Modesty

[vanshan]

That was at least an ideal in the past, but, as with many things in the fallen world, arranged marriages could be done for the wrong reasons also, such as the wealth of the potential partner. The best advice today would to seek and humbly receive your parents advice on who you will marry, realizing that they will hopefully look at the more practical things we can forget about when we are "in love."

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

You know what is so sad? Even our Christian brethren have been duped into believing one must dress immodestly to be considered attractive. It is sad to see fourteen year old girls in church wearing skirts no bigger than a napkin, flip flops, and spaghetti strap tank tops. The blame partially rests upon the parents or guardians, but also the media for pushing that message and churches who tolerate and accept it as "young people expressing themselves through fashion".

People assume that if you're a woman dressed modestly you're a boring prude. Quite the opposite is true. My clothing is an outward representation of my faith, not necessarily my personality even though my personality is greatly moulded by my faith.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Modest dressing is far from sexist-quite the opposite actually. Dressing in a provocative manner objectifies women as sex objects. How is that empowering to women?

No, it doesn't. If you feel it would objectify you to dress that way, then great - don't dress that way. But don't attempt to put your own insecurities onto the rest of the world's women. Most women know that they can dress in what you call a 'provocative' manner without it objectifying her in the least.

Amen! Feminine mystique can be the most alluring aspect of a woman. The world says if you dress a certain way it makes you more alluring; however, what decent man wants a wife or girlfriend that every other man ogles in public because she's dressed like trash?

Lots of decent men want a wife or girlfriend who does not mind dressing in what you call a 'provocative manner', because lots of decent men realise it's not in the least 'dressing like trash'. In fact, that's quite a ridiculous comment. You call women who dress in a way you don't like 'trash' - how about if they called you nasty names because of the way you dress?

Or how about this, instead - you dress the way you like, let them dress the way they like, and neither of you makes any stupid judgements about the other?

You know what is so sad? Even our Christian brethren have been duped into believing one must dress immodestly to be considered attractive. It is sad to see fourteen year old girls in church wearing skirts no bigger than a napkin, flip flops, and spaghetti strap tank tops.

I don't find it sad at all. Children - particularly adolescents - have always wanted to look 'grown up'. And, whether you like it or not, flip flops, spaghetti strap tank tops and so forth are clothes commonly worn by adults, most of whom do not have your hang ups.

People assume that if you're a woman dressed modestly you're a boring prude. Quite the opposite is true. My clothing is an outward representation of my faith, not necessarily my personality even though my personality is greatly moulded by my faith.

I disagree. I think you have demonstrated in this post quite successfully what a woman dressed 'modestly' is like.

 

[Mustaphile]

You know what is so sad? Even our Christian brethren have been duped into believing one must dress immodestly to be considered attractive. It is sad to see fourteen year old girls in church wearing skirts no bigger than a napkin, flip flops, and spaghetti strap tank tops. The blame partially rests upon the parents or guardians, but also the media for pushing that message and churches who tolerate and accept it as "young people expressing themselves through fashion".

People assume that if you're a woman dressed modestly you're a boring prude. Quite the opposite is true. My clothing is an outward representation of my faith, not necessarily my personality even though my personality is greatly moulded by my faith.

fluffy_rainbow, I'm going to agree with you completely. Your just ahead of the thinking of some people who still have their heads in a place of immaturity. Sorry to be so blunt to those who don't agree with fluffy_rainbow, but its true. There is an alluring quality to a woman of high morale bearing, that is like an aphrodisiac to my soul. At this latter stage of my life, I have come to know it like no other time. In my rush to be involved with the 'bad girls' in my youth, I was blinded to the true beauty of the 'good girl'. I'm awake to my error in thinking now, and I have found a real women of virtue in my life.

This has been a process of maturing to come to this stage though and is hardly appreciated by the young, I am sure. If you want to get a lot of sex when your young, then sure, act like the 'bad girl' or the 'bad boy'. If you want to have a really meaningful love and a more lasting love in a relationship, in which two people bring an attitude of high morality to a relationship, something that the immoral amongst us might not comprehend the beauty of, then the woman of modesty and high morale fortitude is more precious than gold. She will inspire a man's desire with greater power than any amount of flesh revealing outfits and sexually provocative behaviour can ever do. People are going to jump all over me, I'm sure, but it needs to be said. A women of innocence is like an aphrodisiac to the soul men, not the flesh of men, that can inspire great adoration in them. A women of the flesh inspires lust of the most base kind, which can be interpreted as love, and vice versa for men. It's the difference between lust and love in a relationship, you get what you put out. Love needs to come first in a good relationship and lust is something reserved for a more private thing between man and woman, in marriage one would hope, when it's more appropriate for the lust to be expressed with more abandon and behind closed doors.

