Modesty

[Electric Sceptic]

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.

She was referring to the people in this forum, all of whom do not take the bible as their guideline. Consequently, what she said was false.

As for the 'sad number of Christians...' as you put it above, your loaded language doesn't help. Try rewording it to be more accurate. Then it would say "large number of Christians who disagree with my interpretation of the bible and think that pre-marital sex is not forbidden by it." Your personal interpretation of the bible is not the only one; it is not demonstrably correct. Obviuosly, it is correct in your opinion, and incorrect in the opinion of many.

The Scriptures do not contradict one another.

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

The bible contradicts itself in any number of places.

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.

Oh, I see. When they say they're christians but do something you don't like, you want to claim that many of them 'may not be Christians at all'. Nice double standard, because if we exclude all these people from being Christians, the number of christians worldwide would drop significantly - which, of course, no doubt you would dispute.

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.

Please provide support for this claim.

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.

This may be the worst analogy I've ever heard. Sex isn't the 'gift' in your analogy - being married itself is. I've 'opened' the gift of sex before my wedding night and I can assure you that it didn't lose any of its lustre, and it was just as special after marriage as it was before.

Your last statement is simply false, and you have no groudns whatsoever on which to make it.

They have their entire lives to explore and enjoy one another's bodies.

Whatever that has to do with anything.

To put it quite simply - until you're married your body belongs to you and no one else.

After you're married your body belongs to you and no-one else. You don't stop owning your body after marriage. You may seek to share it with someone else for your mutual enjoyment; that does not mean you no longer own it, and nothing means that someone else owns it or has any right to it.

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

That's nice. It would be completely useless, however. No doubt we could start a thread where we all throw in anecdotes about couples we know who are happy or unhappy and whether or not they abstained before marriage. Of course, it wouldn't demonstrate anything at all.

 

[justaman]

Electric Skeptic did answer this quite satisfactorilly, but I wouldn't want you to think I was ignoring you

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

Um no This is a philosophy sub-forum. Bibles may be brought in, but their usage must be justified if you wish to be taken seriously.

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.

Good.

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.

*VVVRRRRRRIIIIIIP*

Are you saying you witnessed what I think you're saying you witnessed??

heh, alright let's assume you didn't. How are you going to know whether or not their actions paid off? Ans= we don't. This story really doesn't prove anything except that some people are scary.

I mean really, why not just go back to arranged marriages? Why even let the happy couple meet before the ceremony?? Why spoil the surprise??

 

[lunalinda]

I'm unfortunately too sleepy this morning to pick apart quotes bit by bit to comment on as is common by a few other (expert) posters here *cough*justaman*cough* hehe, but I assure you, I would if I could! Sometimes it's hard to shut me up from rants. Eh...but I have to be in the mood and feel like I'd actually get somewhere, and in my opinion, it's kinda hard to get somewhere when the Bible isn't fully taken into account by some people, which is understandable. But on to the point. I at least wanted to comment on one thing:

Oh, I see. When they say they're christians but do something you don't like, you want to claim that many of them 'may not be Christians at all'. Nice double standard, because if we exclude all these people from being Christians, the number of christians worldwide would drop significantly - which, of course, no doubt you would dispute.

She has a point, and a dang good one. It seems to me like you were kinda twisting her words around to be more fitting for your comment on them, which is cute, but unnecessary. That's just my personal take. I just wanna expand on what she was saying.

There are a LOT of people out there who call themselves Christians, but do not live out the life as one. And that's even with other religions, not just Christianity (which I label more a relationship than a religion). I've know people that still label themselves Baptists or Catholics, and yet...you'd never know it by the way they live. They just keep the label while living like they don't have a religion. It's like using an empty gallon of milk and refilling it with water. It's still technically "labelled" milk, but when the contents pour out, you know better. (please forgive the corny analogy...my need for zzz's is getting the better of me) A Christian is someone who is "Christlike." Of course, Christians can still be called to different things, and still serve the Lord in different ways, but generally speaking, we all need to be Christlike. But there a lot of people out there (it's no fact, but it's a reasonable guess), that don't live up to the name of ANY religion. Labels.

