This Silver Ring Thing.

[Lillithspeak]

40-year old poontang leaves a lot to be desired. I prefer twenty-something poontang. Now, if you prefer 40+ poontang, have at it, I'll even point a few your direction, if you want.

I was more generally pointing to the marriage arrangement for a sexual relationship. Then, there is definately a very small chance of something bad happening. The more cars you bounce into, the more likely it is you'll die.

Well, 40 year old "poontang" as you so quaintly put it may no longer appeal to you (lucky ladies-you won't be stuck with this gem) but at least at one time they were, males on the other hand never have had appealing "nether" regions.There ain't nothin uglier, so what do you think nature has done to your appeal now that you're forty-something? Improved the scenery?

 

[Lillithspeak]

Ah sweet innocent seebs.

Some girls like it rough, some slow and soft, some like one particular kind of stimulation, some another.

But more than this, there are of course a myriad of potential problems with men. Insufficient size, insufficient methods, insufficient lasting time, annoying habits.

When you get married you've got one person to satisfy your sexual needs for the rest of your life. You had better freaking be sure you've got someone who can do it. And since females are so freaking complicated to please, it makes buying-before-trying a heckuva risky gamble for them.

I mean yeah, sexual councilling is an option, but I certainly can't see myself going to one of those things - and I'm pretty darned liberal - so I'm tipping most conservative types are just going to forget about it.

Well, FOMCL, we may be "very complicated to please", but don't cha know? The rewards of doing so a really, really sweet

 

[waterbear]

I'll argue that. Can't break a promise you haven't made yet, and promises cannot be retroactive.

OK, technically fidelity is simply observation of vows. However, are you going to argue the only thing wrong with adultry is the violation of a vow? If I vow to watch a movie with someone, but forget, is that a comprable act?

I am, but that has nothing to do with what I did before we made our vows.

But if one knew there would be such a person... I still view it as infidelity. How is it different from dating then - one doesn't engage in certain activities with other memebers of the opposite sex when one is dating someone. Have there been vows? It's more that one is considering this relationship, and respecting it by not engaging in said activities. So, one is respecting this tentative relationship, but not the permanent relationship which will be - that with your future spouse?

 

[seebs]

OK, technically fidelity is simply observation of vows. However, are you going to argue the only thing wrong with adultry is the violation of a vow? If I vow to watch a movie with someone, but forget, is that a comprable act?

Obviously, some vows are more important than others... But nonetheless, sex before or after a marriage is not infidelity to the marriage. (Good thing for the widows of the world.)

But if one knew there would be such a person... I still view it as infidelity.

You may, but it's not infidelity by any standard that makes sense

How is it different from dating then - one doesn't engage in certain activities with other memebers of the opposite sex when one is dating someone. Have there been vows? It's more that one is considering this relationship, and respecting it by not engaging in said activities. So, one is respecting this tentative relationship, but not the permanent relationship which will be - that with your future spouse?

You're respecting the future relationship by not going out with other people *during* it.

THINK! If you're going steady with someone, it's cheating to date other people, even if you never sleep with them. By your logic, we find that going on a romantic date with someone you don't end up marrying is also infidelity. What a useless definition!

You're mistaking primate instincts for morality here. From a reproductive biology standpoint, it is important that only I have any chance of impregnating my wife. From a moral standpoint, however, the only "infidelity" possible would be "infidelity" happening after we have made such promises. Whether she had sex with other people before we even started going out is not a question of infidelity, at least, not to me.

 

[waterbear]

Obviously, some vows are more important than others... But nonetheless, sex before or after a marriage is not infidelity to the marriage. (Good thing for the widows of the world.)

In your view, sure.

You may, but it's not infidelity by any standard that makes sense

If you know that ultimately you will marry someone... I'm at a loss as to why it matters that you know who that someone is....

You're respecting the future relationship by not going out with other people *during* it.

THINK! If you're going steady with someone, it's cheating to date other people, even if you never sleep with them. By your logic, we find that going on a romantic date with someone you don't end up marrying is also infidelity. What a useless definition!

