Modesty

[sculpturegirl]

I suggest you read the Song of Solomon. This certianly sounds like the two lovers have a very healthy view of marital sex, and yet throughout the text it repeats "Do not awaken love until it so desires." (ie until after the wedding feast).

I certainly don't have an unhealthy view of sex. All of my very happily married friends who practiced abstinence before they were wed would certainly disagree that it is unhealthy.

Perhaps from a male perspective it seems unhealthy, but I talk to plenty of HS and college girls who really don't want to be sleeping with their boyfriends, but the pressure is too much. Women have much to lose from having sex outside of a sigh-on-the-dotted-line commited relationship. They are the ones who have to take the Pill (which isn't as safe as doctors advertise, but that is another topic) and deal with its side effects, they are the ones who get pregnant, they are the ones who get cervical cancer (believed to be from having multiple partners), they are the ones who get old and lose their sexiness a lot faster (youth ideal in women). What happens if there is a child? An abortion? She'll have to deal with that the rest of her life. So she chooses to raise a child. Some men will be supportive and loving, but as a husband there is much more legal action to take to ensure that the mother and child are cared for.

So, as a man, I would like you to consider the situation of the woman a little more. I am not just talking about casual sex, either. When a couple moves in together, nine times out of ten the woman is thinking that it will lead to marriage, whereas the man is think that they are living together. No woman goes into a relationship like that hoping or thinking it will end.

I digress...

 

[SallyNow]

No, it means that with precisely the same experiences, one person feels good, and that they've had a positive experience, and one person feels bad and that it's been negative. Preferring to be the person who feels it is bad is, in my view, weird. Why would you want to feel bad about something you could very well feel good about if you gave it a little thought? Why do you insist on seeing it as a 'mistake' rather than an experience which helped make you the person you are?

I am attacking the strange, almost masochistic desire to punish oneself for perfectly normal behaviour, and to strip the experience of all the positive sensations and emotions which must surely have been present at the time.

If I have been a little short, it is simply because I quickly become exasperated with people who prefer whipping themselves for all their wrong-doings rather than enjoying what life does give them.

I've heard the same thing said about theft.

Look, sex within a commited relationship is good. Whether that means marriage, engagement or long-trem relationships is up to the, um, viewer. But sex without commitment DOES carry risks that, no matter how hard you try to justify them as "acceptable", many people feel they are not. From simply a medical point of view, casual sex does contribute highly to sexual diseases and pregnacy; condoms do not solve everything, and birth control can fail. The safegaurd against this is having sex with people you could spend the rest of your life with if the event happens (or can civilliy decide on adoption).

There is nothing "weak" about realizing that casual sex isn't emotionally or physically responsible for a large proportion of people. Does this mean no sex? No. It means driving with a seatbelt on, in a car that you know the history of and get checked out regulary.

 

[justaman]

When a couple moves in together, nine times out of ten the woman is thinking that it will lead to marriage, whereas the man is think that they are living together.

No, you aren't digressing, you are speaking pure unadulterated smack. YOU seem to think every relationship is based around marriage. This is your opinion of the most ideal relationship, not anyone else's. That ridiculous statistic you have pulled from God-knows-where has no grounding in reality whatever. It is, quite simply, one of the dumbest suggestions I've ever heard. I would submit to you - quite adamently - that in your example, both male and female would be thinking seriously about marriage if they have moved in with one another.

You seem to be arguing with me now because you have me set up as the conceptual antithesis for everything you stand for in regards to relationships. Judging by the sheer nonsense you are posting now, you do not seem to have a grasp of the logical arguments I am presenting and I don't think you have the first clue about what I am actually advocating.

 

[justaman]

I've heard the same thing said about theft.

Oh come off it, Sally, that's just silly. If you want to relate consensual sex on terms with something as inherently insidious as theft, go for it, but I think you've sort of failed in maintaining objectivity before you started if you do.

Look, sex within a commited relationship is good. Whether that means marriage, engagement or long-trem relationships is up to the, um, viewer. But sex without commitment DOES carry risks that, no matter how hard you try to justify them as "acceptable", many people feel they are not.

I really do think you're being too black and white. Do we always want children when we're married? Isn't the 'risk' you are talking about in regards to children just as great if you are not in position to bring up a child? I really don't see how having a piece of jewellry on a finger makes a whit of difference in one's inclination, ability and preparedness for a child.

