Sexual Behaviour Before Marriage

[Johnnz]

From time to time on this and other forums the question arises on pre marriage behaviour. The question can be stated as “What behaviour is acceptable between christian couples?”



The traditional christian view, to which I subscribe, is that sex before marriage is not what God intended for us. This gives rise to two issues:

a) What level of sexual activity can christians engage in outside of marriage? And

b) Where do Christians stand if they have engaged in sexual intercourse prior to marriage?



I want to address the first issue briefly.



The first issue has two components. Firstly, what level of sexual activity can christians in a relationship that may not lead to marriage engage in? Secondly, what level of sexual activity can christians in a relationship that is leading to marriage engage in?



The general values held by society at large are that there are no divinely ordained rules for us to follow. Views on sexual behaviour then range from “Do it if you feel like it” to “It’s OK if you love/are in a relationship with someone”. This is basically the difference between casual and committed sex. People are generally committed to one or the other of these views. This view derives from a rejection of a Christian God whose moral principles should be adhered to.



Christian should adhere to christian principles primarily as a consequence of having accepted that there is a reasonable basis for their belief. Moral values then ensue from that prior commitment. I do not expect non christians to be convinced of my stance on sexual values. They must first be convinced of the reasons for my beliefs in Christianity.



I will address the first question in a following post.


Johnnz

 

[Johnnz]

What level of sexual activity should christian couples not in a permanent relationship engage in? This is a question asked openly, or in the privacy of their own thoughts by many single christians.



The behaviour in question involves bodily exposure, direct physical stimulation of sexual organs, sexual gratification and full sexual intercourse.



The most important factor is the moral values held by each person. Each person will have some values on:



Marriage – views range from a lifelong union to cynicism and rejection of that view. If marriage is seen by a person as something special, a divine provision for our welfare and one of our deepest satisfactions then there will be special values attached to it. Those values will deeply influence our sexual behaviour.



Our bodies. Is all our body for public viewing? Why can a person accept their nakedness in a one-on-one situation but not in a wider social context?



What is sexual activity? Only full intercourse, or handling of breasts and genitals, or nakedness?



For Christians wanting some guidelines I suggest you think through the following questions.



Do you approve of public nudity? If you are prepared to be naked with another person of the opposite sex in private, how can you disapprove of public nudity as wrongful exposure of sexually stimulating body parts? If public nudity is sexual (promotes lust in Christian jargon) is one-on-one nudity non sexual and pure?



If your female partner exposed her breasts to another guy one-on-one would you consider that OK, just ‘natural’ but not all sexual?



Genital stimulation. If you were in a stable relationship and your partner said “ Joe needed to relax, so I gave him some oral sex to help him along” would you regard that as non-sexual behaviour?



If your female partner said “Tim spent some time stroking my breasts.” We are good friends and it was fine” would you be happy with that?



Those questions may assist Christians in deciding whether they are sexually active or not.



I am realistic. I acknowledge that far too much Christian teaching has promoted sexual shame. That is wrong. Period. I know that sexuality is a real issue for most unmarried people, particularly teenagers who are still developing their christian faith and values. Much on this matter is underground, not spoken about too openly. In particular, there is often a huge gap in trust and honest communication between the generations. This is very unfortunate. Non Christians tend to rubbish Christian moral values. Their views are often influential in forming attitudes amongst Christians.



Here are some questions. Do readers want me to attempt a response to them? I don’t want to go on boring readers with irrelevant posts.



Guys, but not exclusively so, are very sexual creatures, especially teenagers. Most teenagers are aware of their sexuality, their body image and want some kind of relationship with the opposite sex. Sexual arousal is frequent for many (most young guys). What can a teenager think about sexually and not be ‘lustful”? It’s an answer many wish someone would spell out.



Why do we have such an interest in the bodies of the opposite sex? Is that legitimate, or wrong? Are there limits or cautions we should heed?



Is sexual intercourse just a physical/emotional act or is there more to it than just that?



I am sexually involved with a partner (possibly ranging from some intimate behaviour to actual intercourse), I have tried to stop but can’t. Why?



I will be guided by forum readers re any further contribution. PLEASE, let us have some genuine discussion, not flippant remarks, rubbishing of someone else’s views, or promoting self righteous personal bandwagons. We all need to help each other.



John

NZ

 

[Jet Black]

Genital stimulation. If you were in a stable relationship and your partner said “ Joe needed to relax, so I gave him some oral sex to help him along” would you regard that as non-sexual behaviour?

doesn't that one kind of answer itself? The issue here I think is if something is sexually stimulating or not, if something stimulates the sexual response in a human, then that is sexual behaviour. of course this means that "being a woman in front of a man" is sexual behaviour too.

