Modesty

[justaman]

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.

Oh that's a bit cheap, dude! By saying 'sexual relationship', I'm describing the relationship as one where sex is involved, that doesn't mean it is it's primary concern. Honestly, this a bit of no-brainer.

And the thing is, if sex isn't the primary focus of a particular relationship, much of your objections in your antecedent are removed.

I'm not going to argue with you that strenously, because I haven't been a saint in these matters myself.

Don't be ridiculous, if anything your experiences give you more of a stable foundation to argue your point of view from.

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.

But let's forget about God for the moment if we can. In terms of the relationship itself, how does sex impact negatively upon it? I want to hear the principles you believe fornication with your potential partner violates, as I really can't think of any.

 

[justaman]

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.

I think a much better analogy is that sex is like a dress shop. You currently think this shop is special and only go there to buy a dress for a special occasion. What you don't realise is that in addition to the very special section (which certainly does exist) there is also a large area of cheaper dresses you can have for other occasions. Sort of neat/casual, if you will.

My point is that having sex doesn't stop it being special. I can honestly attest to this and I'm a guy Do you want to know why? I can tell you why...

Because the sex its self is utterly irrelevant. What is special is the person you do it with. The specialness of sex is directly proportional to the specialness of the person. So sex with one person can never, ever impact upon sex with any other person (unless you allow it to, I suppose, or if you have a specific complex).

Anyhow, my point is that saving it up absolutely does not improve it's specialness, it's irrelevant. The only way around this logic is to say that you also are not going to date any boys until you find one you want to marry. And that's pretty extreme, I hope you'll agree.

 

[Mustaphile]

But let's forget about God for the moment if we can. In terms of the relationship itself, how does sex impact negatively upon it? I want to hear the principles you believe fornication with your potential partner violates, as I really can't think of any.

I'm not sure whether I have the energy to write it all up.

I have written some of my reasons earlier. I think it clouds the issue, in particular by stifling communication. It's so much easier to have sex and just pretend it's all lovey dovey, when in fact unresolved issues in the relationship being repressed. People become complacent in sexual relationships and can also be deceitful because they just want the sex to go on. Also I think on a spiritual level, something I don't think we will find agreement on, there is an exchange going on between the two people in a sexual experience, a spiritual entwining that causes damage to us spritually when we tear ourselves away from a person.

I haven't got any concrete set of thoughts on the matter at this very moment, because my passion for the conversation is not there. I'm currently being inspired bysome new thoughts on a different subject so it's distracting for me to throw my energies into this conversation. Next time the subject comes up I might try and put together a more compelling argument. I think the girls are dong a great job of sticking by their guns though.

 

[lunalinda]

Hmm...though I'm always up for ranting about my own personal views on sex/abstinence, I'm still fully aware that the thread's original topic isn't about that. And I KNOW how my rants can be, so uh...it's best to avoid it altogether. Much heated points of views were already stated I see, though. I'm shocked that no one backed down either lol...well done.

Anywayz...modesty. I'm for it. I like it. I AM it. I don't wear two piece swimsuits cuz to me, that might as well be my bra and panties. Nope, I wear a one-piece, and not even by itself; I put shorts over them. Some people think it's strange, but...eh, that's just me. I will admit that though more of it has to do with modesty, there's still the other part of it that has to do with my comfort with my own body. And I for one am not that fond of letting it all hang out, cuz quite literally...it will!! lol

Aside from that, though, I just simply prefer to be modest, even beyond clothing's standards. I like to behave like a lady in places where it's proper to do so, be mannerly and whatnot. Ugh...perhaps it's my brain at the moment, but whatever else that qualifies for modesty, then chances are, I'm that. I just can't think of anything else!

But since modesty's best example is clothing, i'll go back to that. Dressing modestly and appropriately leaves "more to the imagination," and HOPEFULLY can make me more desirable to some guys, the right guys anyway. Sometimes, though, I can't even win with THAT. Even in modest clothing, guys can still drool over me like I'm some juicy piece of steak, disregarding anything and everything else that I'm more than willing to share with them. For me, to dress inappropriately will force guys (at least the "weaker" ones) to focus on just the stuff I flaunt on them, rather than whatever I harbor inside my head. I speak from a personal level, not generalizing.