Now as far as directly relating the "Christian or not a Christian" thing to the statistics of divorce, umm...I'm not so sure I wanna do, because I'm not an expert on statistics, and would be more comfortable commenting on them if I knew more about them. I just wanted to elaborate on what fluffy_rainbow was saying. I will say this, though: Those statistics can still very well be affected by what we said, ('bout people calling themselves Christians just for the sake of labelling). It's not a matter of them "doing what we don't like" or whatever else you might be thinking. Just a matter of labels, not what "good" or "bad" they're doing. Oyyyy...I dunno if I'm making sense...probably not. I know what I wanna say and it DOES make sense in my little world, but I ssense I'm not putting it out right. Sorry in advance. But oh well...at least I tried and with a half-asleep brain. That's gotta count for something.

<---me

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

She was referring to the people in this forum, all of whom do not take the bible as their guideline. Consequently, what she said was false.

Then if that's the case, then you were correct in pointing out this is not a Christian's Only section of the site.

As for the 'sad number of Christians...' as you put it above, your loaded language doesn't help. Try rewording it to be more accurate. Then it would say "large number of Christians who disagree with my interpretation of the bible and think that pre-marital sex is not forbidden by it." Your personal interpretation of the bible is not the only one; it is not demonstrably correct. Obviuosly, it is correct in your opinion, and incorrect in the opinion of many.

So if I said the Word of God says that to love one another is the greatest commandment, that would be my personal interpretation when it is clear what the Bible is saying? The Bible says quite clearly that sex outside of marriage is wrong, just like murder, stealing, and lying.

Thanks, I needed a laugh.

The bible contradicts itself in any number of places.

*yawn* Well, when you're ready to point these flaws out instead of making fun of my beliefs I'm all eyes. I'd love to see these numerous contradictions.

Oh, I see. When they say they're christians but do something you don't like, you want to claim that many of them 'may not be Christians at all'. Nice double standard, because if we exclude all these people from being Christians, the number of christians worldwide would drop significantly - which, of course, no doubt you would dispute.

Nice way to twist my words around. I said that out of all the people who claim to be Christians, less than half actually claim they are "born again" in the sense that is recognized by the Christian church. In other words, only about 32% claim they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. My point was, many people are convinced merely believing in God makes them a "Christian".

Please provide support for this claim.

See my thread Abstinence = Happier Marriages and Lower Divorce rates.

This may be the worst analogy I've ever heard. Sex isn't the 'gift' in your analogy - being married itself is. I've 'opened' the gift of sex before my wedding night and I can assure you that it didn't lose any of its lustre, and it was just as special after marriage as it was before.

Is it the worst you've heard because you think sex is just some act we do that feels good and not something special and sacred between two people?

Your last statement is simply false, and you have no groudns whatsoever on which to make it.

Really? There are not only statistics, but also personally testimonies of people who waited until their wedding night and people who didn't. Most people who didn't wait, practically fell into the "marriage bed" with a yawn. Why? Because by that time sex has become routine. At that point, marriage has been reduced to merely a piece of paper because you've already tasted of the privileges of consummating the marriage union.

Whatever that has to do with anything.

That was in response to your comment that you pity anybody who doesn't have sex before their wedding night. I'm assuming you're saying that because you think people should be at the level of some sex god or goddess, a pro if you will, by the time they go on their honeymoon. I've heard alot of people use the argument, "everyone should try before they buy".

After you're married your body belongs to you and no-one else. You don't stop owning your body after marriage. You may seek to share it with someone else for your mutual enjoyment; that does not mean you no longer own it, and nothing means that someone else owns it or has any right to it.

The Word of God says after you're married your body also belongs to your spouse. First of all, it belongs to God, then your spouse as the two become "one flesh" after the marriage and have consummated that marriage union.

That's nice. It would be completely useless, however.

Of course you'd say that! You don't want to be presented with any proof that you could be incorrect in your baseless assumptions that sex before marriage does no harm! How can it get any more realistic, accurate, and clear than with firsthand accounts from those who both abstained and had sex before they were married?