 

[seebs]

I think that whether or not nudity is sexual is clearly largely cultural. A friend of mine is an artist. She's shy and blushy around boys, but hand her a pencil, and she can look at a nude guy for two hours without the slightest sexual interest, because he's not a boy, he's a set of lines to be duplicated.

 

[Johnnz]

Hi Jet Black,

What I was referring to is genital stimulation between two people. There are many Christians who engage in this on the basis that it is not sexual behaviour. I wanted that viewpoint considered in light of the example I gave.

There is the wider issue you referred to of sexual stimulation generally - what does it mean to be healthily and morally sexual? The final questions I raised include this issue.

Johnnz

 

[Johnnz]

Seebs,
I asked Do you approve of public nudity? Your reply could indicate either that you would be OK with it, or you accept that this is an area where cultural rather than biblical values should prevail. Can you clarify?

Johnnz

 

[meandyoutoo]

This is a rough issue. It is something that no one wants to say really what they think. I was compelled to read this because I just recently realized I was far from God, and I made a pact not to have sex until I am married. But this is an issue that has always been iffy, and I was wondering what is okay. I have gotten the response that if you can handle not indulging, its okay all the way up to NO! But if you are not to do anything that is sexually stimulating, would that not include kissing? Or possibly even down to holding hands?

Very good topic.

 

[Mekkala]

While I disagree that nudity is necessarily sexual (it's pretty obviously a cultural thing, especially considering the many societies -- South American Indians are a good place to start researching -- where nudity was the norm, yet sex was still a private matter), I don't disagree that any of those activities you mention are sexual. The difference is that I don't agree that "sexual" = "wicked outside of marriage".

I think that lust is a perfectly healthy, normal, and pleasant emotion. It is possible to feel lust that drives you to do foolish things, but that is an issue with your judgement, not with lust. Anger can also drive you to do foolish things, as can grief, fear, or even joy -- yet I sincerely doubt you would call those emotions evil in all cases. Even anger is right and proper under many circumstances, though under other circumstances it may be wrong, foolish, and even evil.

In my opinion, "bad" sexual activity is any sexual activity that either damages other people or living creatures against their will, or falls outside of one's personal comfort boundaries. If you are uncomfortable with it, don't do it; if you are hurting someone else, don't do it; otherwise, as long as you're careful with your health, it's good for you.

That said, if your boyfriend is comfortable with you sucking your guy friends off when they need to relax, then there's nothing wrong with it. If he's not comfortable with it, or if you're not comfortable with it, or if you're sexually harassing guys to get them to let you do it, then avoid that activity like the plague. Otherwise (assuming that you're observing proper health precautions), why not? What good reason is there to avoid that?

 

[Johnnz]

Hi. Thanks for your replies.

I posted this topic because I am well aware that there is little said publicly from church leaders that really helps young people to define acceptable sexual behaviour. There is a "conspiracy of silence" between the generations that is not at all helpful. Far too many young people are confused about their sexual behaviour, many feel guilty, and few have access to older people to talk about issues.



Lust in a biblical sense refers to a wrong desire. Instead, we should talk about healthy and unhealthy ('good' and 'wrong') sexuality. We all have normal sexual responses and feelings. Church leaders are usually pretty vague on details about which is which.



For example. Many guys have hair trigger sexual responses. i.e. they experience frequent erections. Many girls have strong sexual urges, although they can be more diffuse than for guys. That is a normal part of being a sexual being. It is terribly wrong to feel guilty about such feelings, to label any sexual arousal as “lustful”.



The moral component comes with the question “What should I do with my sexual urges?” Not too many generations ago, and still the ‘official public version’ is that your nakedness is only for your spouse. Thus any undressing, or direct sexual stimulation outside of marriage is wrong. There are Christians who set this as their goal.



However, I am aware that many christian young people no longer accept that standard. Some wish for it, and despair over their failure(s) to live by that standard. Guilt, confusion, and not too infrequently leaving the church are the outcomes. Others have redefined acceptable sexual behaviour, their only concession to sexual morality being to refrain from sexual intercourse. If that standard is not met, then there are again many different reactions.



I believe very deeply that there is a need for the christian community to address this issue, to open it up to debate, and to provide clear teaching that connects with the hearts and minds of young people. Sadly, the constant undercurrent of guilt and shame that pervades so much of the evangelical/pentecostal communities does not give me much optimism.



This is why I made the post. It’s now up to readers to provide some sensible debate on this matter. I appreciate those who have done so.



John

NZ

 

[tcampen]

If "sexual behavior" should be avoided altogether outside of marriage,then where do we draw that line. Is a peck on the cheek sexual? It is to some, but not others. Is holding hands sexual? Same answer. If the idea is to forgo any activity that would cause any sexual arrousal of any sort whatsoever, then good luck to you.