I for one feel....I dunno...just...like crud, utterly low, and meaningless...when all a guy does to make me feel worthy enough of his attention is to have something physically suitable for him to stare at...to have him eyeing me up and down, staring at my breasts (even when they're MORE than covered, and believe me, they're ALWAYS covered...I don't even show cleavage, for crying out loud!) than to care one single bit about whatever lingers in my head. I mean...I really just hate it. And sometimes, there are some guys who can't help it, so that's anothe reason why modesty for me is a must. If a guy can't control his urges by himself, then I'm gonna have to lend a hand.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I'm going to chime in and agree with you, vanshan. I have to look away from women who dress immodestly. I have one lady that I love, and will always remain faithful too. I also like keeping my thoughts pure in that regard, I don't think it's a healthy thing to fantasise, or feel lust towards other women when your involved with one woman, and somebody running around with pants stuck half way up their butt crack and with their breasts hanging out of their top, is not something I need to see at all. I make my choice when I look away, so its not a huge issue, but I would think that some people could sensitive to others around them. I don't particularly like women who let it all hang out, it's too distracting for me. I suppose they get a kick out it though. A boost to their ego's at the expense of others.

So let me get this straight...because you think it's not healthy to fantisise, because you think it's not healthy to feel lust towards another woman, because you (apparently) can't see an 'immodestly' clad woman without feeling that lust...these women should change the way they dress?

I completely fail to see how this is a remotely rational position to take.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The problem with this argument, especially the part about "injuring people spiritually" is that, as time has shown, "sensitivity" doesn't work.

Even if I covered myself in a Burqa, as another poster suggested, I might be spiritually "injuring" or repulsing someone who thinks that women should not be seen outside the home.

/Aside/

Has anyone noticed that this argument is used almost exclusively by men? The "you're tempting me, so cover up" argument?

Why do I have to dress to suit the lowest common denominator because men seem to think they can't control themselves?

/Aside/

It's obvious you just don't understand. Women are the evil ones, going around showing off their bodies and causing us men to sin. When men lust after women, it's the women's fault, don't you see? Those women who dress immodestly...they deserve everything they get, it's all their own fault. If only every woman would cover up completely from head to toe and (preferably) never be seen in public, they'd all be perfectly safe and we'd have no problems with lust.

/sarcasm

 

[treerootbill]

Anywayz...modesty. I'm for it. I like it. I AM it. I don't wear two piece swimsuits cuz to me, that might as well be my bra and panties. Nope, I wear a one-piece, and not even by itself; I put shorts over them. Some people think it's strange, but...eh, that's just me. I will admit that though more of it has to do with modesty, there's still the other part of it that has to do with my comfort with my own body. And I for one am not that fond of letting it all hang out, cuz quite literally...it will!! lol

I agree with this. The bikini was designed with the single aim to show as much off as possible, and women who wear them are participating in this.

 

[Mustaphile]

So let me get this straight...because you think it's not healthy to fantisise, because you think it's not healthy to feel lust towards another woman, because you (apparently) can't see an 'immodestly' clad woman without feeling that lust...these women should change the way they dress?

I completely fail to see how this is a remotely rational position to take.

I did say that I don't think it's a big issue and that I make my choice (regarding tempation) when I look away. I control my own reaction to it. All I asked for was some pragmatic courtesy on the part of others in this regard. I'm sure you'd like to blow it all up into some ideological debate, but I'm not going to go down that path with you. I can only assume you missed the the posts that followed. I'm sorry you misunderstood my stance on this matter. I have no control over your emotional reaction to it.

 

[Salty Tears]

Lust can be a problem with both men and women.
I don't believe we should dwell on fantasy's it can only bring harm.

 

[Salty Tears]

One never lusts for the same person all their life.
It is just one fantasy after another.

 

[feral]

And once-a-freaking-again having sex before marriage DOES NOT EQUAL CASUAL SEX!