/me ducks for cover.

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

No, it doesn't. If you feel it would objectify you to dress that way, then great - don't dress that way. But don't attempt to put your own insecurities onto the rest of the world's women. Most women know that they can dress in what you call a 'provocative' manner without it objectifying her in the least.

Any time a woman dresses in a manner that shows off her breasts, rear end, thighs, and stomach she is only dressing that way for one reason - to get attention. A woman can be exceedingly attractive and not show off parts of her body that are sexually enticing.

Lots of decent men want a wife or girlfriend who does not mind dressing in what you call a 'provocative manner', because lots of decent men realise it's not in the least 'dressing like trash'. In fact, that's quite a ridiculous comment. You call women who dress in a way you don't like 'trash' - how about if they called you nasty names because of the way you dress?

Self-respecting women do not have to show off their bodies to incite lust in other men, and a man wanting a woman who respects herself and her husband will not want to be with a woman who dresses to attract attention to her assets that her husband is to enjoy behind closed doors. And believe me, I get ragged on alot by non-believers for dressing the way I do.

Or how about this, instead - you dress the way you like, let them dress the way they like, and neither of you makes any stupid judgements about the other?

This thread is about modesty. I don't go around pushing my opinions on others, but since this is a debate forum and the topic is modesty, I'm offering up my opinions.

I don't find it sad at all. Children - particularly adolescents - have always wanted to look 'grown up'. And, whether you like it or not, flip flops, spaghetti strap tank tops and so forth are clothes commonly worn by adults, most of whom do not have your hang ups.

Then we should lead by example.

I disagree. I think you have demonstrated in this post quite successfully what a woman dressed 'modestly' is like.

Care to elaborate? Are you insinuating that my opinion expressed in a debate thread somehow proves that I'm a boring prude? I agree with Mustaphile, the world just doesn't understand.

 

[SallyNow]

Any time a woman dresses in a manner that shows off her breasts, rear end, thighs, and stomach she is only dressing that way for one reason - to get attention. A woman can be exceedingly attractive and not show off parts of her body that are sexually enticing.

To a point...that can be true. But only a limited point. Many people, quite simply, wear clothes are comfortable in the summer. Shorts and a t-shirt and comfortable and appropriate for summer casual wear. It is not about showing off a body; it is about avoiding heatstroke.

It is sad to see fourteen year old girls in church wearing skirts no bigger than a napkin, flip flops, and spaghetti strap tank tops.

But of course, flip-flops are appropriate on the beach or at a pool, or on a hot say in many casual stores.

women of the flesh inspires lust of the most base kind, which can be interpreted as love, and vice versa for men. It's the difference between lust and love in a relationship, you get what you put out.

The same can go the other way. It is just as immodest for a guy to be a rebel and wear clothes inappropriate to the situation.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

Any time a woman dresses in a manner that shows off her breasts, rear end, thighs, and stomach she is only dressing that way for one reason - to get attention. A woman can be exceedingly attractive and not show off parts of her body that are sexually enticing.

It amuses me that you believe you can speak for every woman in the world, and decide the motivation for her wearing revealing clothes. Of course, what you say is complete nonsense. You have no basis whatsoever to decide why people wear certain clothes. Of course, if people made unflattering generalisations about women who dress conservatively (like, for example, declaring that they are all boring prudes) you would be - justifiably - dismissive of such an arrogant assertion. Yet you are quite happy to make similar assertions yourself.

Self-respecting women do not have to show off their bodies to incite lust in other men, and a man wanting a woman who respects herself and her husband will not want to be with a woman who dresses to attract attention to her assets that her husband is to enjoy behind closed doors. And believe me, I get ragged on alot by non-believers for dressing the way I do.

Self-respecting women do not have to dress in any particular way; they dress in a way that makes them feel comfortable. Once again, you make the invalid and arrogant assumption that those wearing more revealing clothes do so to incite lust in men; this assumption is completely unwarranted.

Another invalid assumption - that women who respect themself do not dress in the way that you think is immodest. Once again, you have absolutely no basis to make such a declaration.

