This Silver Ring Thing.

[Eudaimonist]

Can you imagine how special your marriage would be if you abstained from sex until you were married?

Why would this make a marriage any more special?

The honeymoon would be rather clumsy, and perhaps not as satisfying as when two people with some experience are together. Furthermore, those two people would be somewhat lacking in experience of being in sexual relationships (I'm not talking just about sex here), and thus may lack a certain wisdom about choosing the right partner, and may have fairy tale expectations that will be dashed. And, let's face it, men who truly do wait until marriage for their first sexual experience may rush in to marriage too quickly and too young, which could lead to disaster.

There is a lot to consider here.

 

[SUNSTONE]

The Silver Ring Thing is being publicised as a health/safety movement, but really it seems to me as being run primarily by a Christian agenda. If you haven't heard of it, it is a program whereby teens specifically go to a seminar/trainnig session/whatever and learn about the evils of pre-marital sex, getting scared with all types of STD statistics (which, it must be said, are generally quite accurate and well sourced). At the end of the seminar, they receive a silver ring that they wear on their wedding finger and sign a vow of absitenence until they are married.

There may be some pros for this. Possibly. But to me, it just seems to be advocating sexual repression. It is my opinion that sexual immaturity is on of the biggest reasons why so many first-time marriages fail. It's like trying to compete in the olympics without ever having trained and expecting not to lose.

I may be in the minority though...

Have you ever had sex?
Because if you had, you would realize sex with people vary.
With each partner you have to learn there sweat spots, and what they like and don't like.
There are common things about sex, but everyone is different, and every couple needs to learn how to please the other.

What is "sexual immaturity"? As if two virgins couldn't figure out how to have sex? Or good sex?

Olypmic people don't have what it takes to compete unless they work at it.
Any couple already has what it takes to have sex. No training needed, just a few times out and things fall into place.

(Hey I was a heathen at one time )

 

[SUNSTONE]

Oh and provide a link that says people break up due to marrying someone who just doesn't do it for them in bed.

 

[Jennifer615]

Could a Christian who knows about the ring ceremony thing please give me a link with information regarding it. I have an 8 year old daughter who knows about the birds and the bees and is determined to stay a virgin till she is married. I was going to get her a gold diamond ring on her 13th birthday. Does it have to be silver?

 

[justaman]

Could a Christian who knows about the ring ceremony thing please give me a link with information regarding it. I have an 8 year old daughter who knows about the birds and the bees and is determined to stay a virgin till she is married. I was going to get her a gold diamond ring on her 13th birthday. Does it have to be silver?

http://www.silverringthing.com/index.html

This is the official homepage I believe. I believe they use silver to distinguish the commitment from marriage which is, of course, traditionally gold.

In all honesty, however, I find it decidedly scary that you would encourage this attitude in an eight year old who wouldn't have the first clue about emotions like passion and lust yet. I don't know how firm you think a promise coming from her at that age is going to be, even by the time she hits 13 when she becomes obsessed with poster-boys.

In my humble opinion, I'm not sure that getting ignorant children to be making promises about how they will act as an adult is a terribly constructive thing to be doing.

 

[seebs]

Hmm.

Okay, now you've got me wondering about an interesting question.

Are there Briggs-Meyers type differences, statistically, between people who would be happy waiting until marriage, and people who would rather "practice" first?

 

[justaman]

Hmm.

Okay, now you've got me wondering about an interesting question.

Are there Briggs-Meyers type differences, statistically, between people who would be happy waiting until marriage, and people who would rather "practice" first?

Damn this Brigadier Myers guy!! Everywhere I look it's brigadier this, myers that.

Say No To Brigadier Myers

 

[justaman]

Have you ever had sex?

Are you asking me out?

Because if you had, you would realize sex with people vary.
With each partner you have to learn there sweat spots, and what they like and don't like.
There are common things about sex, but everyone is different, and every couple needs to learn how to please the other.

I'm not sure how this is relevant to anything I'm saying. I'm certainly not suggesting a marriage will bust up due to someone's inability to [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].

What is "sexual immaturity"? As if two virgins couldn't figure out how to have sex? Or good sex?

Sex is incidental. It is the emotions which I'm concerned about. With holding out until marriage, sex becomes one of the driving forces behind the emotions. How many people in this thread alone have said words to the effect "how special would marriage be if you waited?" This is not a good thing. A marriage should be special because in each other, two people have found soul-mates who will stick with them through thick and thin etc. A marriage that is being made special because of a sexual union has a less stable foundation. It's silly and immature.