Why are you becoming so upset when I never said that sex before marriage was casual sex? What I am referring to is casual sex - multiple meaningless hook-ups. If you had read my earlier posts, you would know that I've said several times that I am not of the "waiting til marriage" school, nor do I believe that a slip of paper either signifies readiness or is required for sex. It is casual sex - one night stands, meaningless hookups that oftentimes leave one individual regretful or confused - that I am discussing. Certainly, I don't think that one has to avoid all sexual contact until marriage. I just see too many people trying to convince themselves that sex is meaningless and that romantic expectations are wrong - so when they have sex, they feel guilty or angry or unfulfilled. I guess my point, which I have apparently not made clear, is that I think the way sex is handled in this culture is faulty, and that our experiences are cheapened by the expectations in modern society. You are allowed to have sex, and it's fine, but my abstinence seems to be a big problem. Why?

Oh yes, and I said I wasn't going to comment on this any longer, but a nice, refreshing break and a good reading of the Wendy Shallit book has made me think the topic should indeed go on.

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.

Are we to understand that you see all remorse as "whipping" oneself? I do not try to find ways to make myself feel bad about my experiences, nor do I consider myself a bad person because I've made some very dumb choices in life. They were, as you have said, learning experiences - I just pity others who, like myself, have insisted on learning the hard way by lowering our personal standards and engaging in acts that left us feeling ashamed, used and remorseful. Making mistakes doesn't make someone a bad person whatsoever, and recognising when one has made a mistake is not "whipping", it's growing, and I consider it a sign of maturity when one can say they have learned from all the stupid things they've done in life. Indeed, masochism is problematic, and I certainly feel terrible for those who feel the need to dwell upon and/or punish themselves for mistakes, but admitting mistakes and recognising the folly of our earlier decisions is not whipping, nor is it bad.

Awesome, you regret what you've done. That's excellent, you must be so content with your world view.

Of course I am content with my worldview, why wouldn't I be? I am over five years old, and that means I can take responsibility for my actions, learn from my mistakes, admit where I've gone wrong, regret the harm I've caused myself and go forward in life. Is that a bad thing? Should I instead frantically defend the stupid choices I've made, push myself into situations where my hopes and needs are not met, cheapen my experiences through contacts I do not want, deny any wrongdoing and blindly continue down the same path?

Preferring to be the person who feels it is bad is, in my view, weird.

Okay, so who do you know who prefers to feel bad?? I make my dumb choice, feel remorse about it for awhile, examine the situation, take to heart any lessons I can learn from it and move on. In my view, someone who refuses to feel remorse is the weird one, because they are neither growing nor learning. In the extreme it's usually sociopathic, though I wouldn't apply the term to someone who doesn't regret sex.

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.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but not all of my experiences were even remotely positive or enjoyable, and I attribute that to not being ready and being rushed into sex - something which in my mind, abstinence combats. For me, sex has been a lot of things, and not always cheery. I recall a lot of pressure, feeling like I had to comply or I'd be teased or dumped, being really uncomfortable with someone looking at and touching my body when I didn't trust them or know them well, crying because it hurt, being angry with the partner for violating my space and making me feel a sense of obligation, being furious with myself for what I was doing, feeling an odd sense of power because of the effect of my body and motions on someone else, and afterwards feeling like "well, that was a good waste of an hour". I went to the mall with some female friends that afternoon, and we all discussed it, and it was like "yeah, it's no big deal and something you do just to keep the boyfriend"...and to me, those feelings are not worth it. No, I don't think sex is all bad or icky - I dated a guy for 4 years, and we ended up sleeping together, and while it was nice and I don't regret it, I wouldn't advise it because the context of the relationship changed after that. I don't punish myself for it, I don't think he or I were wicked people, but if put in the same situation knowing the pros and cons, I wouldn't have done it. Sorry to get all personal with my experiences, but I don't like leaving the impression that everyone who is modest or in support of abstinence is A. religious or B. a virgin.

