Premarital sex

[Kristos]

How about sex being a wonderful expression of love between two consenting adults?

or

How about sex being an act in which two consenting adults want to indulge their particular desires?

The key word in both those examples is consenting. There is nothing remotely cave man(ish) about it. And I personally always test a car before purchasing, it would be unwise not to

Are you saying that we define Truth by our consenting? In other words, there is no objective truth, only the truth that we define for ourselves based on what we want...

 

[Kristos]

Not at all. I would never sleep with just anyone just because they were hot or I wanted to relieve myself. I'd never have sex with anyone unless I truly loved and cared for them.

I'm an introvert and introverts need time alone to recharge, otherwise the situation gets uncomfortable and the people I'm with begin to get on my nerves. I love my parents and sister more than anyone, but I can't always be with them. We can spend a Sunday together, but then I have to go to my room and either read a book, watch a movie, or something to relax and spend time alone.

That's the kind of relationship I want with a female. Someone I love and care for, we spend time together, sometimes spend the night, but then after that, we return to our separate residences to recharge. Would you say that a man and woman dating could not love each other just because they don't live together?
All definitions I've ever heard for hedonism is that involves pleasure; I've never heard it mention morality. Since what is pleasurable is subjective to the individual and every individual is always trying to accomplish whatever goals they have, everyone is a hedonist.
I like C.S. Lewis (never read that one though), but you could just summarize for me what he says since it's unlikely I'll be that anytime soon.

No, everyone is not a hedonist. Everything is not subjective. Everyone is not just looking for pleasure. I would agree that everyone is looking to be filled or made whole because on some visceral level we feel that we have a void in our heart. Some people might try to fill it with sex, some with drugs, some with money. Whatever you try to fill it with - it will become your master.

 

[Kristos]

So checked the sub-forum rules (I should have done that first), and it seems like I might be violating them - it's a bit ambiguous. Sorry for debating here. If anyone would like me to delete my posts just PM and will do it.

 

[Theofane]

Sex is, although not necessarily always, an intrinsic part of marriage. If one enjoys having sex and believes that sex is an important part of their life, then surely it would be advisable to know how their future, possible life partner, performs. I wouldn't want to use the analogy of taking a car for a test drive before purchasing, but there is some merit to that. Some people are not particularly fussed about foreplay or oral sex etc... I think it would be nice to know those things prior to marriage.

Is a marriage valid if it is never consummated sexually?

 

[William II]

It's important to find out if you're sexually compatible with someone before you accept a life sentence.

 

[sniperelite7]

It's important to find out if you're sexually compatible with someone before you accept a life sentence.

Now this I have a problem with. You may otherwise have an amazing relationship with someone...yet the deciding factor in their worth too you is performance in bed?

Anyway... shouldn't we be arguing about whether or not inappropriate contenteia refers to pre marital sex?

The latest material i've read on it seems like the authors had to take somewhat of a leap in regards to interpreting it that way.

 

[Nilloc]

No, everyone is not a hedonist. Everything is not subjective. Everyone is not just looking for pleasure. I would agree that everyone is looking to be filled or made whole because on some visceral level we feel that we have a void in our heart. Some people might try to fill it with sex, some with drugs, some with money. Whatever you try to fill it with - it will become your master.

Pleasure itself is subjective. Things are only pleasurable to us because of the values we place upon it. Nothing intrinsicly has value to it. And humans will always do that which they find most valuable. Therefore, humans are always trying to bring themselves pleasure. In that since, everyone is a hedonist. Unless you wish to define pleasure in a specific way, like, say, whatever physically feels good or something similar.

 

[William II]

Now this I have a problem with. You may otherwise have an amazing relationship with someone...yet the deciding factor in their worth too you is performance in bed?

Anyway... shouldn't we be arguing about whether or not inappropriate contenteia refers to pre marital sex?

The latest material i've read on it seems like the authors had to take somewhat of a leap in regards to interpreting it that way.

For some people, it's an issue. Sex/sexual attraction/intimacy is a part of the relationship. It's not a dealbreaker by any means, but sex is part of a healthy relationship.

Waiting till marriage is unrealistic for most people these days.

 

[elahmine]

While in some respects marriage has become an expensive piece of government paperwork, this is how churches and society define it now, and yet there is much more to a marriage then a simple piece of paper imo. In short, I think that like with anything else there is a time and place for it. I believe that time and place is within marriage vows which is more important than the paper. Of course there was a time before marriage it was time before even mosaic law.

 

[LuxMundi]

I'm sure there have been threads on this before on here, but what our your thoughts on premarital sex?

I think that premarital sex is wrong as sexual union should be reserved for marriage.

 

[LuxMundi]

It's important to find out if you're sexually compatible with someone before you accept a life sentence.

That is nonsense!

 

[Jase]

That is nonsense!