Olypmic people don't have what it takes to compete unless they work at it.
Any couple already has what it takes to have sex. No training needed, just a few times out and things fall into place.

It's not so casual for the silver ring people. It's clearly a much bigger deal. Therein lies the problem.

 

[Prufrock]

Have you ever had sex?
Because if you had, you would realize sex with people vary.
With each partner you have to learn there sweat spots, and what they like and don't like.
There are common things about sex, but everyone is different, and every couple needs to learn how to please the other.

Did anyone else find this typo absolutely hilarious?

 

[seebs]

Well, I'm in no place to condemn people who have sex before they get married. I've noticed that opposition to this is strongest in people who are not yet ready for sexual relationships, and people who have been in one long enough to be used to it...

That said, I know people who have what strike me as good and rational reasons to choose not to have sex until they're married, and I don't think the reactionary attacks on their choice are helping anything.

 

[justaman]

Seebs what is a good reason to not have sex until marriage?

 

[seebs]

Seebs what is a good reason to not have sex until marriage?

Religious conviction might count, although there's a certain amount of question-begging going on there.

Hang on a sec. In her own words:

Well, I guess. It was a pretty basic part of my upbringing - and also I take promises very seriously, and I /want/ that kind of promise before I give someone something I can't take back, and that's loaded with such biological significance...Although, okay, most of that bit of my morality is just a bit of my childhood that I don't see any reason to drop. Heh. Well, if sex were the most important thing, and if incompatibility was /likely/, then I could see it. But - enh. not for me.

I think the basic point made is a reasonable one; if you know you're the sort to tend to imprint strongly, there's a lot more downside risk to having a sexual relationship without commitment. Likewise, if you know you're pretty adaptable, and you take the time to map out a relationship, you may have less downside than other people might to committing to a relationship before you "know how it works out".

Honestly... If you can't tell from kissing and snuggling whether or not you're compatible, something's probably wrong. The one good example I've heard of is someone who turned out to be allergic to her first husband's sperm. I've heard of that... Exactly once. I don't think it's common enough to worry about.

As a policy to impose on others, I'd have a hard time making a solid case for it. As a personal decision, it may well be a very well-considered and rational choice. Note that, when dealing with your own life, it may be rational to take purely arbitrary emotional reactions and physiology into account. It doesn't matter that they're "not rational"; the rational thing to do is observe that you will live with these preferences, and these hormones, for your entire life, so you might as well take them into account.

The question of whether or not I waited until marriage is actually a fairly complicated one, involving a lot of fine points and details, and I honestly couldn't tell you what the "true" answer is.

 

[justaman]

I think the basic point made is a reasonable one; if you know you're the sort to tend to imprint strongly, there's a lot more downside risk to having a sexual relationship without commitment.

But this is really just saying "Don't try new things that you might get hurt by". The main problem being that marriage is by no means an endstate where you can relax and be satisfied that nobody is going anywhere. So by this logic, one who tends to 'imprint strongly' should never have sex or get married in case something changes. Not having sex because you are sensitive is the tail wagging the dog. A bit of pain now saves a lot of pain later. Train hard fight easy, etc.

Honestly... If you can't tell from kissing and snuggling whether or not you're compatible, something's probably wrong. The one good example I've heard of is someone who turned out to be allergic to her first husband's sperm. I've heard of that... Exactly once. I don't think it's common enough to worry about.

You clearly don't watch Sex and the City where Charlotte's husband turns out to be impotent.

But this isn't really the problem. I don't have dramas with people only having sex with people they love, for instance. My problem is that waiting for marriage means that you are entering into a relationship that is supposed to last for a lifetime without ever having tested the water. It's a simple calculation of risk. You are entering into emotionally volatile territory that changes your previous relationship with your partner. You don't know this side of them. That makes the likelihood of that relationship altering to the state where neither wish to stay together for the period of time they initially agreed upon quite probable.

This is compounded by these same religious individuals not believing in divorce. Now they just get to be miserable for their whole lives, like my grandparents. Try before you buy, I just don't see how this logic can be got around.

 

[seebs]

But this is really just saying "Don't try new things that you might get hurt by".

I don't think it's that at all.