Sexuality is as normal to our beings as breathing. It is truly unfortunately how prudish our society is over something so natural. That is certainly not to condone "free love" or any irresponsible behavior, just to understand the true state of things. Sexuality can be abused and harmful whether within or outside of a married relationship, and I'm not convinced a couple's marriage status necessarily defines the morality of sexual conduct. Certainly people will rely on their individual religious beliefs and interpretation of related texts as a guide to this question, but that is hardly an objective standard that can be applied to all reasonable people.

Can two people in a committed, monogamous relationship be sexual in a loving and healthy manner? Objectively speaking, they can. Whether that same couple can do so while not being married, and be moral - again, that's a personal question. I know some may bristle at that, thinking it sounds like moral relativism. Call it what you like. But this thread alone has proven there can be no consensus on this issue, even when relying on the same religous texts as authority. Such a lack of common understanding is powerful evidence of a lack of objectivity in the subject matter to begin with, more than anything else.

So, we come full circle.

 

[ForeRunner]

I, for one, can attest that I could spot my girlfriend sitting on the couch watching TV in long pants and a sweatshirt and STILL have a sexual response to her.

 

[Mekkala]

I, for one, can attest that I could spot my girlfriend sitting on the couch watching TV in long pants and a sweatshirt and STILL have a sexual response to her.

I can attest that I could spot any attractive woman in long pants and sweatshirt and still have a sexual response to her. Quite simply, the only way to turn off your sexuality is to lock yourself in solitary confinement. You may be able to repress it, but it's still there -- and it's certainly not healthy to do so.

I was going to ask if any of the "no sexual activity before marriage" crowd had rational reasons for that belief, but then I realized that they do -- at least, reasons that they consider rational. That is, sex is a special gift for your husband or wife, and it's wrong to waste that gift on a person you don't know you'll spend the rest of your life with.

Of course, that begs the question of whether marriage is any guarantee that you'll spend your life with the person, with modern divorce rates and what not, but besides that, I can't help but wonder -- isn't the fact that psychologically damaging yourself is the only way to avoid any sexual response outside of marriage some indication that limiting sexuality to marriage is not the most beneficial and healthy course of action?

Of course, the result is that people still have sexual responses to others outside of marriage, but they pretend they don't and think that the only reason they do despite their best efforts is that they're somehow deviant or they haven't prayed hard enough. Nobody (at least, nobody in the abstinence camp) stops to wonder if sexual response might be a healthy and normal reaction, and nothing to be ashamed of.

 

[seebs]

I think it's important to distinguish between having sexual responses and running with them.

 

[Ave Maria]

Personally, I see nothing wrong with pre-marital sex and I am a devoted Christian. I have studied a little on the issue. Basically, the word that most Bibles translate as pre-marital sex or whatever actually does not mean pre-marital sex at all. The Greek word is Porneia means illicit or immoral sex. Illicit merely means that it is unlawful. Therefore, if a certain kind of sex is against the law in your area, don't practice it. Otherwise, it's moral to do whatever you want. This is a gray area in the Bible and I feel that those who do choose to have pre-marital sex should do so with responsibility and control. My personal beliefs is that it is fine as long as you are in love with the other person. But like I said, this is a gray area in the Bible and is therefore open to interpretation.

 

[Ave Maria]

I can attest that I could spot any attractive woman in long pants and sweatshirt and still have a sexual response to her. Quite simply, the only way to turn off your sexuality is to lock yourself in solitary confinement. You may be able to repress it, but it's still there -- and it's certainly not healthy to do so.

I was going to ask if any of the "no sexual activity before marriage" crowd had rational reasons for that belief, but then I realized that they do -- at least, reasons that they consider rational. That is, sex is a special gift for your husband or wife, and it's wrong to waste that gift on a person you don't know you'll spend the rest of your life with.

Of course, that begs the question of whether marriage is any guarantee that you'll spend your life with the person, with modern divorce rates and what not, but besides that, I can't help but wonder -- isn't the fact that psychologically damaging yourself is the only way to avoid any sexual response outside of marriage some indication that limiting sexuality to marriage is not the most beneficial and healthy course of action?

Of course, the result is that people still have sexual responses to others outside of marriage, but they pretend they don't and think that the only reason they do despite their best efforts is that they're somehow deviant or they haven't prayed hard enough. Nobody (at least, nobody in the abstinence camp) stops to wonder if sexual response might be a healthy and normal reaction, and nothing to be ashamed of.