My view, which I may have neglected to properly describe in the heat of debate, is that abstinence means waiting to have sex until one is completely ready. Not waiting for the slip of paper, not waiting for permission of the priest, not remaining a virgin until you die, etc. It's just respecting yourself enough not to let anyone tell you how to think, not letting others push or coerce you into sex, making the decision yourself when you are ready and not in the heat of passion or because your friends teased you about being a virgin or a prude. If you were to read that book in the OP you would hear a different version of modesty and abstinence then what you may expect - it isn't prudery.

whats it about? is it a bunch of rules?

Freedom from rules, actually, and a questioning of the current social rules that imply sex should be taken lightly, free from emotion and connection. It's a pretty good book, and I'd suggest you read it - it encourages people to have sex when they are ready and discusses how completely nude women can be the most modest of all.

It's obvious you just don't understand. Women are the evil ones, going around showing off their bodies and causing us men to sin. When men lust after women, it's the women's fault, don't you see? Those women who dress immodestly...they deserve everything they get, it's all their own fault. If only every woman would cover up completely from head to toe and (preferably) never be seen in public, they'd all be perfectly safe and we'd have no problems with lust.

Hmm..apparently the argument can only be between burqas and bikinis, with no middle ground. Why is that? When a woman goes out in public dressed in clothing designed to make her look sexy, she is going to inspire some lust. It's a fact. However, that doesn't mean others are not obligated to control their lust and not attack her. Come on people, compromise a little. Women's sexuality does not curtail men's responsibility. However, I still don't get the immodest dress bit. Why does a woman dress in ways that are specifically designed to make her look sexy, when she does not want everything that goes with being sexy, like getting catcalls or being approached for dates? I don't understand that. Perhaps someone can explain.

 

[justaman]

Man this is going to take forever...

Why are you becoming so upset when I never said that sex before marriage was casual sex?

I became 'upset' (I wasn't really, I just wrote as if I was) because you stated that I desired casual sex exclusively and that I necessarily aimed for lower standards and I believe you implied I must have a lower level of self-respect than abstinant people because of this.

Are we understanding why i responded a little acidicly now?

What I am referring to is casual sex - multiple meaningless hook-ups. If you had read my earlier posts, you would know that I've said several times that I am not of the "waiting til marriage" school, nor do I believe that a slip of paper either signifies readiness or is required for sex. It is casual sex - one night stands, meaningless hookups that oftentimes leave one individual regretful or confused - that I am discussing. Certainly, I don't think that one has to avoid all sexual contact until marriage. I just see too many people trying to convince themselves that sex is meaningless and that romantic expectations are wrong - so when they have sex, they feel guilty or angry or unfulfilled. I guess my point, which I have apparently not made clear, is that I think the way sex is handled in this culture is faulty, and that our experiences are cheapened by the expectations in modern society.

Sex cannot be 'cheapened'. You may feel like this because you expected more from a particular experience. I'd suggest you were naive if your expectations ever exceeded the reality of the situation.

But this doesn't mean that you cannot have high expectations in certain circumstances. You just need to be awaree of what expectations are appropriate for what circumstances. The only way one can do that is to increase their knowledge.

The reason I am against abstinance is that it promotes ignorance. Dress it up however you like, you are saying knowledge and experience is bad and that you should keep yourself ignorant in order to make something 'special'.

Are we to understand that you see all remorse as "whipping" oneself? I do not try to find ways to make myself feel bad about my experiences, nor do I consider myself a bad person because I've made some very dumb choices in life. They were, as you have said, learning experiences - I just pity others who, like myself, have insisted on learning the hard way by lowering our personal standards and engaging in acts that left us feeling ashamed, used and remorseful. Making mistakes doesn't make someone a bad person whatsoever, and recognising when one has made a mistake is not "whipping", it's growing, and I consider it a sign of maturity when one can say they have learned from all the stupid things they've done in life. Indeed, masochism is problematic, and I certainly feel terrible for those who feel the need to dwell upon and/or punish themselves for mistakes, but admitting mistakes and recognising the folly of our earlier decisions is not whipping, nor is it bad.

You misunderstand me. It is not making mistakes I see as pitiable, it is your choice to view your experiences as mistakes.

Okay, so who do you know who prefers to feel bad??