Women dress in a more revealing way than you like for any number of reasons - comfort, fashion, to make a statement, and, doubtless, in some cases to attract male attention. But for you to announce without basis that all of them are doing so to 'incite lust' and that they have no self-respect is baseless and arrogant.

This thread is about modesty. I don't go around pushing my opinions on others, but since this is a debate forum and the topic is modesty, I'm offering up my opinions.

No, you just want to declare all women who don't agree with you tramps without self-respect.

Then we should lead by example.

And we do - inevitably. That the example we set is one you don't like is your tough luck.

Care to elaborate? Are you insinuating that my opinion expressed in a debate thread somehow proves that I'm a boring prude? I agree with Mustaphile, the world just doesn't understand.

I would love to elaborate, but I have a feeling that to tell you what the opinion expressed in this debate thread reveals about you would run afoul of the forum's rules about flaming and insults.

And yes, most of the world (mercifully) doesn't understand such sexual neuroses. Fortunately, western society is gradually leaving such primitive concerns behind.

 

[sculpturegirl]

I liken the analogy to a race. You don't run a race without training first, do you? I notice you are theatrically inclined. Do you put on a play without a dress rehearsal?

Marriage is arguably the single most important relationship we will have (if we choose to pursue it) because it is the most permanent. I wouldn't want to go into any element of marriage blind. All you're doing is increasing the risk of things not working out.

I have heard this arguement before and it just doesn't hold water in the real world. We "train" for marriage by having good examples before us, cultivating deep friendships, nuturing godly relationships, not by practicing our skills in the bedroom. The act of having an almost-marriage-like relationship and then breaking up is more like training for divorce, which if you take a look around is exactly what is happening.

 

[justaman]

When it's the after party and the crew is doing the parody of the play...ie, the crew show...usually there is no dress rehearsal

Ahah, but is this the important performance? You see my analogy is holding true here...

I don't believe you have to go in blind. I think, however, that waiting until you are in a commited relationship is a good idea.

I think for many people even this is a good idea, but this is not the same thing as waiting for marriage. There's still time to get out of a 'commited relationship'.

I've had too many friends broken-hearted over one-nighters

How on earth can one be 'broken hearted' over a one-nighter?? If you are falling in love with someone in one night there is something wrong with you.

and there are too many abortions, diseases, etc, for me to think lots of one-nighters is a good idea.

Oh nonsense. Be safe and you never have to worry about it.

At the very least, commited relationships give the time to really enjoy...um...certian activities, to learn, to experiment.

Again, you can have relationships without marrying the person, you know.

Real vs. fake emotion...I think you misunderstood me. There are real, deep emotions, and then there are cheap thrill emotions. A roller coaster is lots of fun and a cheap thrill. A rewarding, wonderful job is a long-lasting, fufilling thrill.

Are you telling me that you would prefer to go through life never having ridden a roller-coaster before? How sad.

The odd thing is...people who take the time to learn about each other, who take time to be together, and listen, and exchange ideas, whether they have sex before their engagement or wedding night or or not, have strong marriages.

Of course. But let's consider two virgins getting married. How comfortable do you think they'll be talking about this stuff? Not very, I'd suggest.

I don't think we are that far off in our opinions. However, I do think abstinence until marriage can be a good idea sometimes.

This is a sentiment I can agree with this. For some people, it can be a good idea sometimes yes. Mostly, I think it is a very risky thing. Sexual relationships involve some - as you rightly point out - very deep emotions. It is the biggest, longest, most complex play you ever have to participate in. You can say "I just want to go in cold because I value my ad lib abilities", but you are setting yourself up for a potentially very turbulent time. Much better to experience, learn, experiment and find out what you want before you commit to something without any idea.

Again, I think it is about thinking things through, balancing the risks and benifits...and waiting until the benifits outweigh the risks. That doesn't happen until there is commitment. And I'm being very freaking liberal when I say that there may be times where this isn't true.

It's attitude dependant. If you go through life thinking sex is some magical thing between two people who love each other, this is a good sentiment. If you go through life thinking sex is a physical act which can be at once a magical thing between two people who love each other and a medium for learning more about yourself and just really really fun and exciting, I think you'll be a lot happier in the long run

 

[sculpturegirl]

I disagree. I think you have demonstrated in this post quite successfully what a woman dressed 'modestly' is like.

LOL You don't know some of us very well at all. *wacky **wacky* *wacky*

My fiance would testify to the fact that I am in no way, shape or form, repressed, opressed, prudish or uptight! I am certainly intense, though, and he likes that!