Other than that, yes, of course sex carries a risk, but I don't think it has anywhere near the risk that you are envisioning. You've been scared. You've watched Jaws and then gone swimming at night. You are making a life-long decision to go into your ultimate relationship without any prior sexual experience and I think that is far more risky than stds.

From simply a medical point of view, casual sex does contribute highly to sexual diseases and pregnacy; condoms do not solve everything, and birth control can fail. The safegaurd against this is having sex with people you could spend the rest of your life with if the event happens (or can civilliy decide on adoption).

Yes, if that is your primary focus, but if it is your primary focus, I'd suggest that the tail is wagging the dog.

There is nothing "weak" about realizing that casual sex isn't emotionally or physically responsible for a large proportion of people. Does this mean no sex? No. It means driving with a seatbelt on, in a car that you know the history of and get checked out regulary.

Fair enough. That's honestly fine. But I think your seatbelt is a very heavy chain, complete with gag and mask. I disagree that it isn't 'weak' to be so abhorrant of casual sex, I would argue that anyone reduced to a quivering wreck because of intercourse is necessarily weak-minded. I'd hate to see that person at the helm of a sinking ship. But anyway, I do agree that there are some people like this but I do not think that the safety precautions you justifiably recommend necessarily equal marriage. In fact if people my age are even thinking about marriage in this day and age I think they're a little nuts.

Fall in love, be careful, protect yourself, but don't walk around thinking "I'm gunna marry the first guy I fall in love with" for God's sake.

Live a little people, you're killing me.

 

[SallyNow]

Oh come off it, Sally, that's just silly. If you want to relate consensual sex on terms with something as inherently insidious as theft, go for it, but I think you've sort of failed in maintaining objectivity before you started if you do.

I was using your specific statement, which is also used to describe many white-collar crimes. I do not equate consensual sex with theft; however, there are risks, not overblown ones, to having sex without good relationships to be there.

I really do think you're being too black and white. Do we always want children when we're married? Isn't the 'risk' you are talking about in regards to children just as great if you are not in position to bring up a child? I really don't see how having a piece of jewellry on a finger makes a whit of difference in one's inclination, ability and preparedness for a child.

I'm not the one who is black and white here. Take a look objectivly; there are many sides on this thread, and I not totally agreeing or disagreeing with either. I am not being black and white; I'm being realistic. I'm not the one calling people hussies or calling others prudes. I am not saying someone is immature for not having sex, and immature for having sex. I am saying sex is something serious in this life, and it is not an easy issue.

Other than that, yes, of course sex carries a risk, but I don't think it has anywhere near the risk that you are envisioning. You've been scared. You've watched Jaws and then gone swimming at night. You are making a life-long decision to go into your ultimate relationship without any prior sexual experience and I think that is far more risky than stds.

I love watching Jaws. I love swimming in the ocean, even when sea otters and sea lions are around. However, I don't swim in shark-infested waters with a piece of steak in my swimsuit. Many marriages have been very good even when the sexual discovery has been made after the wedding night; it is a different tactic than the one you advocate, but a valid one, and one that works for many people. Also, you are the one thinking in black-and-white terms here. No prior sexual experience is very rare. However, there are different degrees of sexual intamacy, and one can have sexual experience without actually doing the act.

Yes, if that is your primary focus, but if it is your primary focus, I'd suggest that the tail is wagging the dog.

Fair enough. That's honestly fine. But I think your seatbelt is a very heavy chain, complete with gag and mask. I disagree that it isn't 'weak' to be so abhorrant of casual sex, I would argue that anyone reduced to a quivering wreck because of intercourse is necessarily weak-minded. I'd hate to see that person at the helm of a sinking ship. But anyway, I do agree that there are some people like this but I do not think that the safety precautions you justifiably recommend necessarily equal marriage. In fact if people my age are even thinking about marriage in this day and age I think they're a little nuts.

Wow, that is just sad. Incorrect, wrong, rather immature, and sad. Children are best raised in a married, healthy, loving home. People who have had good marriages live longer. There is an upside to single life; but it is not the free sex, it is the independance, and this appeals to some. Sex IS serious; I do not think you understand that for a woman, it is, physically, an undertaking and contains risks much greater than a man has with sex. That is not being weak-minded; that is being intelligent and mature.