The main problem being that marriage is by no means an endstate where you can relax and be satisfied that nobody is going anywhere. So by this logic, one who tends to 'imprint strongly' should never have sex or get married in case something changes. Not having sex because you are sensitive is the tail wagging the dog. A bit of pain now saves a lot of pain later. Train hard fight easy, etc.

I disagree. It's a considered risk - but either decision would be. There's a lot to be said for waiting until you're sure enough that you at least think you're willing to spend the rest of your life with someone before getting any of the biological imprinting mechanisms going.

You clearly don't watch Sex and the City where Charlotte's husband turns out to be impotent.

I don't watch TV much at all. But... Honestly, I don't think impotence is all that big a barrier to sexual compatibility.

But this isn't really the problem. I don't have dramas with people only having sex with people they love, for instance. My problem is that waiting for marriage means that you are entering into a relationship that is supposed to last for a lifetime without ever having tested the water.

Huh?

Okay, we must be talking at cross purposes here. Marriage is not sex. It isn't even entirely about sex. Frankly, sex is not the big point.

When I married my wife, the question was not "will the sex be good". The question was "are we going to stay friends, and be reliable for each other, for the rest of our lives".

The idea here is not "wait until someone who wasn't waiting until marriage would have sex, then run out and get your license so you're technically married before you start having sex". The idea is "give it a few years, spend time together, stay up late at night discussing philosophy or reading each other favorite passages from books, and see if this is the life you want".

It's a simple calculation of risk. You are entering into emotionally volatile territory that changes your previous relationship with your partner. You don't know this side of them. That makes the likelihood of that relationship altering to the state where neither wish to stay together for the period of time they initially agreed upon quite probable.

This does not match my own experience, anyway. Sex may change things... But being together for a long time as friends changes things, too. I don't think "you don't know this side of them" makes any sense. I knew what my wife would be like in bed before I started having sex with her.

This is compounded by these same religious individuals not believing in divorce. Now they just get to be miserable for their whole lives, like my grandparents. Try before you buy, I just don't see how this logic can be got around.

Can I go out on a limb and bet that you're not married?

 

[justaman]

I don't think it's that at all.

phooey

I disagree. It's a considered risk - but either decision would be. There's a lot to be said for waiting until you're sure enough that you at least think you're willing to spend the rest of your life with someone before getting any of the biological imprinting mechanisms going.

I don't think there is a lot to be said. In fact I don't think there's much to be said for it at all. And I'm curious about what you mean by 'biological imprinting mechanisms' which must surely be emotional, yeah?

The thing is, you aren't saying "You shouldn't fall in love with anyone unless you think you're going to marry them" are you? Becaus by extension this would mean "You shouldn't date anyone until just are ready to marry, just in case you fall in love with them". Obviously this is silly. In fact to suggest this course of action would surely be detrimental. I'm saying that the same reason it's silly to approach ever every new partner with a "I'm only going to date them if I think I might marry them" attitude is the same reason why abstaining is a bad idea. You're saving up new emotions for the big one without every exploring them or learning about them.

I don't watch TV much at all. But... Honestly, I don't think impotence is all that big a barrier to sexual compatibility.

I think I just heard the entire female population snort.

The idea here is not "wait until someone who wasn't waiting until marriage would have sex, then run out and get your license so you're technically married before you start having sex". The idea is "give it a few years, spend time together, stay up late at night discussing philosophy or reading each other favorite passages from books, and see if this is the life you want".

Absolutely. Waiting before you get married is learning about the relationship, testing the waters. Experiencing the other person before you rush into a life-long relationship with them.

Why is this not applicable for sex?

Can I go out on a limb and bet that you're not married?

Oooo you're a risky gambler!

Actually I got engaged to the first girl I slept with (I may have mentioned that earlier, forget, it's been a while). I wound up in a very different place to you and your partner. For me it was like "I don't like this, I feel bad all the time, but there is no way out. The only option is to somehow make it work". The concept of breaking up with her simply did not occur to me. With hindsight I know it was because she was the first girl I slept with, the first girl I was truly intimate with and therefore, the only thing that I knew. I had an unconscious belief that if she were to leave me, I would never find anyone ever again. This is the sort of attitude I'm convinced sexual immaturity produces. Hey, it's great if the relationship works, as yours clearly does. But when the relationship doesn't work - as most do not - it is not a good thing and exacerbates the problem.