As a matter of respect, to that relationship, you don't see other people. You need to date to find out who that someone is that you will marry, it cannot be avoided. However, by defining limits to what you will do when dating, you can still respect the relationship you will have with your future spouse.

You're mistaking primate instincts for morality here. From a reproductive biology standpoint, it is important that only I have any chance of impregnating my wife. From a moral standpoint, however, the only "infidelity" possible would be "infidelity" happening after we have made such promises. Whether she had sex with other people before we even started going out is not a question of infidelity, at least, not to me.

No, I think the damage done to trust, intimacy, and respect to the marriage are moral issues. I'm not sure the biological argument really stands - would infidelity be any better if it happens after the age when someone is fertile?

 

[justaman]

A familiar problem. Believe me, I felt the same way for a long time. I was totally shocked to discover that there existed, however rarely, people I could really connect with.

I mean I do connect with people, but they tend to be friends necessarily. It gets to the point where I'm too close to them to consider them as a girlfriend. This has only been a concept I've realised relatively recently.

I don't know either. Honestly, to me, it doesn't sound like a very good thing, for you or for the pretty girls... While they may like the attention, how do you think it affects them to be seen a little less as people, and a little more as bodies? Probably not well.

What do they care? I'm always up front about the fact that I don't do long term things. They realise it's just about fun and frivolities and that it will end some time. Haven't had any problems with that so far, though it does filter the conservative girls out pretty effectively.

I generally recommend that people keep sex at least to a context of serious emotional involvement... I believe that this insulates against the real danger of deadening or losing the capacity for full emotional involvement. And, believe me, sex-with-love is enough better than sex-without-love to be worth a great deal of sacrifice.

Given that I've more or less abandoned hope of finding Mrs Right, for me to be abstinent would be for me to be celibant. It would be a crushingly detrimental thing for me to do to myself.

But once again, you seem to think that non-long-term = no-love, which simply isn't true. My most intense, passionate, memorable relationship lasted all of 2.5 weeks with a Norwegian pop-singing model who I met on the internet (I love how sad that sounds!!) We knew after the two weeks that would be it and sure enough, we don't talk anymore. But we loved each other intensely for that time and had our Casablanca without worrying about needing to make plans or any of that bull.

 

[seebs]

If you know that ultimately you will marry someone... I'm at a loss as to why it matters that you know who that someone is....

What matters is whether I have yet made them any promises.

As a matter of respect, to that relationship, you don't see other people. You need to date to find out who that someone is that you will marry, it cannot be avoided. However, by defining limits to what you will do when dating, you can still respect the relationship you will have with your future spouse.

Sorry, but no. If it doesn't matter whether or not I've made my promises yet, either doing X with not-my-spouse is always cheating or never, then that applies to everything, from sex to dating.

No, I think the damage done to trust, intimacy, and respect to the marriage are moral issues. I'm not sure the biological argument really stands - would infidelity be any better if it happens after the age when someone is fertile?

But there is no damage to trust when someone doesn't break a promise. The promise of fidelity begins at a given point. Nothing you do before that point affects that promise.

THINK! What are you doing? You are saying that millions of people are "cheating" on their spouses, that they shouldn't be trusted... You are denying the very core of Christian theology, that of redemption and of promises which start today, rather than being condemned and judged always for what you did before you made that promise...

 

[seebs]

What do they care? I'm always up front about the fact that I don't do long term things. They realise it's just about fun and frivolities and that it will end some time. Haven't had any problems with that so far, though it does filter the conservative girls out pretty effectively.

Fair enough.

Given that I've more or less abandoned hope of finding Mrs Right, for me to be abstinent would be for me to be celibant. It would be a crushingly detrimental thing for me to do to myself.

Well, obviously, your priorities are very different from mine.

But once again, you seem to think that non-long-term = no-love, which simply isn't true. My most intense, passionate, memorable relationship lasted all of 2.5 weeks with a Norwegian pop-singing model who I met on the internet (I love how sad that sounds!!) We knew after the two weeks that would be it and sure enough, we don't talk anymore. But we loved each other intensely for that time and had our Casablanca without worrying about needing to make plans or any of that bull.