Fall in love, be careful, protect yourself, but don't walk around thinking "I'm gunna marry the first guy I fall in love with" for God's sake.

Live a little people, you're killing me.

Sorry, but you set yourself up for this: You're killing yourself by having casual sex.

I have nothing wrong with consensual sex. And it is too bad that you only think people can live if they are having lots and lots of meaningless sex. Life is about so much more than that, and well, if casual sex is so important to some people...I suspect they are missing other important aspects in their lives, and instead of dealing with those, are having sex. Kinda like binge eating, only with sex. And many people, when they binge eat, are able to maintain a healthy, if kinda chubby, wieght; but most, if the binge eating continues, will end of morbidly obese with many health problems. Of course, some people are gentically predesposed to obesity and health problems, but still, it is a better, safer stragety not to binge eat.

You may try throwing back, "But a healthy diet includes lots of food, just as a good sex life includes lots of partners" Erm, no. The variety in foods refer to the variety(fruits, veggies, chocolate) a good sexual life with a single partner (ie, food) can have.

 

[justaman]

I was using your specific statement, which is also used to describe many white-collar crimes. I do not equate consensual sex with theft; however, there are risks, not overblown ones, to having sex without good relationships to be there.

What statement?! I'm legitimately curious, I don't understand how the analogy fits.

I'm not the one who is black and white here. Take a look objectivly; there are many sides on this thread, and I not totally agreeing or disagreeing with either. I am not being black and white; I'm being realistic. I'm not the one calling people hussies or calling others prudes. I am not saying someone is immature for not having sex, and immature for having sex. I am saying sex is something serious in this life, and it is not an easy issue.

You see what you were saying up until the last sentence was very good. But then you turn all of that good stuff right on its head by going ahead and doing precisely what you just finished telling me you weren't doing.

Saying sex is something serious is a black and white view of sex. Because the fact of the matter is that sex can be serious, or it can simply be harmless fun. It is up to circumstance and the people involved as to how serious the sex is. And before y'all go jumping the gun yet again, I can safely say that I have had, and still do have, sex of both extremes and all the way in between. It can be a meaningful expression of love, it can be a harmless way of rounding of a fun evening. It can be a utilitarian practice for making a baby or a reward for happening to sign a marital contract on that day.

Sex is dynamic in its context because it is emotively driven. So since it is quite possible to have sex without any strong emotions, it can also be quite unserious and without meaning. To say that it always is serious is categorically untrue and this is the mistake you appear to consistantly make.

I love watching Jaws. I love swimming in the ocean, even when sea otters and sea lions are around. However, I don't swim in shark-infested waters with a piece of steak in my swimsuit. Many marriages have been very good even when the sexual discovery has been made after the wedding night; it is a different tactic than the one you advocate, but a valid one, and one that works for many people. Also, you are the one thinking in black-and-white terms here. No prior sexual experience is very rare. However, there are different degrees of sexual intamacy, and one can have sexual experience without actually doing the act.

Certainly, and I would encourage this at the very least. Trouble is I keep hearing you guys go on about how regretful y'all are about those experiences.

Wow, that is just sad. Incorrect, wrong, rather immature, and sad. Children are best raised in a married, healthy, loving home. People who have had good marriages live longer.

So what are you saying, everyone should be trying to have children as young as possible?? Exactly what about what I just said do you find sad etc etc??

Sex IS serious; I do not think you understand that for a woman, it is, physically, an undertaking and contains risks much greater than a man has with sex. That is not being weak-minded; that is being intelligent and mature.

No it's being w-e-a-k minded. If you are people are seriously getting emotionally turbulent due to sex (and remember one of your male supporters on this thread attests to the same) then you are a weak-minded person. I'm sorry, but it's the fact of the matter So much stuff happens in this world, so many terrible and dramatic things that for someone to go to pieces because of consensual sex, I'd suggest you are probably not cut out for any position of responsibility.

And you're being disingenuous by following that other silly girl's lead of relating all women's concepts about sex to your own personal views. It is so wrong you probably wouldn't believe it. It might hold true for your particular congregation, but the whole world isn't your church.

Sorry, but you set yourself up for this: You're killing yourself by having casual sex.

Do you know? I was actually beginning to think you were the smart one of this lot and then you go ahead and join the pack again. Please...I'm begging you...explain how this is so!!