*points at you*

I don't think this is necessarily something you can help, it seems quite firmly lodged in your psyche. But the fact of the matter is, you call mistakes and regret what others delight in and giggle with friends over. It is sad, from my position, that you are the former rather than the latter.

I make my dumb choice, feel remorse about it for awhile, examine the situation, take to heart any lessons I can learn from it and move on. In my view, someone who refuses to feel remorse is the weird one, because they are neither growing nor learning. In the extreme it's usually sociopathic, though I wouldn't apply the term to someone who doesn't regret sex.

Why must you feel remorse about something that doesn't necessarily require it? I agree remorse is designed to be constructive, but only for things worthy of the emotion. Sex is not an example of something worthy of remorse.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but not all of my experiences were even remotely positive or enjoyable, and I attribute that to not being ready and being rushed into sex - something which in my mind, abstinence combats. For me, sex has been a lot of things, and not always cheery. I recall a lot of pressure, feeling like I had to comply or I'd be teased or dumped, being really uncomfortable with someone looking at and touching my body when I didn't trust them or know them well, crying because it hurt, being angry with the partner for violating my space and making me feel a sense of obligation, being furious with myself for what I was doing, feeling an odd sense of power because of the effect of my body and motions on someone else, and afterwards feeling like "well, that was a good waste of an hour". I went to the mall with some female friends that afternoon, and we all discussed it, and it was like "yeah, it's no big deal and something you do just to keep the boyfriend"...and to me, those feelings are not worth it. No, I don't think sex is all bad or icky - I dated a guy for 4 years, and we ended up sleeping together, and while it was nice and I don't regret it, I wouldn't advise it because the context of the relationship changed after that. I don't punish myself for it, I don't think he or I were wicked people, but if put in the same situation knowing the pros and cons, I wouldn't have done it. Sorry to get all personal with my experiences, but I don't like leaving the impression that everyone who is modest or in support of abstinence is A. religious or B. a virgin.

Some people require abstinance, hey, perhaps you're one of them, but I think that is to be pitied Now i don't want you to take the following as personal (even though I know it is) but you brought your experiences into this forum as an argument and I'd like to address them. I hope I do not offend.

Why you are unable to choose a boyfriend you do feel comfortable with having sex with? Your negative feelings regarding sex seem to me - from the very brief acquaintance I've had with your situation - to be reflective of your negative feelings regarding the individual. This ties in rather neatly with what I've been saying to sallynow.

I have 'deflowered' two virgins. Neither cried from the pain because I was not a SOB. Both found the experiences intensly positive. To quote one "Why did I wait so long!" Your first time sounds like it was with a complete blankety-blank-head. That's a poor relationship decision, the sex was simply a vehicle for those negative feelings.

If your relationship changed because you had sex with your partner I would suggest this is a freaking good reason to be having sex with the partner BEFORE YOU GET MARRIED! Do you see what I'm saying?? This completely undermines all of those responses to my 'race' analogy. Let's say you didn't sleep with him. The relationship wouldn't have changed, you may have stuck together longer. You get married. You finally have sex. The relationship changes.

Are we seeing the dangers of abstinence now??

My view, which I may have neglected to properly describe in the heat of debate, is that abstinence means waiting to have sex until one is completely ready. Not waiting for the slip of paper, not waiting for permission of the priest, not remaining a virgin until you die, etc. It's just respecting yourself enough not to let anyone tell you how to think, not letting others push or coerce you into sex, making the decision yourself when you are ready and not in the heat of passion or because your friends teased you about being a virgin or a prude.

Fair enough: this isn't abstinence and you should stop calling it that.

I mean you're basically saying "You shouldn't have sex with someone unless you want to." Kind of a no-brainer.

 

[lunalinda]

Oyyyyy...my head hurts lol...

 

[mamabear4]

I have 'deflowered' two virgins. Neither cried from the pain because I was not a SOB. Both found the experiences intensly positive. To quote one "Why did I wait so long!"

Are we seeing the dangers of abstinence now??