 

[Star_Pixels]

Really? There are not only statistics, but also personally testimonies of people who waited until their wedding night and people who didn't. Most people who didn't wait, practically fell into the "marriage bed" with a yawn. Why? Because by that time sex has become routine. At that point, marriage has been reduced to merely a piece of paper because you've already tasted of the privileges of consummating the marriage union.

I don't mean to get dragged into another argument by my own curiosity, but oh well.

Fluffy, do you deny that sex wears low after time even when you are married? At least when you've been with the same person over and over again?

Statistics show that almost all of the people who cheat on their spouses, causing heart ache, were bored of sex with the person they married or just plain bored and wanting to look for something else to do (isn't sneaking behind peoples backs exciting?)

So, what's the difference between getting bored with sex outside of marriage and getting bored with sex inside of marriage? It all, after time, becomes a piece of paper.

The Word of God says after you're married your body also belongs to your spouse. First of all, it belongs to God, then your spouse as the two become "one flesh" after the marriage and have consummated that marriage union.

What's wrong with spreading yourself around? I mean, if you share yourself and draw all people as one, then we really will be united and become as one flesh.

And does this mean the bible thinks that remarriage is wrong? Even if the widow/er is still within breeding age and lost their spouse due to the unpredictable reasons?

And divorce? Like with an abusive spouse or someone who rapes you and your children every night?

 

[fluffy_rainbow]

Star Pixels, typically financial issues and sexual problems are the cause of divorce and infidelity, you're right. Psychologically speaking, men typically cheat for sexual reasons. Women usually cheat after making an emotional connection with someone other than their spouse. Sex is a very important part of marriage. Pre-marital sex fosters insecurity and doubt. Also, let's say you have sex with the same person for two years prior to marriage and find you're bored with them the first week of marriage? Only being married a week, you are not as strong and mature in the marriage than say a couple who abstained until their wedding night and started having these issues two years into the marriage. They would be more prepared to handle the situation in a rational manner, instead of getting a divorce or straying.

Divorce and remarriage is a whole separate issue. Legal marriage + consummating the marriage makes the couple one flesh. A legal divorce severs the ties. God would not want anyone staying in a dangerous marriage in which they are being raped and beaten.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

So if I said the Word of God says that to love one another is the greatest commandment, that would be my personal interpretation when it is clear what the Bible is saying? The Bible says quite clearly that sex outside of marriage is wrong, just like murder, stealing, and lying.

That's your opinion. It is an opinion disagreed with by a great many people, including many christians.

*yawn* Well, when you're ready to point these flaws out instead of making fun of my beliefs I'm all eyes. I'd love to see these numerous contradictions.

I haven't made fun of anyone's beliefs. As for the innumerable contradictions, I have no doubt that you are as familiar with them as I am - you just choose to believe they are 'resolved'. I do not accept the interpretive gymnastics necessary to resolve them as valid.

Nice way to twist my words around. I said that out of all the people who claim to be Christians, less than half actually claim they are "born again" in the sense that is recognized by the Christian church. In other words, only about 32% claim they have accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior. My point was, many people are convinced merely believing in God makes them a "Christian".

Now you are attempting to judge who is and isn't a 'real' christian. The fact remains that out of people who classify themselves as christians, a higher divorce rate is found than people who do not classify themselves as christians. If you want to resort to the 'no true scotsman' line in an attempt to trivialise this fact, then go for it.

See my thread Abstinence = Happier Marriages and Lower Divorce rates.

I cannot find this thread. Can you please post support for your claim here, in the thread in which you made the claim?

Is it the worst you've heard because you think sex is just some act we do that feels good and not something special and sacred between two people?

It is the worst I've heard because you are acting like sex is the be-all and end-all of marriage, as if it's the reason why people marry. It isn't. It's one of the things that married couples usually share.

Really? There are not only statistics, but also personally testimonies of people who waited until their wedding night and people who didn't.

Really. I've not seen any such statistics, and I'm not in the least interested in anecdotal evidence, as I've said. Obviously, such evidence relates to a tiny percentage of the people to whom the issue is relevant.