 

[sculpturegirl]

How on earth can one be 'broken hearted' over a one-nighter?? If you are falling in love with someone in one night there is something wrong with you.

Women have a hard time separating sex and emotions and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Of course. But let's consider two virgins getting married. How comfortable do you think they'll be talking about this stuff? Not very, I'd suggest.

I have lots of friends who were both virgins at their wedding and they have gone on to have very exciting, very fullfilling sex lives. Just because someone is a virgin, doesn't mean that he/she is scared of sex, repressed, frigid, or any such thing. I, for one, think that it is sacred and beautiful and want to experience it fully... WITH MY HUSBAND.

By the way, Shalit, addresses these concerns as well.

 

[SallyNow]

Are you telling me that you would prefer to go through life never having ridden a roller-coaster before? How sad.

I love roller coasters! Or are you talking about something else?
There is time for cheap thrills. But there are roller coasters, with straps and seatbelts and safety checks, and then there are motorcycles without helmets and without any leather or denim.

Of course. But let's consider two virgins getting married. How comfortable do you think they'll be talking about this stuff? Not very, I'd suggest.

You obviously don't know what virgins talk about...

Oh nonsense. Be safe and you never have to worry about it.

Um, yah, that's why so many of friends have had abortions and STD's...

Ahah, but is this the important performance? You see my analogy is holding true here...

Emotionally, it is the release, and many times what is remembered long after the original script is forgotten.

How on earth can one be 'broken hearted' over a one-nighter?? If you are falling in love with someone in one night there is something wrong with you.

That's just it...sex and emotions is messed up, period. It's confusing, and while some can easily seperate the two, that's not the way it is for most people.

 

[justaman]

How is abstinence a bad thing?? I can't think of a single occasion in which it would be a bad thing, provided someone was making the choice to stay abstinent and were not being strapped into a chastity belt while kicking and screaming or something. Let's see - no threat of disease, no possibility of unwanted pregnancy, no chance of being used for sex, no emotional turmoil following sex you weren't ready for, no losing the trust and respect of your parents, no violating your own morals, no risking your body, no substituting sex for love, no permanant harm, unlike having sex when you aren't prepared. Obviously, I don't think lifelong vows of chastity are practical or wise for 99.9% of the people in the world, but I don't see anything wrong with abstinence, especially for uncommitted people.

Oh well allow me to retort

a) Abstinence provides a sexual motivation to get married. Ie, people want to have sex. The only way an abstinent person can do this is to get married. Do you think that's a good reasont to be getting married?

b) As in my antecedent to sallynow, you are entering the most important and emotional relationship of your life without any prior experience. Knowledge is never ever a bad thing.

c) Abstience can increase the incidents of unwanted pregnancy. Why? Because most abstinent teens aren't on the pill. So when humans act like humans and make a mistake, they do not protect themselves. Many Christian programs advocating abstinence also advocate the prohibition of contraceptives, specifically condoms. (This is especially true of African nations.) I'll let you do the math from there.

d) Thinking sex is some penultimate exchange of emotion and passions is childish. I'm sorry, but it is. Sex is a very explicable physical act with a number of different chemicals involved, dopamine and endorphins most specifically I think. Thinking it is somehow beyond this is childish. Abstinent people are going into marriage with a childish view of sex. Baaaad.

Some of your objections

Disease: Well let's never go to the snow because we might catch a cold. In fact never drive because you might die.

Unwanted pregnancy: It's called the pill *ding*. Combine that with a condom and you're laughing.

Used for sex: What does that even mean??

Emotional turmoil: Yes, better to experience that in your marriage rather than with some expendable person Emotional turmoil is good. You're learning. Experience is a good thing.

Trust of your parents: What the? If your parents won't talk to you because you had sex, I'd suggest there is something wrong with your parents. And with how you view their role in your life.

Risking your body: You should never ever take risks. What you want is to get the grave with the least possible amount of embarrassment.



Substitute sex for love: There's no 'substitute'. You can be in love and have sex and not marry someone. I've done that a few times, in fact. You can also have sex without love. There's nothing wrong with this either. It's all experience.

Violating morals: If you are violating morals by having sex, I'd suggest your morals need re-evaluating.

Permanent harm: Yes, because if you have sex before marriage an arm might fall off. Honestly, this is silly.