I guess I'm so passionate about this because of the amount of depression I felt at the time and how freaking enlightened I am about it all now. You don't realise that the sea is full of fish, each more callipygous than the last.

 

[seebs]

I don't think there is a lot to be said. In fact I don't think there's much to be said for it at all. And I'm curious about what you mean by 'biological imprinting mechanisms' which must surely be emotional, yeah?

Not sure I'd agree with that. I think some of this stuff is lower level than "emotions". Instinct is strong.

The thing is, you aren't saying "You shouldn't fall in love with anyone unless you think you're going to marry them" are you?

No.

That would be silly.

Becaus by extension this would mean "You shouldn't date anyone until just are ready to marry, just in case you fall in love with them". Obviously this is silly. In fact to suggest this course of action would surely be detrimental. I'm saying that the same reason it's silly to approach ever every new partner with a "I'm only going to date them if I think I might marry them" attitude is the same reason why abstaining is a bad idea. You're saving up new emotions for the big one without every exploring them or learning about them.

Hmm. I think we must be very different. For me, omitting sex from the relationship doesn't make it harder to tell how it's going; if anything, it makes it easier.

I think I just heard the entire female population snort.

I can't have the rest of this particular discussion on this BBS.

Absolutely. Waiting before you get married is learning about the relationship, testing the waters. Experiencing the other person before you rush into a life-long relationship with them.

Right.

Why is this not applicable for sex?

It might be... But then, there are lots of things you might not do with someone before you get married. I might date someone for a long time, but never go on a long road trip with them... Should I do that, or should I assume that I can reasonably infer how we'd cope?

At some point, the water-testing gets to the point where you're really already in the relationship.

Basically, though... If I don't know someone well enough to be able to guess whether or not I'd want to marry them, I probably wouldn't feel comfortable having sex with them. If I know someone that well, then sex isn't going to make or break the deal..

Actually I got engaged to the first girl I slept with (I may have mentioned that earlier, forget, it's been a while). I wound up in a very different place to you and your partner. For me it was like "I don't like this, I feel bad all the time, but there is no way out. The only option is to somehow make it work". The concept of breaking up with her simply did not occur to me. With hindsight I know it was because she was the first girl I slept with, the first girl I was truly intimate with and therefore, the only thing that I knew. I had an unconscious belief that if she were to leave me, I would never find anyone ever again. This is the sort of attitude I'm convinced sexual immaturity produces. Hey, it's great if the relationship works, as yours clearly does. But when the relationship doesn't work - as most do not - it is not a good thing and exacerbates the problem.

As I've said, I'm not particularly arguing in favor of what I actually did... I'm just arguing that I think it could be rational for some people to consider doing things in a different order.

The thing is... What if you'd waited a lot longer, been friends, dated, gone out to movies, and neither had sex nor gotten engaged? Maybe for a year or two longer? I think you might well have found the problems and gotten away from them without the fear that things could never work out in another relationship... Because you wouldn't have had all the "first sex partner" mojo to deal with.

In short, I think this example argues against your case more than for it.

I guess I'm so passionate about this because of the amount of depression I felt at the time and how freaking enlightened I am about it all now. You don't realise that the sea is full of fish, each more callipygous than the last.

Sure. But so what? The person I quoted plans to date people, explore relationships carefully, and find one that's good enough that she'd be willing to stick with it whether or not the sex was any good, then commit to that. Her priorities are obviously very different from yours... But I don't see a basis for saying that they're wrong in any objective sense.

I guess... I'd be happy in my current relationship with or without sex. I like it lots, but it's not why I'm in the relationship. If I had to choose between sex and D&D, I'd pick D&D. Honestly, if I had to choose between sex and hair scritching, I'd probably take the scritchies any day of the week.

I think it depends a lot on what you want to get out of a relationship. If what you're primarily looking for is the companionship and friendship, then it may make sense to build that without worrying about sex.

Certainly, I've fallen in love more than once without any sex involved, and I would say that I'm pretty sure I could have been happy spending my life with any of the people I've fallen for. YMMV. I think your approach to things is very different from mine, and I'm not entirely sure why.

 

[EbonNelumbo]

Yeah, so I am assuming most people have heard about this 'silver ring' thing. Well I can admit i am not one. Uh, yeah so would someone kindly explain before I go telling people what I think to be right and wrong?

Thanks..I am just confuzed.