I have nothing wrong with consensual sex.

The above says otherwise. Apparently it's a form of suicide

And it is too bad that you only think people can live if they are having lots and lots of meaningless sex.

Again, your disingenuous call. Are you suggesting that I've never had meaningful sex?

You might not be able to see a difference, but that is a shortcoming on your behalf. Not mine.

Life is about so much more than that, and well, if casual sex is so important to some people...I suspect they are missing other important aspects in their lives, and instead of dealing with those, are having sex. Kinda like binge eating, only with sex. And many people, when they binge eat, are able to maintain a healthy, if kinda chubby, wieght; but most, if the binge eating continues, will end of morbidly obese with many health problems. Of course, some people are gentically predesposed to obesity and health problems, but still, it is a better, safer stragety not to binge eat.

Are you suggesting I have binge sex? Are you aware of how progressively ridiculous and astoundingly incorrect your accusations are becoming?

You may try throwing back, "But a healthy diet includes lots of food, just as a good sex life includes lots of partners" Erm, no. The variety in foods refer to the variety(fruits, veggies, chocolate) a good sexual life with a single partner (ie, food) can have.

No, I wouldn't throw back any such thing. Sally, it's a stupid analogy and has no relevance to sexuality whatever.

 

[SallyNow]

Saying sex is something serious is a black and white view of sex. Because the fact of the matter is that sex can be serious, or it can simply be harmless fun. It is up to circumstance and the people involved as to how serious the sex is. And before y'all go jumping the gun yet again, I can safely say that I have had, and still do have, sex of both extremes and all the way in between. It can be a meaningful expression of love, it can be a harmless way of rounding of a fun evening. It can be a utilitarian practice for making a baby or a reward for happening to sign a marital contract on that day.

No, all driving is serious. But it is fun also. The risks and benefits are serious; the act itself should be lots of fun.

So what are you saying, everyone should be trying to have children as young as possible?? Exactly what about what I just said do you find sad etc etc??

Woah! I found it sad that you think people who think marriage are sad. Did you just mean young people? It seemed like you meant everyone.
I think it is a good thing to wait until you feel you are read; until you really have a commitment with someone; until you can deal with it all. Please, you are trying to lump me in with some sort of fundie anti-sex league lady. But, I'm just a responsible girl who disagrees with you on some points.

No it's being w-e-a-k minded. If you are people are seriously getting emotionally turbulent due to sex (and remember one of your male supporters on this thread attests to the same) then you are a weak-minded person. I'm sorry, but it's the fact of the matter So much stuff happens in this world, so many terrible and dramatic things that for someone to go to pieces because of consensual sex, I'd suggest you are probably not cut out for any position of responsibility.

[sarcasm]Your posts are begining to get very rude. I suggest you are weak-minded; you are not able to handle simple internet debating. Perhaps this is why you have to have commitment-free sex [/sarcasm]


A person who is responsible about their heart and about sex is not weak.That is the truth. Sex, when for many strong-willed people, and esspecially women, carries a lot of weight. To really make it fun, doing it within a committed relationship takes away a lot of the worries.

 

[justaman]

No, all driving is serious. But it is fun also. The risks and benefits are serious; the act itself should be lots of fun.

Well...man I don't even know. I think you're sort of almost kinda agreeing with me but it's hard to say.

Look yes I'm a little bit drunk, ok? Just...go easy on me. Sheesh.

It's important, I thinll, to let people know this.

P.S. I like you man. I mean yeah, the anti-sex thing is a tad annoying, but you really aren't like some of these other people. I don't know what it is. And hey, I'm not going to find out because I don't know you. There's something which is causing you to consider sex in this manner, it's not your logic, it's gotta be something else.

The cross icon in your namebar draws my attention at this point...but hey, maybe not even that. I dunno. I wish I did - and given the time, i'd back myself in working it out - but I don't. And it's a shame also I was a little ascerbic to you last time because now you ahve to be in return and I just want everyone to be friends already. Let's move on.

Woah! I found it sad that you think people who think marriage are sad. Did you just mean young people?

Yes, that was what I meant. Ok here's something I promised myself I wouldn't rbing up in this particular debate but you know what? I like annoyuing myself when I'm a little tipsy.