The marriage won't work out because you haven't slept around? Or because you haven't slept with your husband/wife before the ceremony? I don't buy that for a second.

Ok. I guess all marriages must work out then

For one, there is a lot more to a marriage then sex, and a lot more important factors I might add. Personal compatibility, loyalty, trust, respect, love, similiar interests, ability to keep your temper, communication, balanced dependency - those are all factors that seem to cause the most upset. What are the stats on divorced couples who say they are splitting up because they didn't have sex first?

Of course they aren't going to say this, and indeed it probably isn't even the triggering factor. But 100% of these people would say it was because they weren't compatible. That means they went into the marriage without a full knowledge of what to expect. And that, of course, is precisely what abstinence provides. I'm not saying it's the sole cause, but if you think it doesnt' contribute, I'd say you're either naive or crazy.

 

[justaman]

Actually, she argues that modesty is terribly sexy, almost *naughty.* It's being very aware of your sexuality and basing decisions on how you value it. Modesty says, "Boy, have I got something great under here...and if you prove yourself worthy, you just might get the privledge of experiencing it." Modesty, in fact, might be the world's most long lived tease.

That'd be cool if you could guarantee that what was under there was sexy. The problem is, I see conservative dress, I see conservative views on sex etc, not the reverse. You might want to advocate this, but I think you're forgetting you have to get we men believing it first. You've got buckley's of that one, I think.

I'm just a little confused about how you can pre-judge a book you have no intention of reading. Having not read it, doesn't make you any less entitled to your opinions about the more general subject, but I don't think you can ASSUME that it says this or that based on those opinions.

If I'm wrong, correct me I'm not judging the book, I'm judging the values.

 

[justaman]

Women have a hard time separating sex and emotions and THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No, you have a hard time separating sex and emotion. Not all women do.

And it is precisely this inability of yours to divorce the two which I would say is a direct, observable symptom of an immature concept of sex. It may have worked out for you, but I'd suggest that if it has, you've beaten the odds. Not all people will.

 

[justaman]

I love roller coasters! Or are you talking about something else?
There is time for cheap thrills. But there are roller coasters, with straps and seatbelts and safety checks, and then there are motorcycles without helmets and without any leather or denim.

But hang on, you were just saying before that roller coasters came at the expense of deep real emotions. You were saying one shouldn't do both. You are having your cake and eating it too, I think. It's either roller coaster or no roller coaster. Cheap thirlls, that's what we're talking about.

You obviously don't know what virgins talk about...

touche

Um, yah, that's why so many of friends have had abortions and STD's...

I'm sure those dozens of friends were all on the pill and using condoms, weren't they.

Emotionally, it is the release, and many times what is remembered long after the original script is forgotten.

You've lost me here...

That's just it...sex and emotions is messed up, period. It's confusing, and while some can easily seperate the two, that's not the way it is for most people.

No it isn't confusing. It's only confusing for those who are inexperienced and naive. This is why it is not only a good thing, but important to teach yourself.

 

[feral]

a) Abstinence provides a sexual motivation to get married. Ie, people want to have sex. The only way an abstinent person can do this is to get married. Do you think that's a good reasont to be getting married?

Getting married purely so you can give yourself permission to have sex is foolish, not to mention hurtful towards one's spouse. I would never advocate that, nor would any thinking person. Just because someone does not believe in sex before marriage, however, does not mean they would consider marrying just so they could have sex. I don't happen to be of the "no sex 'til marriage" school; I just think that people are pushed into sex at an early age, and deserve some protection from that.

b) As in my antecedent to sallynow, you are entering the most important and emotional relationship of your life without any prior experience. Knowledge is never ever a bad thing.

Knowledge is not a bad thing, but I don't agree with your assessment that one has to have prior sexual experience before they can be married. Many people go into marriage never having done the ceremony before, never having shared a home before, without ever having raised children before. Do you advocate that we all marry 10 or 15 times first, for practise?

c) Abstience can increase the incidents of unwanted pregnancy. Why? Because most abstinent teens aren't on the pill. So when humans act like humans and make a mistake, they do not protect themselves. Many Christian programs advocating abstinence also advocate the prohibition of contraceptives, specifically condoms. (This is especially true of African nations.) I'll let you do the math from there.