Not quite. Lots of people are not sexually compatible, be it emotionally, physically, what their needs are etc. A sexually unsatisfying marriage is almost a guaranteed divorce or at least affairs on the side to fulfill those needs.

 

[LuxMundi]

Not quite. Lots of people are not sexually compatible, be it emotionally, physically, what their needs are etc. A sexually unsatisfying marriage is almost a guaranteed divorce or at least affairs on the side to fulfill those needs.

I disagree though I do understand where you are coming from; I think that the most important thing for a newly engaged couple to do is not to 'try before you buy' as sex is too special to denegrade it to such a level, but rather to talk about what their sexual expectations are and to work through misconceptions and so on. I think that much of the problems that arise within this arena stem from a misunderstanding or perhaps a misappreciation about what sexuality is, part of the problem is the failure to recognise that our sexuality is a gift to be enjoyed and the goal is for husband and wife to enjoy it together and this begins with the recognition of marriage as being 'one flesh' and so sex becomes a way in which each serves the other. I'd want to shift the focus away from sex being about satisfying my needs but rather a means by which selfishness can be transcended. Sexual compatibility begins with speech, and it is wholly misguided that one should 'do it' to see if we are compatible.

I'd echo Williams' when he says in The Body's Grace:

The discovery of sexual joy and of a pattern of living in which that joy is accessible must involve the insecurities of "exposed spontaneity": the experience of misunderstanding or of the discovery (rapid or slow) that this relationship is not about joy - these are bearable, if at all, because at least they have changed the possibilities of our lives in a way which may still point to what joy might be. But is should be clear that the discovery of joy means something rather more than the bare facts of sexual intimacy. I can only fully discover the body's grace in taking time, the time needed for a mutual recognition that my partner and I are not simply passive instruments to each other. Such things are learned in the fabric of a whole relation of converse and cooperation; yet of course the more time taken the longer a kind of risk endures. There is more to expose, and a sustaining of the will to let oneself be formed by the perceptions of another. Properly understood, sexual faithfulness is not an avoidance of risk, but the creation of a context in which grace can abound because there is a commitment not to run away from the perception of another...When we bless sexual unions, we give them a life, a reality, not dependent on the contingent thoughts and feelings of the people involved, true; but we do this so that they may have a certain freedom to "take time", to mature and become as profoundly nurturing as they can.

 

[William II]

Not quite. Lots of people are not sexually compatible, be it emotionally, physically, what their needs are etc. A sexually unsatisfying marriage is almost a guaranteed divorce or at least affairs on the side to fulfill those needs.

Agreed. Sex and love go hand in hand. An unhappy sex life leads to an unhappy marriage. An unhappy marriage leads to a divorce. Wouldn't it be prudent to figure these things out before you make such a commitment to another human being?

 

[LuxMundi]

Wouldn't it be prudent to figure these things out before you make such a commitment to another human being?

It is of course prudent to figure these things out prior to one's making such a commitment, that much we agree on. Our difference is the proper way in which these things are to be figured out. I am yet to come across someone who I have counselled where it has been the case that an unhappy sex life led to divorce, in most cases the issue was that there had been a severe lack of communication within marriage that led to problems. The thing to recognise is that marriage is more than simply a sexual union, moreover the biblical position is that sexual union should be reserved for marriage.

 

[technofox]

It is of course prudent to figure these things out prior to one's making such a commitment, that much we agree on. Our difference is the proper way in which these things are to be figured out. I am yet to come across someone who I have counselled where it has been the case that an unhappy sex life led to divorce, in most cases the issue was that there had been a severe lack of communication within marriage that led to problems. The thing to recognise is that marriage is more than simply a sexual union, moreover the biblical position is that sexual union should be reserved for marriage.

I actually can vouch that I am one of those who did divorce, because of a lack of sex in my marriage, but there were other problems too (e.g. emotional abuse, black mail, etc). My ex-wife and I in about a 2.5 year marriage had sex only 8 times in all; being in our mid-20s, that was harder than I think anyone could imagine. We did discuss sex prior to marriage; however, that did not lead to a satisfying sex life in marriage.

Personally, I believe sex ideally should be done within marriage overall; however, in the real world that is no longer ideal in my opinion due to economics and cultural factors that have lead the door to bewide open for pre-marital sex to become rampant (in the USA at least). I strongly believe that sex is more of personal choice and conscience, than what debatable arguments made here on CF. In then end, it all falls back to the golden rule that Jesus taught, and therefore would you have sex with the person that you are in love with (even outside of marriage), if they are willing to do the same to you?


If the answer is yes, then well your mind is basically made up; if not, then you know that you don't want sex outside of marriage and should wait. Its quite simple.

Biblically speaking there is no real clear cut passage about pre-marital sex, because OT has shown several occasions of sex out of monogamous marriage (e.g. concubines, slaves, etc). Fornication could mean sleeping around with multiple partners in order to please the flesh and not out of love for the person that one is having sex with; this in of itself is due to the Greek translation having a convoluted interpretation to English. However, it is noted that on several occasions the Bible does talk about sex within marriage more often than outside of it, which is why I can see why some people think its a sin or bad at least.