I was engaged for over a year, and do you know what? Bad move. Ok no, not correct, it was a good move because I learnt and because it did end, but the actual intention of marriage was silly. you need to become your own person, I think, before you can become a couple. I've only really grown into who I am in the years since, I think. At the time, I was this guy who all he thought about was his girlfriend/fiancee. So when the rocky times acme, I had no idea how to deal with it. I simply could not recognise the time when I needed to say "that's it, I'm taking that freakin ring back". In retrospect, I know exactly the point. i know exactly when I should have ended it, but I couldn't. it was all I knew. She was my first and - I thought to myself - would be my only. I could not let that end. And remember who we're talking about. We're talking about me, the guy who this thread has decided is the biggest sleaze-bag since Larry Flynt. Now let's think about some of you girls going into a relationship. i guarantee you, I freaking guarantee you that if bad times erupt, y'all won't know what to do. You will be just like the engaged justaman (though that's not really how I referred to myself, but yeah).

And this is why I am fairly passionate about it all. Tihs is where my wallet got stolen, as it were. I've made the mistake of deciding the first person I slept with was the person I would spend the rest of my life with. I went into it blind and it worked out exactly in accordance with the analogies I'm talking about. I had no experience, I had no idea and I completely lost control. It was only her strength in saying "We need to break up" which rescued the both of us (and I am eternally thankful to her for having the courage to do this finally).

Anyhow, there's a bit of background. Probably won't convince you one way or the other one whit, and maybe it shouldn't. Maybe we all need to get burned before we really understand fire, or conversely, maybe some people can just pull it off. Eh.

It seemed like you meant everyone. I think it is a good thing to wait until you feel you are read; until you really have a commitment with someone; until you can deal with it all. Please, you are trying to lump me in with some sort of fundie anti-sex league lady. But, I'm just a responsible girl who disagrees with you on some points.

Again, I don't think of you as a crazy anti anything person. *Much drunken hugging and licking of eyeballs*

Ever had someone do that to you?? Gross.

[sarcasm]Your posts are begining to get very rude. I suggest you are weak-minded; you are not able to handle simple internet debating. Perhaps this is why you have to have commitment-free sex [/sarcasm]

A person who is responsible about their heart and about sex is not weak.That is the truth. Sex, when for many strong-willed people, and esspecially women, carries a lot of weight. To really make it fun, doing it within a committed relationship takes away a lot of the worries.

Yeah well i don't even know and I'm sorry for being rude. I get the feeling I was right, but sometimes even the great J man forgets that right isn't right for everyone.

Let me just say it would over all be preferable if you could consider sex in the manner that I'm suggesting (and that is - to stipulate - that it can have proportionate amounts of seriousness attatched to it). But if you cannot, then one must work within one's boundaries. And as the segacious seebs wound up convincing me that forsome people, yes, abstinance is the go. I guess I just have to write those people off as potential partners

My leg's sore.

 

[Dukey]

Has anyone read Wendy Shalit's "A Return to Modesty: Rediscovering a Lost Virtue"? Any thoughts?

whats it about? is it a bunch of rules?

 

[xtxArchxAngelxtx]

yeah, just a bunch of rules, no bother.

 

[Dukey]

yeah, just a bunch of rules, no bother.

i wont bother then

 

[Dekan Tom]

Time and culture does not change modesty. I know girls know only wear skirts cause pants are imodest. I have to agree with them. Just because culture, the world, gets desensitised does not mean we have to.

Question: What is the Standard Time and Culture on which all others should be judged?

Tom

 

[Dekan Tom]

There are times and places where skin is acceptable. At the beach its expected and you'r not being immodest (unless you're like wearing a thong or as a guy a speedo bikini). But in general, if a girl is obviously dressing to show herself off, I can't say I don't like it but I take girls more seriously who are a little more covered up. You can show off your looks, be fashionable, and very sexy and cute without showing lots of cleavage and legs and stomache. I also feel more confortable around someone who is more covered. Do girls feel the same way? Would you be more confortable with a guy with clothes on as opposed to a shirtless one?

Hi Maynard, You make an interesting observation about swim suits. As an adult male I often wear what you refer to as a "speedo bikini", tho I have never heard it called by that precise term. Why is a male wearing a speedo being immodest? The cut of a speedo is somewhat similiar to a woman's bottom of a two-piece.