 

[justaman]

It might be... But then, there are lots of things you might not do with someone before you get married. I might date someone for a long time, but never go on a long road trip with them... Should I do that, or should I assume that I can reasonably infer how we'd cope?

Do you think the road trip is likely to have strong emotions surrounding it?

At some point, the water-testing gets to the point where you're really already in the relationship.

Sure, but a relationship /= marriage.

Basically, though... If I don't know someone well enough to be able to guess whether or not I'd want to marry them, I probably wouldn't feel comfortable having sex with them. If I know someone that well, then sex isn't going to make or break the deal..

Again, sex itself isn't really the problem. It's the attitude that is the cause for abstinance that is the problem, abstinance itself is really only a symptom.

Having said that, my definition of a 'relationship' necessarily includes sex. I mean when it comes down to it, biologically speaking, what other reason is there for it? If humans didn't desire to procreate, there would appear very little reason for a monogomous partnership between two different types of the same species. Companionship etc yeah, but then you really don't need a female for that necessarily, do you?

The thing is... What if you'd waited a lot longer, been friends, dated, gone out to movies, and neither had sex nor gotten engaged? Maybe for a year or two longer? I think you might well have found the problems and gotten away from them without the fear that things could never work out in another relationship... Because you wouldn't have had all the "first sex partner" mojo to deal with.

Not workable. I am honest in my desire for sex. I could not have lasted more than a few months before getting utterly frustrated and depressed because the feeling of "If I don't get her I won't get anybody" would still have been there.

Bear in mind that this was an accidental type of thing. People actually pursue this course of action that I did (ie make a commitment to the first person you are going to have sex with) and it would appear to me thast this attitude is setting these guys up for the same fall I did.

The real solution to my dillema would have been to fall in love with her, have sex, and always keep in mind that I am very young and that it is more than possible to fall in love again. So when the problems began, we could have ended and cherrished our experiences rather than floundering in them for as long as we did, or never having them as you are in some ways suggesting.

Sure. But so what? The person I quoted plans to date people, explore relationships carefully, and find one that's good enough that she'd be willing to stick with it whether or not the sex was any good, then commit to that. Her priorities are obviously very different from yours... But I don't see a basis for saying that they're wrong in any objective sense.

It's not wrong it's just dangerous and - frankly - unrealistic. Most guys want sex. If she's going to get in a relationship she is going to constantly be forcing this tension where the male is feeling unsatasfied by it. Not a smart idea.

And yes, yes, you were different but how many times do I have to tell you seebs, you're not normal. You're a pod.

I guess... I'd be happy in my current relationship with or without sex. I like it lots, but it's not why I'm in the relationship. If I had to choose between sex and D&D, I'd pick D&D. Honestly, if I had to choose between sex and hair scritching, I'd probably take the scritchies any day of the week.

A more elloquent expression of time spent too long with one person I've never heard. Sex does indeed become so mundane when you spend years with the one person. Sex with new people never does. But hey, it works for you and that's cool, but it's because it does not work for most people that so many affairs are had.

I think it depends a lot on what you want to get out of a relationship. If what you're primarily looking for is the companionship and friendship, then it may make sense to build that without worrying about sex.

Difficult for most men to do.

Certainly, I've fallen in love more than once without any sex involved, and I would say that I'm pretty sure I could have been happy spending my life with any of the people I've fallen for. YMMV. I think your approach to things is very different from mine, and I'm not entirely sure why.

Different assumptions. For some strange reason you seem to think it's normal that most people don't think about sex very much or that it isn't a big deal, so why not wait? I think that's crazy talk.

 

[The Bellman]

The problem is that abstinence programs lead to an increase in unplanned pregnancies, and STDs! The reason should be obvious: teens like sex and some will have sex despite their noble intentions. But those who plan to abstain will not take the precaution of purchasing condoms or other birth control devices. This has been demonstrated time and time again - when abstinence programs are introduced, pregnancies and STDs increase. When they are removed replaced with proper sex education classes, the figures immediately drop.

Do you have any figures on this? Studies or such? I'm very interested.

 

[Lifesaver]

There may be some pros for this. Possibly. But to me, it just seems to be advocating sexual repression. It is my opinion that sexual immaturity is on of the biggest reasons why so many first-time marriages fail. It's like trying to compete in the olympics without ever having trained and expecting not to lose.

In past decades, when premarital sex was less common than today, there were far fewer divorces.
Now, when premarital sex is the norm, there is 50% of divorce.