Most people who didn't wait, practically fell into the "marriage bed" with a yawn. Why? Because by that time sex has become routine. At that point, marriage has been reduced to merely a piece of paper because you've already tasted of the privileges of consummating the marriage union.

Sorry, but again, this is nonsense, and you have no basis for making it.

That was in response to your comment that you pity anybody who doesn't have sex before their wedding night. I'm assuming you're saying that because you think people should be at the level of some sex god or goddess, a pro if you will, by the time they go on their honeymoon. I've heard alot of people use the argument, "everyone should try before they buy".

Then you assume incorrectly. I pity anybody who doesn't have sex before their wedding night because (a) it is an important aspect of a marriage, one in which the couple should make sure they are compatible beforehand and (b) because it is an enjoyable feature of a relationship and I know of no reason why people should deny themselves that enjoyment before marriage.

The Word of God says after you're married your body also belongs to your spouse. First of all, it belongs to God, then your spouse as the two become "one flesh" after the marriage and have consummated that marriage union.

The bible (it's only your opinion that it's the 'word of god') might well say that; it's wrong. My body is my body; nobody else owns it in any regard.

Of course you'd say that! You don't want to be presented with any proof that you could be incorrect in your baseless assumptions that sex before marriage does no harm! How can it get any more realistic, accurate, and clear than with firsthand accounts from those who both abstained and had sex before they were married?

This is simply dishonest. I have asked above for you to support your claims (ie., provide proof); you have failed to do so. I have merely noted that anecdotal evidence is useless, and I am not interested in it.

Pre-marital sex fosters insecurity and doubt.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.

God would not want anyone staying in a dangerous marriage in which they are being raped and beaten.

Really? Funny, that's not what Jesus said...

 

[mamabear4]

The bible (it's only your opinion that it's the 'word of god')............

This is simply dishonest. I have asked above for you to support your claims (ie., provide proof); you have failed to do so. I have merely noted that anecdotal evidence is useless, and I am not interested in it.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.QUOTE]


It's a bit difficult to argue a point when the Bible is disregarded and anecdotal (historical) evidence is useless. So apparently what you want are scientific studies done on premarital sex? Let's find them. Can you give us a hand?

 

[justaman]

I'm unfortunately too sleepy this morning to pick apart quotes bit by bit to comment on as is common by a few other (expert) posters here *cough*justaman*cough* hehe, but I assure you, I would if I could!

*unsure whether to be insulted or complimented*

There are a LOT of people out there who call themselves Christians, but do not live out the life as one. And that's even with other religions, not just Christianity (which I label more a relationship than a religion). I've know people that still label themselves Baptists or Catholics, and yet...you'd never know it by the way they live. They just keep the label while living like they don't have a religion. It's like using an empty gallon of milk and refilling it with water. It's still technically "labelled" milk, but when the contents pour out, you know better. (please forgive the corny analogy...my need for zzz's is getting the better of me) A Christian is someone who is "Christlike." Of course, Christians can still be called to different things, and still serve the Lord in different ways, but generally speaking, we all need to be Christlike. But there a lot of people out there (it's no fact, but it's a reasonable guess), that don't live up to the name of ANY religion. Labels.

Do you want to know why all of this is silly? Because none of y'all can be Christlike. It's unpossible. The dude was - apparently - perfect, and yet humans are not. So therefore - going strictly by this definition - no one is a Christian. This is what Electric Skeptic was getting at. As soon as you start down this line of reasoning, you are personally taking ownership of picking and choosing who is and who is not a Christian. I'm sure you'd be the first to admit you have no place telling others whether or not they are really Christian. Certainly, I don't think the Big Cheese would be happy with it. So why even bother using it as an argument?

 

[mamabear4]

.......sure you'd be the first to admit you have no place telling others whether or not they are really Christian. Certainly, I don't think the Big Cheese would be happy with it. So why even bother using it as an argument?

You're right, we shouldn't be looking at each other and deciding who is "Christian" and who isn't. There isn't a one of us who "pour out all together milk with no water." But praise God, there is One Who does know our hearts and He is qualified to make the judgments because He pours out all "milk."