I don't think we are using the word "love" to mean the same thing. Infatuation, strong emotion... Nice, but not "love".

 

[waterbear]

What matters is whether I have yet made them any promises.

I still think if you respect your spouse, the promise has been assumed.

Sorry, but no. If it doesn't matter whether or not I've made my promises yet, either doing X with not-my-spouse is always cheating or never, then that applies to everything, from sex to dating.

No, you won't possibly meet your future spouse if you refuse to date people. Therefore, dating other people is a necessary evil. However, fornication is not necessary in the slightest. The only justification you can give for that is short-term pleasure, which is not a justification.

But there is no damage to trust when someone doesn't break a promise. The promise of fidelity begins at a given point. Nothing you do before that point affects that promise.

When someone has done something once, there is a familarity which makes them inclined todo it again under duress. If were not following that promise - to the extent logically possible - prior to the relationship, you have shown no respect for that promise.

THINK! What are you doing? You are saying that millions of people are "cheating" on their spouses, that they shouldn't be trusted... You are denying the very core of Christian theology, that of redemption and of promises which start today, rather than being condemned and judged always for what you did before you made that promise...

Essentially, yes I consider most people adulterers. If someone commits adultry, the Bible permits divorce. I'm simply saying that if you consider sex with someone other than the person you will marry to be the equivalent of adultry, then you're permitted that same judgement. If someone commits adultry, you can forgive and continue the relationship with them or acknowledge the relationship has been irreversibly damaged and leave.

It isn't really the trust issues that annoy me, rather it's the blantant disrespect for your future spouse. If you acknowledge this person, then it seems only appropriate to take actions which act in respect to him/her. I don't think this respect begins with a promise, it begins with the realization that the person exists - an act of faith perhaps. Your future spouse should be able to take enjoyment/comfort in that only he/she has experienced a certain level of initimacy with you... Of course, that just gets back to respect issues...

 

[seebs]

I still think if you respect your spouse, the promise has been assumed.

But even then, it's a promise not to do certain things DURING MARRIAGE.

No, you won't possibly meet your future spouse if you refuse to date people. Therefore, dating other people is a necessary evil. However, fornication is not necessary in the slightest. The only justification you can give for that is short-term pleasure, which is not a justification.

What about kissing your dates?

Seems to me that calling dating a "necessary evil" is legalism at best.

When someone has done something once, there is a familarity which makes them inclined todo it again under duress. If were not following that promise - to the extent logically possible - prior to the relationship, you have shown no respect for that promise.

That's ludicrous. If I don't consistently do whatever Mr. Smith tells me before I start working for him, does that make me a bad employee once he hires me?

Essentially, yes I consider most people adulterers. If someone commits adultry, the Bible permits divorce.

Read Mark 10 before you say that too quickly.

I'm simply saying that if you consider sex with someone other than the person you will marry to be the equivalent of adultry, then you're permitted that same judgement.

Not if you're Christian; Christians are permitted no judgment of others. See Romans 2.

If someone commits adultry, you can forgive and continue the relationship with them or acknowledge the relationship has been irreversibly damaged and leave.

This sounds like making excuses for divorce, to me. Lots of things damage a relationship irreversibly. You can still get on with it.

It isn't really the trust issues that annoy me, rather it's the blantant disrespect for your future spouse.

But this "disrespect" doesn't exist.

If you acknowledge this person, then it seems only appropriate to take actions which act in respect to him/her. I don't think this respect begins with a promise, it begins with the realization that the person exists - an act of faith perhaps. Your future spouse should be able to take enjoyment/comfort in that only he/she has experienced a certain level of initimacy with you... Of course, that just gets back to respect issues...

You could make a good case here if, instead of using words like "infidelity" and talking about "promises", you talked about the benefit to the future spouse... Without using words which are frankly inappropriate. There is no promise being broken, but it may be that you are failing to provide your spouse with an additional gift that you could have given them. That may be wrong, but it's not breaking promises or commiting adultery. You can't divorce someone for not buying you flowers, and you can't divorce them for not keeping a promise they hadn't made.