Misinformation or lack of education, not abstinence, can increase the risk of unwanted pregnancy and disease. Yes, obviously, if teens are deprived of information on how to protect themselves should they decide to have sex, their educators were negligent and they will find themselves in unhappy situations. However, just because someone chooses to be abstient or encourages abstinence doesn't mean they don't know what's going on sexually speaking. Making the decision to be abstinent should mean understanding all of the options and the consequences, not sticking one's head in the sand. I disagree with the programs you mentioned above. People should not be forced into abstience, it's a choice, and they should be taught about the many pros and cons of the choice before making it. Denying someone contraceptives isn't encouraging abstinence, it's encouraging the spread of illness.

Thinking sex is some penultimate exchange of emotion and passions is childish. I'm sorry, but it is. Sex is a very explicable physical act with a number of different chemicals involved, dopamine and endorphins most specifically I think. Thinking it is somehow beyond this is childish. Abstinent people are going into marriage with a childish view of sex. Baaaad.

Really? I believe that the selfish view of seeking pleasure without emotional contact is quite childish. Children, of course, are sensory. They want to feel good, and they don't care about the rest. They don't care that the other children are crying because of their unwillingness to share, they don't care that candy will rot their teeth, they don't care that they could be hit by a car while playing in the street. They want their pleasure, now. Exactly the way people who have casual, meaningless sex are. They want their pleasure, no connection, no concern for the other party - as long as they feel good, it doesn't matter. And contrary to your opinion, sex for many people (not all) is indeed an exchange of emotion and a declaration of love. Many find it to be an incredible connection to their lover, a bond and a giving of themselves. Opening one's body to a stranger, missing out on the incredible depth sex could have, seems pretty naive and childish to me, as I believe is does to many.

Disease: Well let's never go to the snow because we might catch a cold. In fact never drive because you might die.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or can you not understand that the risk of stds is a serious concern and that abstinence is the only 100% sure method of avoiding them? Obviously, every step we take each day involves a degree of risk. One ought to evaluate if one is willing to risk contracting a potentially deadly disease like aids against the minutes or hours of sexual pleasure they are getting. To me, 60 seconds of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] isn't worth death. Maybe to you though.

Risking your body: You should never ever take risks. What you want is to get the grave with the least possible amount of embarrassment.

*LoL* You really have no idea who you're talking to, do you? Again with being deliberately naive. A person should weigh the risks with the benefits. What can you get from a casual one night stand with a stranger? Hmm...aids? A baby you don't want? Is that worth the moments of pleasure? I would rather take risks that had the possibility of fulfillment, not risk my health for a few minutes of feeling good.

Substitute sex for love: There's no 'substitute'. You can be in love and have sex and not marry someone. I've done that a few times, in fact. You can also have sex without love. There's nothing wrong with this either. It's all experience.

Yes, you can have sex without love. You can have steak without A-1, cake without frosting, Christmas without presents too, but I wouldn't want to. If you want the bare minimum, go ahead and take it. Many would rather wait for something more. Obviously, you can love without having sex, and most people do. But sex without love is like getting coal in your Christmas stocking. You got something, but nothing near as good as it could have been.

Violating morals: If you are violating morals by having sex, I'd suggest your morals need re-evaluating.

Hmmm..nope. Having casual sex disrespects me and my body, puts me at risk, cheapens my experiences. My morals being basically "Harm None", this violates my morals.

Permanent harm: Yes, because if you have sex before marriage an arm might fall off. Honestly, this is silly.

Never volunteered in an aids ward of a hospital I take it. I'd say dying of a disease you contracted through meaningless sex is permanent harm, though I respect your right to do so if that's what floats your boat.

Ok. I guess all marriages must work out then

Most marriages don't work out. Most people sleep around before marriage. Good point there, yep, excellent.

Used for sex: What does that even mean??

It refers to all the times when someone sleeps with another person because they have been pressured, or because they have been told by the person that sex will boost their love, and are abandoned afterwards.

Emotional turmoil: Yes, better to experience that in your marriage rather than with some expendable person Emotional turmoil is good. You're learning. Experience is a good thing.

Learning is a good thing. Emotional turmoil is not. A rape victim has just experienced a profound and difficult lesson, is that a good thing? If someone has sex when they are not prepared (and by this I mean emotionally, not armed with a piece of paper) then they are hurting themselves, and risk feeling guilt, shame, remorse, anger, disgust and regret later. I don't think someone needs to go through those feelings to learn.

Trust of your parents: What the? If your parents won't talk to you because you had sex, I'd suggest there is something wrong with your parents. And with how you view their role in your life.