When I see a guy wearing the long board shorts (is that the correct term?), I am thinking how mixed-up they are to wear that much heavy clothing to go into the water. There is nothing modest about it. The only answer I have is that the guys are so insecure that they can't use common sense about appropriate beach wear.

Tom

 

[Dekan Tom]

Justaman said: 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?
Hi Justaman, Usually guys make the analogy one of "I wouldn't buy a pair of shoes without trying them on." But the analogy is imprecise. My wife and I were both virgins when we got married as we both believed that sexual union was for marriage only. Recent studies (which I cannot document) have found that couples who live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate that those who don't.

So if you're serious about your approach of a dress rehersal, I suppose that you spend plenty of time discussing finances with your gfs, like one bank account or two; buying on credit or paying cash; tithing or other charitible contributions; investment strategy; you know, things like that which are critical in marriage. Also: moral values; whether to attend the same or different churches; politics; will the husband be the head of the home as far as decision making (buy a 4x4 ramcharger or a 4 door sedan); recreational choices. There are so many issues to consider before entering into marriage. BTW, the shoes will always fit!

Tom

 

[justaman]

Hi Justaman, Usually guys make the analogy one of "I wouldn't buy a pair of shoes without trying them on." But the analogy is imprecise. My wife and I were both virgins when we got married as we both believed that sexual union was for marriage only. Recent studies (which I cannot document) have found that couples who live together before marriage have a higher divorce rate that those who don't.

The problem is, I think, that there would presumably be a large amount of Christians within the statistics of those who wait until marriage. The values which prevent one having sex before marriage are the same as values which prevent one from divorcing.

So while I get what your saying and don't immediately challenge your statistic, I don't think divorce statsitics rae necessarily reflective of happy-marriage statistics.

If you are, however, suggesting that people are on the whole less happy if they live together first, I would adamently disagree with you, since there is no logical reasonfor this to be the case whatever.

So if you're serious about your approach of a dress rehersal, I suppose that you spend plenty of time discussing finances with your gfs, like one bank account or two; buying on credit or paying cash; tithing or other charitible contributions; investment strategy; you know, things like that which are critical in marriage.

Absolutely. But - putting aside Christian values for the moment - if you are doing all this stuff, why wouldn't you sleep with the person as well? I mean you can tell me "God sayeth" and there's not much I can come back to it with. But if we are talking objectively about what would strengthen a foundation of a relationship, I don't see how abstinence can possibly fit.

Also: moral values; whether to attend the same or different churches; politics; will the husband be the head of the home as far as decision making (buy a 4x4 ramcharger or a 4 door sedan); recreational choices. There are so many issues to consider before entering into marriage.

soitenly

BTW, the shoes will always fit!

Well if you've done all the above stuff, I'd tend to agree. But I guess my question remains, why not have sex with this person if you're doing all the stuff above?

I mean I can see how at this point, if you are doing all this with your future partner for a long period of time, abstinence might not necessarily be a bad thing. But how is it ever a good thing?

P.S. You've got to be the coolest pentacostle I've ever come across, keep it up dude! Most of your brethren are el lamos

 

[Mustaphile]

I mean I can see how at this point, if you are doing all this with your future partner for a long period of time, abstinence might not necessarily be a bad thing. But how is it ever a good thing?

It's a good thing in that it keeps the focus on reasoned things that matter to make a relationship work, rather than focusing on the lustful desire which can cloud reason. The fact that two people might be attracted to each other, but be totally at odds in terms of the principles that guide their lives can be overlooked in the rush to do the 'wild thing' together. There is nothing wrong with sex, but there is something wrong with putting sex before principle. Sex is temporal, while principle is or should be enduring and eternal. The vision of the partners should be on the long term, not on the short term. An unprincipled person is ill-directed, and can change directions with the same frequency is the wind changes direction. Without first exploring the idea of principle between each other and through self examination and introspection, the partners are setting themselves up for a rocky and stormy sea of discontent, when the temporal sex part is no longer so novel, and more important issue of principle still remains. It's a matter of self-control, and if someone can't exhibit self control at the outset of a relationship, then what evidence is there for them to be able to exhibit self-control after a 'commitment' has been made?

 

[justaman]

It's a good thing in that it keeps the focus on reasoned things that matter to make a relationship work, rather than focusing on the lustful desire which can cloud reason.