 

[waterbear]

But even then, it's a promise not to do certain things DURING MARRIAGE.

And why do them before marriage?

What about kissing your dates?

Seems to me that calling dating a "necessary evil" is legalism at best.

Since people kiss their parents, some cultures kiss friends on greeting, etc. I don't view kissing as an especially initimate act.

That's ludicrous. If I don't consistently do whatever Mr. Smith tells me before I start working for him, does that make me a bad employee once he hires me?

Work is different, you don't devote yourself to a particular job - possibly career, but not a particular position under Mr. Smith. The only real promise in a work relationship is that you'll give proper notice and reserve the right to be fired/layed off with proper notice... (and whatever additional technicalities that particular company throws in).

Read Mark 10 before you say that too quickly.



Not if you're Christian; Christians are permitted no judgment of others. See Romans 2.

Matthew 5:32
Matthew 19:9
More specific conditions really than the one mentioned in Mark 10:11, 12. Granted these exceptions, I would assume the relationship is understood to be no-longer together, thus Mark 10:9 would not seem to apply.

Corinthians 6:14 would seem to imply one must jduge who is a Christian and not, for otherwise how can one determine if he/she is a believer? And granted that the bible grants divorce from adulterers and fornicators, presumably one must define what is an adulterer and a fornicator and, given this definition, all those who meet the critiera will be "judged" as fornicators and adulterers.

This sounds like making excuses for divorce, to me. Lots of things damage a relationship irreversibly. You can still get on with it.



But this "disrespect" doesn't exist.

When there is adultery, there is no relationship in that context.

You could make a good case here if, instead of using words like "infidelity" and talking about "promises", you talked about the benefit to the future spouse... Without using words which are frankly inappropriate. There is no promise being broken, but it may be that you are failing to provide your spouse with an additional gift that you could have given them. That may be wrong, but it's not breaking promises or commiting adultery. You can't divorce someone for not buying you flowers, and you can't divorce them for not keeping a promise they hadn't made.

Since I preceive the damage to the relationship to be equivalent regardless of whether the lack of faith is prior to the relationship or during it, I fail to see the need for a promise. There are many marriage vows, the Bible permits divorce for only ONE of them - it isn't that it is a vow that is significant, it's the act and it's consequences - which I would argue involve much more than trust issues.

 

[seebs]

And why do them before marriage?

There may be no good reason, but that has nothing to do with the promise.

Since people kiss their parents, some cultures kiss friends on greeting, etc. I don't view kissing as an especially initimate act.

Sure, but what about people who do, and who expect their spouse not to kiss other people?

Shouldn't you refrain, out of respect for a possible future spouse who expects you not to kiss other people?

Granted these exceptions, I would assume the relationship is understood to be no-longer together, thus Mark 10:9 would not seem to apply.

Many people would disagree, seeing it as a blanket statement with no exceptions.

Corinthians 6:14 would seem to imply one must jduge who is a Christian and not, for otherwise how can one determine if he/she is a believer?

Would seem to imply, yes. But Romans 2 is still there.

And granted that the bible grants divorce from adulterers and fornicators, presumably one must define what is an adulterer and a fornicator and, given this definition, all those who meet the critiera will be "judged" as fornicators and adulterers.

Ahh, that's not exactly judging. But yes.

Since I preceive the damage to the relationship to be equivalent regardless of whether the lack of faith is prior to the relationship or during it, I fail to see the need for a promise. There are many marriage vows, the Bible permits divorce for only ONE of them - it isn't that it is a vow that is significant, it's the act and it's consequences - which I would argue involve much more than trust issues.

You may view it that way if you wish, but it's not a universal understanding, and I believe it falls into serious pitfalls.

 

[waterbear]

Sure, but what about people who do, and who expect their spouse not to kiss other people?

Shouldn't you refrain, out of respect for a possible future spouse who expects you not to kiss other people?