I did not say they would not talk to you, I said they would not trust you. Obviously, this refers primarily to young people still living at home, but parents of adults can and should still care what their child is doing. I would suggest that if your parents don't care that you sleep around, they have done you a great disservice. It's too bad if anyone's parents don't care about them enough to want the best for their children.

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

What is worse... Looking at something with lust, or dressing up lustfully? Granted, there is no black and white answer.

Hmm.... I just thought of something else. Women should be interested in men who are like christ... what would a girl wear if she was trying to get jesus to "pursue" her? Or take a step farther. If you were on a date with Jesus, what do you think would be suitable?

 

[justaman]

What is worse... Looking at something with lust, or dressing up lustfully? Granted, there is no black and white answer.

Sorta depends. Even I think there is a level of inappropriateness in both of these areas. I wouldn't rock up naked to a funeral, for instance.

Hmm.... I just thought of something else. Women should be interested in men who are like christ...

Should they just? You tell them that

what would a girl wear if she was trying to get jesus to "pursue" her? Or take a step farther. If you were on a date with Jesus, what do you think would be suitable?

I don't think they'd have anything Jesus hadn't seen before.

 

[justaman]

aight, I'm going to try to get through all this. Gunna be lengthy, I think *neck crack*

Getting married purely so you can give yourself permission to have sex is foolish, not to mention hurtful towards one's spouse. I would never advocate that, nor would any thinking person. Just because someone does not believe in sex before marriage, however, does not mean they would consider marrying just so they could have sex. I don't happen to be of the "no sex 'til marriage" school; I just think that people are pushed into sex at an early age, and deserve some protection from that.

I hear you, but it's an unavoidable problem with abstinence programs. I think there is much more pressure to get married under an abstinence program than there is pressure to have sex in society. In fact I think there are laws against that last one. You say you wouldn't advocate it, but by saying 'there's nothing wrong with choosing abstinence' you effectively are. There are problems with it, this is one of them.

Knowledge is not a bad thing, but I don't agree with your assessment that one has to have prior sexual experience before they can be married. Many people go into marriage never having done the ceremony before, never having shared a home before, without ever having raised children before. Do you advocate that we all marry 10 or 15 times first, for practise?

No, I advocate having more than one sexual relationship before you decide on who you are going to spend 50-60 years with. Sort of a no-brainer I'd have thought.

Misinformation or lack of education, not abstinence, can increase the risk of unwanted pregnancy and disease.

The two go hand-in-hand. How many abstinent teens carry condoms in their wallets do you reckon? It's not just information, it's attitude.

However, just because someone chooses to be abstient or encourages abstinence doesn't mean they don't know what's going on sexually speaking. Making the decision to be abstinent should mean understanding all of the options and the consequences, not sticking one's head in the sand. I disagree with the programs you mentioned above. People should not be forced into abstience, it's a choice, and they should be taught about the many pros and cons of the choice before making it. Denying someone contraceptives isn't encouraging abstinence, it's encouraging the spread of illness.

Presactly.

Really? I believe that the selfish view of seeking pleasure without emotional contact is quite childish. Children, of course, are sensory. They want to feel good, and they don't care about the rest. They don't care that the other children are crying because of their unwillingness to share, they don't care that candy will rot their teeth, they don't care that they could be hit by a car while playing in the street. They want their pleasure, now. Exactly the way people who have casual, meaningless sex are.

So I suppose all of your fun is gleaned from deep, meaningful pursuits? You also are a roller-coaster-avoider?

Some things in life are just fun. If just having fun for the sake of having fun is childish, screw ever growing up

They want their pleasure, no connection, no concern for the other party - as long as they feel good, it doesn't matter. And contrary to your opinion, sex for many people (not all) is indeed an exchange of emotion and a declaration of love.

Of course, I never said emotion could not be involved. But you, like some of the others here, are assuming I am talking explicitly about one-night-stands. I'm not. While there is certainly nothing wrong with them, they do get old, for the reasons you've been talking about. You can fall in love and have a sexual relationship and not get married. THIS is what I'm advocating. It isn't necessarily a marriage vs one-night-stand duel that you guys seem to be making it into.

Are you being deliberately obtuse, or can you not understand that the risk of stds is a serious concern and that abstinence is the only 100% sure method of avoiding them? Obviously, every step we take each day involves a degree of risk. One ought to evaluate if one is willing to risk contracting a potentially deadly disease like aids against the minutes or hours of sexual pleasure they are getting. To me, 60 seconds of [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] isn't worth death. Maybe to you though.