This is a Christian forum and I assume we accept the Bible as our guidebook here. If so, we have to take into consideration that the Bible clearly states that sex outside of marriage, called fornication in the KJV, is sin. Read Galatians 5: 16 to the end of the chapter. That scripture clearly juxtaposes the "intensely positive experiences" of fornication with the "dangers" of abstinence. The one enjoys the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives while the other does not.

I'm sorry to pour cold water on your discussion here, but I believe that the acceptance of fornication is setting young people up for failed marriages. The Bible has a template for happiness in marriage and it has become so obscured by accepted dating practices that it is scarcely visible anymore.

When the template is followed there is no "need for sexual experimentation" before marriage to see if they are "compatible." The Bible says that love is not a feeling, it is a commitment. (Study the Greek definition of agape love. ) I know a young couple who never even held hands before marriage and they were free throughout their entire courtship to learn to know each other on an intimate basis, minus the physical pressure to perform sexually. Their wedding day was the most blissful event that I have ever witnessed. They were jubilant! I pity any couple who comes to the marriage altar without having heard that purity of heart and soul can be attained throughout courtship. It is a message that needs to be heard today and I'm sorry to have to be the one to turn this discussion this way, but my husband and I weren't pure when we married 28 years ago and we have had a terribly difficult marriage. Thankfully, God changed our lives around and we are happy and deeply in love with each other today, but when I think of the difference abstinence would have made for us I could cry. Instead I just use those emotions to "bathe the feet of Jesus" with in gratitude for rescueing our marriage and our family.

 

[lunalinda]

Amen mamabear...*hugs to ya*

 

[mamabear4]

Thanks Lunalinda, Your post brought tears of joy. Can we hold "paws" here (since I'm a bear and you are now my friendbear?) and thank God for His blessed Word?


Thank you Lord Jesus for the many, many templates that You've given us for the business of life. Thank You that you never expected us to live life without directions. Thank You for not only giving us directions but for giving us the tools that we need to accomplish them. Thank you for these beautiful souls that are discussing serious issues that affect us all and thank you for giving them clear and curious minds. Especially bless Lunalinda and give her the joy of knowing that all is well between her heart and Yours. In Jesus' precious name we pray, Amen.

 

[Star_Pixels]

Um, I haven't read the book, but I kind of disagree with what a lot of people consider modest.

Such as...

Where I live, I wear cut off shorts and crop tops with sandals because it is SO HOT, even in the Winter the sun is shining.

I'm trying not to die of heatstroke, and I think that any God would forgive that, as should men and women who aren't divine... yet.

So we should really just let up and what we consider modesty. Yeah, have fun, be nice and wear what you want. If you want people more modest, move up to where it's colder and people HAVE to be modest to survive! I'm not wearing a total body suit in this heat.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

This is a Christian forum and I assume we accept the Bible as our guidebook here.

This is your first error. Although this is a christian forum, this area is specifically for both christians and non-christians, so assuming that 'we' accept (your interpretation of) the bible as our guidebook is not warranted.

If so, we have to take into consideration that the Bible clearly states that sex outside of marriage, called fornication in the KJV, is sin. Read Galatians 5: 16 to the end of the chapter. That scripture clearly juxtaposes the "intensely positive experiences" of fornication with the "dangers" of abstinence. The one enjoys the fruit of the Holy Spirit in their lives while the other does not.

This is your second error. As 2,000 years of christianity have proven, the bible doesn't 'clearly' say anything. It is so diverse, vague, contradictory and antiquated that a case can be made that it supports just about anything. You might well believe that your interpretation of a particular verse is correct, but that is no guarantee that it is or even that most christians agree with you.

I'm sorry to pour cold water on your discussion here, but I believe that the acceptance of fornication is setting young people up for failed marriages. The Bible has a template for happiness in marriage and it has become so obscured by accepted dating practices that it is scarcely visible anymore.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? It would certainly seem to be contradicted by the fact that christians have a higher divorce rate than non-christians.

I know a young couple who never even held hands before marriage and they were free throughout their entire courtship to learn to know each other on an intimate basis, minus the physical pressure to perform sexually. Their wedding day was the most blissful event that I have ever witnessed. They were jubilant!