Back to the evidence against pre-marital sex, by googling in abstinence I found several sites that were helpful, even though my internet filter blocked quite a few sites. Here is one that appeared the most promising: http://www.abstinence.net/library/index.php?cat=Abstinence+Statistics+%26+Studies.

If you want evidence to support your beliefs and convictions, there are websites out there that do exactly that. Skeptics on both sides of the issue will support your beliefs with scientific evidence, you can be sure.

Personally, I find the Bible still the best source for information and guidance on real life issues, but then, as some of you have pointed out, that's simply a personal preference. I respect each of your opinions even though I may not share them and I know you do the same for me and I appreciate that.

 

[lunalinda]

*unsure whether to be insulted or complimented*

Complimented. There's no reason to insult you, and even if there was, it'd be unmistakable that I was being insulting. But in that case, no, it wasn't an insult. It requires much patience to pick apart entries and that's admirable. No worries.

Do you want to know why all of this is silly? Because none of y'all can be Christlike. It's unpossible. The dude was - apparently - perfect, and yet humans are not. So therefore - going strictly by this definition - no one is a Christian. This is what Electric Skeptic was getting at. As soon as you start down this line of reasoning, you are personally taking ownership of picking and choosing who is and who is not a Christian. I'm sure you'd be the first to admit you have no place telling others whether or not they are really Christian. Certainly, I don't think the Big Cheese would be happy with it. So why even bother using it as an argument?

Oyyy, I dunno if I can explain it so you can understand. Christlike doesn't mean being EXACTLY like him in all of his perfection. That's definitely impossible because as you said, humans are not perfect. It's impossible to BE Christ, but not impossible to be LIKE Christ. When using the word "like," I mean, "similar." I'm using it in the most obvious of ways that word should be used. To be Christlike is to be imitators of who He is, so yes we all CAN be Christlike. We are to follow as closely in his footsteps as possible. OBVIOUSLY (and I thought it went without saying, but I guess I'll have to say it still), we're never going to be as perfect as he was/is. But that doesn't mean we don't try to to live as he lived. We're to be as close to mirroring him as we can, as close as we can get without it ever being perfect, which, as you and I both said, is impossible. A Christian isn't Christ himself. A Christian is his follower. And last I heard, followers rarely ever do their own thing, right? That's why they're followers. We're the followers and Christ is the leader. We'll never live up to what he is/was, but we can dang well try our darndest to be the best shining example of who he is by what we do and how we follow, using whatever rainbows of personalities we each have as an invididual. You're right in suggesting that I have no place to tell others whether or not they're a Christian. I don't. God always has the final say and judgment. I'm not at all judging, and forgive me if that's what it appears to be what I'm doing. But if they follow the same Christ, (the Christ in the Bible) there should still be some generalizations, some aspect of Christ among all of them to suggest that Christ is with us, even if we are all called to different things. The very definition of Christian has the word Christ in it after all. Christ has to shine somewhere, somehow in every Christian's life. At least that's how I like to think of it. Of course God knows our hearts more than we will ever know each other's. Personally speaking, in mho, I don't think that's too ridiculous a thing to expect from Christians. Sorry if that's too confusing.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

The bible (it's only your opinion that it's the 'word of god')............

This is simply dishonest. I have asked above for you to support your claims (ie., provide proof); you have failed to do so. I have merely noted that anecdotal evidence is useless, and I am not interested in it.

Please provide evidence to support this claim.QUOTE]


It's a bit difficult to argue a point when the Bible is disregarded and anecdotal (historical) evidence is useless. So apparently what you want are scientific studies done on premarital sex? Let's find them. Can you give us a hand?

What I'm after is the support you claimed you had. Let's see it.

 

[mamabear4]

I was using the Bible and anecdotal evidence, but since that's not what you want then I went to scientific findings. As i stated in my earlier post many of those sites were blocked by my internet filter but what I did find were scientific studies that supported abstinenced until marriage and I left a web address for one of them. The studies that I found supported my belief that sex outside of marriage is harmful both physiologically and phsychologically. If one really wishes to learn what science has to say about premarital sex, look for the studies - they're there for the picking.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

I was using the Bible and anecdotal evidence, but since that's not what you want then I went to scientific findings. As i stated in my earlier post many of those sites were blocked by my internet filter but what I did find were scientific studies that supported abstinenced until marriage and I left a web address for one of them. The studies that I found supported my belief that sex outside of marriage is harmful both physiologically and phsychologically. If one really wishes to learn what science has to say about premarital sex, look for the studies - they're there for the picking.