Now it's [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] or death? Are you sure you aren't being obtuse? The likelihood of catching a fatal disease when practicing safe sex is minute. Of course abstinence is a 100% way of assuring std avoidance, but never driving is a 100% guarantee of never being in an accident. They are directly analogous, I was not being obtuse, I am - in fact - quite serious. You are being wantonly dramatic in your conception of stds.

*LoL* You really have no idea who you're talking to, do you?

...Grandma?

Actually when I said 'you' I meant 'one', not you specifically. Another shortcoming of our stupid language, you see.

Again with being deliberately naive. A person should weigh the risks with the benefits. What can you get from a casual one night stand with a stranger? Hmm...aids? A baby you don't want? Is that worth the moments of pleasure? I would rather take risks that had the possibility of fulfillment, not risk my health for a few minutes of feeling good.

Again, stay away from rollercoasters, they can and have killed people. It is exactly the same logic as you are using here. Am I wrong?

Yes, you can have sex without love. You can have steak without A-1, cake without frosting, Christmas without presents too, but I wouldn't want to. If you want the bare minimum, go ahead and take it. Many would rather wait for something more. Obviously, you can love without having sex, and most people do. But sex without love is like getting coal in your Christmas stocking. You got something, but nothing near as good as it could have been.

The dichotomy usually is sex or no sex. Not sex or sex with love. This is a common conceptual error, I think. In the more accurate former dilemma, sex has the immediate upper hand.

But once more, you create this realm where not being abstinent = having one night stands. This is rot, feral. Utter rot. I would not advocate one-night-stands to the degree that I would advocate sex outside of wedlock but in a loving relationship. That said, one-night-stands are also fantastic learning tools, but are understandably not for the faint of heart.

Hmmm..nope. Having casual sex disrespects me and my body, puts me at risk, cheapens my experiences. My morals being basically "Harm None", this violates my morals.

Yes, sex outside of wedlock is an embodiment of the devil. Sheesh. It's sex, man. Not ritual suicide.

Never volunteered in an aids ward of a hospital I take it.

You might be surprised on that one

I'd say dying of a disease you contracted through meaningless sex is permanent harm, though I respect your right to do so if that's what floats your boat.

Sure. But if being scared of everything which could possibly do you permanent harm is your way of dealing with life, I'd say the same to you

Most marriages don't work out. Most people sleep around before marriage. Good point there, yep, excellent.

The leap of logic you take here is immense and I would love to see you try and justify it

It refers to all the times when someone sleeps with another person because they have been pressured, or because they have been told by the person that sex will boost their love, and are abandoned afterwards.

Yes, all boys are like this. We hate love and never want to be in it :more eyerolls:

Learning is a good thing. Emotional turmoil is not. A rape victim has just experienced a profound and difficult lesson, is that a good thing?

What lesson? That you would even try to relate the turmoil of relate rape to the 'turmoil' of consensual sex is somewhat alarming.

If someone has sex when they are not prepared (and by this I mean emotionally, not armed with a piece of paper) then they are hurting themselves, and risk feeling guilt, shame, remorse, anger, disgust and regret later. I don't think someone needs to go through those feelings to learn.

The learning point should be that they never have to feel any of these emotions after sex. If they choose their first partner wisely, I doubt they'd feel it anyway.

I have a good friend of mine who is a (freaking attractive) Christian. Now she has had sex with three different people and has decided that she will now wait until marriage. She doesn't regret her partners, nor does she think of sex in a cheap casual way. She has had one one-night-stand, she has had one very long very serious relationship, and one which was somewhere in between (I think he was a hot or something. Chicks man.) The point being, she has experienced the gambit of sexual emotions and has learnt from them. She is comfortable with her sexuality and is more prepared for the big relationship to come. I find this approach difficult to fault. Had she only had the one serious relationship and then decided to wait, I wouldn't fault that either. At least have some background knowledge before throwing yourself into the deep end.

I did not say they would not talk to you, I said they would not trust you. Obviously, this refers primarily to young people still living at home, but parents of adults can and should still care what their child is doing. I would suggest that if your parents don't care that you sleep around, they have done you a great disservice. It's too bad if anyone's parents don't care about them enough to want the best for their children.

Ok, I haven't really been talking about young people. I'm talking specifically about mature adults who still remain abstinent due to some (wayward) moral arithmetic.