You can if you like, and I've heard arguments to that effect. In civilization the concept of adultry as wrong is pretty universal, kissing as wrong isn't. Where one draws the line is arbitrary I suppose, but I think it's important that there BE a line at which point you will act in accordance with what would make your future spouse happy. Fornication essentially means there is no line since adultry is the premier marital wrong.

Many people would disagree, seeing it as a blanket statement with no exceptions.

I simply see that as making sense of two otherwise contradicting statments. Man cannot break what was made by God, yet a marriage, blessed by God, can be unmade if a spouse is a fornicator or adulterer. Erog, must it not be that God has ceased to recognize what He once made? Granted God has foresighted, perhaps it was never recognized by Him.

Would seem to imply, yes. But Romans 2 is still there.

A possible way of reconciling this would be to take Romans 2 in the context of being a hypocrite or not. In other words, as you judge others, you will be judged. So, if I am sure of my faith, then I can judge the faith of others with the understandings that any challenges I make to their faith I must also apply to myself. If I judge someone as a sinner, surely I am also judging myself as a sinner. However, if I judge someone as not making an effort to commit sin, provided I make the efforts I judge the other on, I can accept the judgement which will be returned to me - i.e. taking things in specific context rather than generaliziing.

Ahh, that's not exactly judging. But yes.

To label someone, arguably against their views, is to pass judgement isn't it?

You may view it that way if you wish, but it's not a universal understanding, and I believe it falls into serious pitfalls.

I think we simply understand love differently. You would remain devoted to someone that cheated on you, even by your definition so it would seem, whereas I would not. However, I show devotion to my future spouse, whereas you don't agree with that. Just different.

 

[seebs]

I think we simply understand love differently. You would remain devoted to someone that cheated on you, even by your definition so it would seem, whereas I would not. However, I show devotion to my future spouse, whereas you don't agree with that. Just different.

Fair enough, and an interesting distinction.

 

[justaman]

I don't think we are using the word "love" to mean the same thing. Infatuation, strong emotion... Nice, but not "love".

Love is a terribly approximate word. But the kind of love I think you are talking about I have with those close friends. My point being that between the firm, compassionate, connective emotions of love with friends and the strong, giddy ones with quick-fire girlfriends, my relationships would appear to cover the entire gambit of loves probably more effectively than one single relationship could.

 

[waterbear]

Love is a terribly approximate word. But the kind of love I think you are talking about I have with those close friends. My point being that between the firm, compassionate, connective emotions of love with friends and the strong, giddy ones with quick-fire girlfriends, my relationships would appear to cover the entire gambit of loves probably more effectively than one single relationship could.

I would say that love, as in human relationships, is devotional. I love a partner by devoting myself to what will make her happy, or I love myself in the future sense by devoting myself to actions which will make myself happy in a future-sense. Devotion, by it's very nature is not characteristic of a transient relationship, consequently love is not a characteristic of a transient relationship.

 

[wayfaring man]

Yea ,

True love is love that lasts !

That's what's so Lovable about God's & Christ's Love .

I think encouraging young men and women to be patient in their quest to find True Love - is a Good Thing !

wm

 

[seebs]

Love is a terribly approximate word.

Agreed.

But the kind of love I think you are talking about I have with those close friends.

Some of it. It has the potential to get a great deal stronger.

My point being that between the firm, compassionate, connective emotions of love with friends and the strong, giddy ones with quick-fire girlfriends, my relationships would appear to cover the entire gambit of loves probably more effectively than one single relationship could.

Breadth or depth. Pick any one. Seriously, the firm connective emotion has the potential to get a lot stronger over time... Also, the combination has additional depths.

A scale may cover the whole gambit of notes, but chords are more interesting.

 

[justaman]

Some of it. It has the potential to get a great deal stronger.

I don't think there are any more emotions for me to feel that I haven't already felt. To be a little clinical, for me it's all about choosing which emotions I want most, and jumping through the right hoops to get them.

With the possible exception of having a child (and I'd still dispute this) I don't think there are any more emotional surprises to be had.

 

[cabbitgrrrl]

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...

those things never work, i've heard about it, the teens will try to stay abstinent, but most of them wont hold to it