Right. So your answer to my question "Do you have any evidence at all to suggest that marriages were both partners remain abstinent before the wedding are more successful or happy?" should have been 'no', for you have not provided any (and you're correct, neither the bible nor anecdotes are evidence).

 

[feral]

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.

At which point did I state that you only wanted casual sex? That certainly was not my point.

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.

I disagree. I believe the experience of sex can be quite positive, so when it is negative - due to not being prepared, not being emotionally ready, having sex without love - it's cheapened, made lesser then it would have been had an individual waited. Perhaps it's not that way for all people, but it is for me. You seem to be saying that an individual with high expectations is wrong, and that we should have low expectations, but sorry, I want more then that. If it's "naive" okay, maybe I should stay naive until I find someone wonderful I'm in love with whose willing to wait until I'm ready. It seems more valuable to me to hold out for someone who can meet my higher expectations then to sleep with people who can't satisfy me.

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.

In complete seriousness, can you illustrate what types of expectations someone should be having, which you consider reasonable and attainable for various circumstances?

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'.

Well, which is better? - ignorance about sex or a series of unhappy, less then satisfying sexual experiences? I think I would have rather waited for that high expectation, completely romantic encounter.

*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.

Perhaps the difference lies in that for me, my choices were mistakes, whereas for other people, the choices were not. I would laugh and giggle with my friends over completely unserious, fairly positive experiences too, but mine were not of that quality, and mine caused a lot of problems afterwards as well. I don't consider it feeling bad about things to regret dangerous, disappointing mistakes, but if you do, that's your choice.

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.

...and thus we differ. To me, sex is indeed something worthy of remorse. Not all sex, but sex done for the wrong reasons, at the wrong time, without thought, without preparedness is definitely worthy of remorse, which is why I regret my experiences.

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 would say in the case of the first person, indeed the experience could have been negative due to him being less then a great guy, but with my last boyfriend, well, he was a fiance, we got along wonderfully and are still very close. I broke up with him when he proposed because that seemed too intense and serious, but I still care for him a lot and we never even seemed to disagree. So in that experience, it wasn't the person. I didn't like that our relationship changed from close-friends-ish to a more romantic one, but that wasn't his fault. And not to be too blunt on the forum, but sexually he was skilled, and it was all good.

As for the current, I have decided not to date at all, for two reasons. One, I don't really want a relationship or require one at the present, and two, I have been really disappointed with some of the guys I've dated because for them it seems all about sex, and they are quite pushy. I'm not interested in that, so I've taken myself off the market, so to speak. I'll have coffee with a guy or study with him or something, nothing more for now.

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.

I am glad they found their experience positive. I would suggest, from the words of many of my female friends, that they are lucky. Lots of girls have stories about less then wonderful first times. You may take that as a compliment if you like.

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??

The change of relationship I mentioned was from a more friendship based relationship to a more romantic one, which made me uncomfortable. It wasn't like we had sex and suddenly our whole relationship went bad, just that I preferred the lighter relationship and it suddenly went very intense and romantic and rather overwhelming. I'm sure had we progressed to the point of marriage, the relationship would have turned romantic long before the wedding anyway, and it would have been expected. It was just, sex rushed that before we wanted it. I think any normal couple who marries, however, is going to want the romantic aspect. Or so I hope.

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.

That's basically the definition of the book in the OP. She suggests marriage, I suggest long-term partnership, but same basic thing. What's your understanding of abstinence? In the Christian school I attended, we were told it simply meant waiting until the right time, which is basically my current philosophy.

 

[mamabear4]

There is so much evidence that lives free from guilt are more fulfilling than those that aren't. But you and I could argue till the day we die about the definition of guilt, so we may as well save our breath. I'm not really sure what it is that you want to hear.