In the end it is up to you. I would suggest reading scripture and praying to the Lord to see what He says. I don't want to lead anyone astray, but I also don't want to lead someone into thinking that they did something wrong, only to find out there was no passage against it. Its tough to walk a line like the one with pre-marital sex, because of the conflicting evidence within scripture and translations, so we are left to only turn to G-d and the guidance He provides to our conscience.

 

[LuxMundi]

I actually can vouch that I am one of those who did divorce, because of a lack of sex in my marriage, but there were other problems too (e.g. emotional abuse, black mail, etc). My ex-wife and I in about a 2.5 year marriage had sex only 8 times in all; being in our mid-20s, that was harder than I think anyone could imagine. We did discuss sex prior to marriage; however, that did not lead to a satisfying sex life in marriage.

I am sorry to hear that; it must have been a difficult time for you, I hope things are better now.

 

[SnowyMacie]

I'm not convinced the greek word "inappropriate contenteia", translated as fornication in modern day bibles refers to all premarital sex. I think it had more to do with the Greco-Roman hedonistic promiscuity.

I also find it completely illogical that an engaged couple having sex the night before they get a marriage license is a sin, but if they wait one more day and have a judge sign off on a piece of paper, suddenly it's no longer a sin.

What an arbitrary boundary of sin.

I basically agree to this.


Also, I will also add that I once heard this story of the woman who was raised in one of those families that pretty much demonized sex. When she got engaged, she made an appointment with a OBGYN to just make sure everything was alright and healthy. Anyway, before the doctor could even examine her, she slammed her legs shut like it was a reflex nearly breaking the doctor's hand. This doctor apparently seen this before, or at least heard about this and recommended, for lack of a better word, therapy. To make a long story short, she went to this clinic that specialized in helping women who had been sexually abused or repressed become comfortable having sex.

 

[ECBBLMSTR]

I'm not convinced the greek word "inappropriate contenteia", translated as fornication in modern day bibles refers to all premarital sex. I think it had more to do with the Greco-Roman hedonistic promiscuity.

I also find it completely illogical that an engaged couple having sex the night before they get a marriage license is a sin, but if they wait one more day and have a judge sign off on a piece of paper, suddenly it's no longer a sin.

What an arbitrary boundary of sin.

The Greek word so translated is inappropriate contenteia, and means prostitution or "whoredom" as you will find in Young's Literal Translation. It is the activity of "inappropriate contenté", harlots. The masculine "inappropriate contentos" is translated whoremonger in the KJV, but might be more aptly translated male prostitute since that was very common in Roman times or possibly "pimp". The root word means "to sell".

The sexual laws of the New Testament, being written by observant Jews, were based upon the Mosaic code. There is little added to it in the NT. The biggest sexual sin has always been adultery, which is having sex with another man's wife. It did not apply to married men having sex with single women. Look it up. The Jews had numerous types of sexual sins as can be found listed in Leviticus 18. These included adultery, incest and homosexuality. You will find each of these sex sins referred to as "fornication" in the NT, so they clearly used this word which referred to prostitution in a more general sense... making the newer translations of inappropriate contenteia "sexual immorality" more accurate than "fornication", but totally lacking in specifics. As I have said, you have to refer to the Law book of the NT writers to know what they regarded as sexually immoral and I have given you the best reference list.

However, the main definition of "inappropriate contenteia" had to do with prostitution, but not just any type of prostitution. Prostitution was permitted under the OT, thus also permitted under NT authorities as well, with TWO exceptions. Married prostitutes were prohibited of course (lots of warnings in Proverbs about this.) The Biggie for Jews though was to do with idol worship. They had become allergic to idol worship after being deported to Babylon, so they had every conceivable rule in place to have nothing to do with idol worship. The rules given to the Gentiles in Acts 15 have to do with this serious concern of the Jewish believers in early church. You'll notice the word "fornication" in the midst of some ceremonial rules. The primary manner of prostitution in those times (from what I can tell) was with the cult prostitutes that abounded. Corinth is a prime example and the references to prostitutes in 1 Corinth. 6 and 7 have to do with this. You can discover this for yourself by noting Paul's usage of the word "inappropriate contenteia" (fornication, sexual immorality, whatever your translation says)" 1 Corinthians 10:8. He warns against fornication in that verse and gives an OT reference to indicate what he means. In that reference, you'll see that he's talking about idolatry through sex with female devotees of that idol. That is the primary meaning of "fornication" in the NT.

There is no sin of premarital sex. If you have consensual sex with a woman you are committed to that is regarded as marriage in God's eyes.

Hope this helps someone.

 

[WilliamB]

Premarital sex is a man made term, hence the reason it can't be found anywhere in the bible nor is it listed as any definition of sexual immorality.