Exactly Mekkala! Sexual feelings are impossible to repress for most people and repressing them really is not healthy. I see only one reason to save sex before marriage and that is the fact that you're a lot less likely to get a sexually transmitted disease if you are in a monogomous (sp?) relationship than if you are having sex with multiple people. But here's the catch, you can easily have a monogomous (sp?) relationship even without being married. Also, if you are responsible and use contraception, you can greatly reduce your risk of STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

Another thing people commonly bring up is that you should "save yourself" for your future husband/wife. But why? If you have had a little experience beforehand, it's not going to be so awkward on your first night of marriage. Also, anyone who condemns someone just because they aren't a virgin on the wedding day is just strange in my opinion. Christians aren't supposed to be judgemental like that.

Just let me say in closing that I in no way advocate promiscuity. I believe that a person should always use proper judgement when deciding whether or not to have sexual activity. Also, responsibility in things like contraception is a very good idea. It shows you're more mature if you are responsible about it.

 

[Inside Edge]

A pretty difficult "gray area" to map out, I think. Even the biblical borderlines ("Do not have sex unless married") are up for grabs, depending on how authoritative you consider the Bible. Does this "rule" still stand? If so, why? Is it still the best thing for society? I tend to think so, but I'm not entirely sure. Please note that the following doesn't take into account emotional/psychological issues with sexual activity, which I think may be more important than what is discussed below.

The golden sex rule was likely not arbitrary or even strictly God-instructed. In an ancient and primitive culture (even predating Biblical records), there's little or no effective contraception - promiscuity will eventually lead to populations of loose family units, infanticide, abandonment, etc. So limiting sex to one partner is the simplest way of stabilizing (socially speaking) a population (generalization, I know, but I hope most see my point).

Secondly, marriage back then took place between the ages of 14 and 20 (give or take a couple years depending on the society/civilization). Which meant that for the bulk of the population, people endured a couple years of puberty and were married off to go have sex and build a family.

Nowadays, we're talking about encouraging 10-15 years of celibacy due to the age people get (or expect to get) married. Add to that, there are a variety of effective contraceptive methods, so promiscuity comes with far less risk of pregancy (thus avoiding the problems associated with births the ancients would have had). And this is without considering modern medicine and social structures (like adoption). So, physiologically speaking, sex is (or can be) safer than ever, while people wait much longer to get married. I would think there'd be a lot less "sex before marriage" if most of us got married (by force or choice) when we were 14-18. So, does the old golden sex rule make any sense in this new context?

Maybe it does, but now we have to find a line as to what other activities which cause arousal/[bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] qualify as sex? I can't help but find the notion a little bit ridiculous.

 

[jingwei]

"Also, anyone who condemns someone just because they aren't a virgin on the wedding day is just strange in my opinion. Christians aren't supposed to be judgemental like that."
When something is obviosuly wrong it's not a judgement, it's called fact.

"Just let me say in closing that I in no way advocate promiscuity."
You just did.

" I believe that a person should always use proper judgement when deciding whether or not to have sexual activity."
"proper" judgement depends on your beliefs in morality.

WHat I think is that this society's compulsive-obsessiveness about pleasure is disappointing. After all, if sex is that important that you disobey God, then your faith is questionable. Come on, it can't be thaaaat hard.
The biblical definition of marriage is a bond of individuals. It separates the humans from animals under the disguise of humanity.

 

[Nexus`]

When something is obviosuly wrong it's not a judgement, it's called fact.

But when that judgement comes from unproven, unresearched and unsubstanciated religious dogma, it's not fact, it's hate.

 

[Ave Maria]

"Also, anyone who condemns someone just because they aren't a virgin on the wedding day is just strange in my opinion. Christians aren't supposed to be judgemental like that."
When something is obviosuly wrong it's not a judgement, it's called fact.

"Just let me say in closing that I in no way advocate promiscuity."
You just did.

" I believe that a person should always use proper judgement when deciding whether or not to have sexual activity."
"proper" judgement depends on your beliefs in morality.

WHat I think is that this society's compulsive-obsessiveness about pleasure is disappointing. After all, if sex is that important that you disobey God, then your faith is questionable. Come on, it can't be thaaaat hard.
The biblical definition of marriage is a bond of individuals. It separates the humans from animals under the disguise of humanity.

Problem is, pre-marital sex is not morally wrong in my opinion. If you love each other there is nothing wrong with it. As I stated above, what many Bible versions translate as pre-marital sex (the Greek word Porneia) does not mean pre-marital sex at all. In fact, it means illicit (illegal) sex. Pre-marital sex is not illegal in our country so it's not immoral. Basically the Bible is saying to obey the laws of your country.

 

[Cliffnotes]

One thing I would ask people to consider is a practical issue.

If two recent college graduates marry, having never laid a hand on each other, how do they know how compatible they will be on an intimate level?

I believe young couples need to be given a bit of a pass from their guilt from their faiths, within reason. And counseled to, as they get more and more serious, draw some lines, but at the same time understand each others desires, likes and dislikes.

Just my opinion. It could be a proactive approach to avoiding some very costly consequences down the road.

Peace.