I suspect that their jubilation was completely unrelated to the fact that they had remained virgins. Certainly, anecdotal evidence like this is, in any case, useless.

I pity any couple who comes to the marriage altar without having heard that purity of heart and soul can be attained throughout courtship.

I've no idea what 'purity of heart and soul' you think can be attained through remaining celibate, nor do I know of any evidence that such a purity exists. For my part, I pity any couple who marry without having an active sex life.

It is a message that needs to be heard today and I'm sorry to have to be the one to turn this discussion this way, but my husband and I weren't pure when we married 28 years ago and we have had a terribly difficult marriage. Thankfully, God changed our lives around and we are happy and deeply in love with each other today, but when I think of the difference abstinence would have made for us I could cry. Instead I just use those emotions to "bathe the feet of Jesus" with in gratitude for rescueing our marriage and our family.

I'm sorry to hear that you and your husband have had problems, but I doubt very much that they had anything to do with the fact that you weren't 'pure' (for which read 'abstinent').

Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that marriages were both partners remain abstinent before the wedding are more successful or happy?

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

This is your first error. Although this is a christian forum, this area is specifically for both christians and non-christians, so assuming that 'we' accept (your interpretation of) the bible as our guidebook is not warranted.

She may have been referring to the sad number of Christians who accept the world's view of sex and deny the fact that the Scriptures state plainly that pre-marital sex carries with it extreme consequences and that is why the Bible tells us to wait until we are in a marriage.

This is your second error. As 2,000 years of christianity have proven, the bible doesn't 'clearly' say anything. It is so diverse, vague, contradictory and antiquated that a case can be made that it supports just about anything. You might well believe that your interpretation of a particular verse is correct, but that is no guarantee that it is or even that most christians agree with you.

*ahem* The Scriptures do not contradict one another.

Do you have any evidence to support this claim? It would certainly seem to be contradicted by the fact that christians have a higher divorce rate than non-christians.

Do you even realize how many people believe simply believing in God makes them automatically a Christian? Many of those people who are divorced may not be Christians at all. Regardless, there is divorce even in Christian circles. There is a significantly lower divorce rate for Christians (and even non-christians) who abstain until marriage.

I suspect that their jubilation was completely unrelated to the fact that they had remained virgins.

Really? Imagine this - what if it was close to Christmas time and you had one present to open and you just knew it was the most glorious present in the world, an item you would treasure and protect until the day you die? What if you caved in and opened the present the week before Christmas and then woke up on Christmas day to find nothing under the tree? What if you had held off until the appropriate time to open the present? Wouldn't it be so much more worth it if you had built up that anticipation of your great gift? That is similar to what sex is like. It's a gift, not to be opened until the wedding night. When you "open" that gift before the appropriate time it loses it's lustre before the wedding night. It's not quite as special. Sure, there will be that initial exhileration when you open it, but when the time comes when it should have been opened your feelings will be bittersweet as there is nothing to truly enjoy as far as it being fresh and new.

For my part, I pity any couple who marry without having an active sex life.

They have their entire lives to explore and enjoy one another's bodies. To put it quite simply - until you're married your body belongs to you and no one else.

Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that marriages were both partners remain abstinent before the wedding are more successful or happy?

I could share countless testimonies from Christian couples who remained absolutely pure until their wedding day and are very happy and in love.

 

[mamabear4]

The bottom line is not about sex, it's about God and His Word. Do we accept it as His will for our lives or don't we? If not, there's no point in discussing sex, finances, marriage or anything. I believe the Bible is our only safe guide for life. If we go by science, popular thought or anything besides, we'll end up in a morass of confusion, disappointment and pain. I'm talking from both experience and observation. We've all seen lives that went the wrong direction and know the end results of sin. Why not help as many see the right direction and prevent a lot of pain?

As for my interpretation of the Bible being akin to only my opinion, let me remind you that the Holy Spirit "convicts the world of sin." We see Christians all over the world, from every culture, race and even period of time, unite in commonly held convictions concerning right and wrong. That can only be the result of the Holy Spirit "leading us into all truth."