I'd say it achieves precisely the opposite. I'd suggest you are far more likely to have your reasoning clouded by wanting to have sex with a person you are presently not allowed to, as opposed to someone who is doing what they will be doing in the marriage anyhow.

The fact that two people might be attracted to each other, but be totally at odds in terms of the principles that guide their lives can be overlooked in the rush to do the 'wild thing' together.

Again, how on earth could abstinence possibly help this?

I know what you're trying to say, but abstinance promotes rushing, it doesn't prevent it. I really don't think that just because a relationship is sexual means that the relationship was only started because of the sex. That's kinda what your suggesting here.

There is nothing wrong with sex, but there is something wrong with putting sex before principle.

Sure, if that principle is not killing kittens. But I'm not sure there is any principle whatever which sex violates that has any kind of discernible impact upon modern day relationships.

An unprincipled person is ill-directed, and can change directions with the same frequency is the wind changes direction. Without first exploring the idea of principle between each other and through self examination and introspection, the partners are setting themselves up for a rocky and stormy sea of discontent, when the temporal sex part is no longer so novel, and more important issue of principle still remains. It's a matter of self-control, and if someone can't exhibit self control at the outset of a relationship, then what evidence is there for them to be able to exhibit self-control after a 'commitment' has been made?

Well why ever have sex then?

Again, you are assuming that in a sexual relationship, sex comes first. I'd say this is rarely if ever the case in long-term relationships, as we are talking about here.

 

[Mustaphile]

Again, you are assuming that in a sexual relationship, sex comes first. I'd say this is rarely if ever the case in long-term relationships, as we are talking about here.

Hehehe...this is a really strange statement, Justaman.

Surely you see the irony in the statment that in a 'sexual relationship', in which you place the word 'sexual' before the word 'relationship', that sex is not the first priority in the that relationship. The irony is coming through loud and clear to me.

I'm not going to argue with you that strenously, because I haven't been a saint in these matters myself. I do have an appreciaton for why people would seek to take a stronger stand on the issue of abstinence. The fact that I pretty much crumble on this matter doesn't change the fact that I know in many ways they are right on the money with regards to how important it is in how we approach long term commitment. I've made mistakes and will continue to make mistakes I'm sure. I won't ever tell someone who values abstinence though, that they are doing it all wrong. They simply have a greater ability to withstand temptation than I do. May God have mercy on me for my lack of control in this area.

 

[gee]

Can I ask just to clear up from reading other posts what is thought about why a girl dresses up showing a lot of flesh. It has been said for a long time that she is dressing for herself and not to attract. Is that true? Would she bother if someday all the men went off planet (!!!) to dress up just for herself? And what are things like Wonderbras or this ad at the moment for "adjustable cleavage bra"? What is that about - as in why? I don't mean that she would want to go about being whistled at from builders on building sites (although I do know some girls do purposefully do that), but surely it is to look attractive / sexual isn't it?????

Personally I think attraction is in a girl dressing modestly. I don't struggle with looking at scantily clad girls and prefer not to be "faced" with it when out. A friend of mine a while back saw a mother in a very short skirt pushing a baby along when she bent down to pick something up and she did not have anything on under the skirt. Why would women want to do that? Even if she had the most beautiful face and character, I wouldn't find her "attractive".

I also don't like this "enhancement" plastic surgery which to me is unattractive. Why not just be natural?

Thanks for clearing up my questions....


P.S. [Edit] I don't mind girls dressing nicely and wearing clothes to show off a (often hard gained) figure. But respect yourselves! I know sometimes things like this can be from a lower self esteem, but mostly you have great characters so show your inner "wonderfulness" and show your outer self off modestly. Can't speak for all guys but I would certainly show you more respect.

 

[SallyNow]

P.S. I like you man. I mean yeah, the anti-sex thing is a tad annoying, but you really aren't like some of these other people. I don't know what it is. And hey, I'm not going to find out because I don't know you. There's something which is causing you to consider sex in this manner, it's not your logic, it's gotta be something else.

Arg...I'm sleepy, but basically...

I think sex is something special, okay? It's like a special dress, but worth much more.

It is not weak-minded to think of sex as special and worth saving.

And you know what? I am in theatre. We do all sorts of cuddly-huggy things together, but as friends. I am not a prude who thinks hugs leads to AIDS.

But sex is something very special.