship by being the boss. Im saying that he should be a leader in a dating relationship by being a SERVANT, just like you said. A guy should be the leader in a dating relationship not in the fact that the woman submits and he leads. More by the fact that he can set an example to the woman of how a guy really should be and set an example that she can really trust and look to. A good man once asked me a quesiton, "Jake," he asked, "Do you got your towel ready? And on that note is your towel dirty?" If I'm not always ready to serve then how can I lead? And on the note of Headship and Submission I agree 100% about the fact that the 2 become 1 flesh. If all marriage is going to be is me being the leader and my wife being totally subservient to me, then I dont want to get married. I want a wife who has opinions, isn't afraid to say them to me and can help me grow spiritually. She has to help me as much as I help her. I dunno I might have started rambling

Peace

 

[Pope Gonzo]

Pope, but in what ways? I don't think a woman should submit to her boyfriend. God intended for the submission/headship/becoming one flesh thing for marriage only. Anything outside of that lacks the committment and trust (no matter what anyone says about how committed they are) necessary for such a relationship, thus the reason that type of relationship is intended for marriage.

I'm not sure if you've seen it, but there's an excellent thread on this in the marriage ministries forum

Here's my position on the submission issue in a Godly marriage. When God is the center of the marriage, the husband and wife are to reflect Christ and the Church. Since they're both human, they're both going to make mistakes and be wrong, so compromise is necessary. However, there are going to be situations once in a very great while where the two just cannot find common ground(some deny this as a possibility, but it will happen). In those situations, it's the wife's duty to submit to the husband's authority and follow his decision. They'll have to find out the hard way who was right and learn from the decision together.

In the same way, but on a much smaller scale, boyfriends and girlfriends need to demonstrate that compromise and common ground. In the case of going too far physically, I'd say that they both need to understand that they both fell prey to their own weaknesses.

But, that's not entirely what Johnnz was asking in his post. He said that most posts about sexual sin here are from females, and I stand by my original answer: girls who date non-Christian boys are more likely compromise their purity than boys who marry non-Christian girls.