What is going too far physically?

[KrillBee]

I am a Christian, 22 yrs old, and havent dated any women before, and I'm unsure how to go about doing so in a healthy way.
I understand that the Bible implicates that sex before marriage is wrong, and most Christians would agree with this.

The problem is that while many can agree that premarital sex is wrong, there is little consensus in Christian circles about other types of physical intimacy.

I know some Christians who believe one should not kiss until they are married. I respect their views and discipline, but is it the best strategy?
What if you 2 do not have similar physical needs? What if your chemistry is off with theirs.

I'm not saying its okay to completely "test drive" the "product" before you "buy it", but shouldnt you have a little bit of an idea of what you are getting into before signing the contract?

Plus it would seem to be more healthy if a relationship made a slow progression both in areas of intimacy and physical intimacy, instead of jumping into the pool so to speak.

But again, I'm not advocating sex before marriage. I want to put limits on my physical behavior, I'm just not sure where to set them.

I fear a lot of things about relationships, such as going too far physically, getting married to the wrong woman, or getting severly hurt from a breakup (i understand you can be even more hurt if you 2 did stuff physically).

These fears have kept me out of the dating world. But it has been very unpleasant being alone, so I want to deal with these fears, and finally meet some women.

 

[sherri]

A couple who'd just gotten engaged came to a pastor at our church a while back wanting to know "how far they could go" before marriage.

The pastor paused, unsure exactly what to say and so he said a quick prayer.

The reply he felt God gave him was "you can go as far as you would if her father was in the room" - "because her father is in the room"

I thought that was great.

Basically until you're both standing at the alter you don't know you'll end up together - until then, everything physical you do with someone just robs your future spouse (and yourself because you can't take it back and give it 'fresh' to someone else) (unless Gods been involved). And not only that, I've noticed over the years growing up in the church and watching my friends get married, that those who get physical before marriage don't get the same spark in the same ways afterwards.

ie people who save their first kiss for the alter usually still get the same 'buzz' out of it for the rest of their marriage. Whereas those that don't, lose that specialness. Holding hands the same.

In otherwords (from my observations) what you save, you keep the thrill from for the rest of your marriage. What you give up, you lose the edge off.

Hope this is of help.

 

[joesnow]

good call.

 

[KrillBee]

A couple who'd just gotten engaged came to a pastor at our church a while back wanting to know "how far they could go" before marriage.

The pastor paused, unsure exactly what to say and so he said a quick prayer.

The reply he felt God gave him was "you can go as far as you would if her father was in the room" - "because her father is in the room"

I thought that was great.

Basically until you're both standing at the alter you don't know you'll end up together - until then, everything physical you do with someone just robs your future spouse (and yourself because you can't take it back and give it 'fresh' to someone else) (unless Gods been involved). And not only that, I've noticed over the years growing up in the church and watching my friends get married, that those who get physical before marriage don't get the same spark in the same ways afterwards.

ie people who save their first kiss for the alter usually still get the same 'buzz' out of it for the rest of their marriage. Whereas those that don't, lose that specialness. Holding hands the same.

In otherwords (from my observations) what you save, you keep the thrill from for the rest of your marriage. What you give up, you lose the edge off.

Hope this is of help.

thanks for your response.

I have to ask though, since i dont think you addressed this question of mine earlier,

what do you do, if you wait until marriage until the first kiss, and you find out you have no spark with them? Like what if there are chemistry problems?

Or suppose in the months to follow you realize that their appetite for kissing or sex isnt the same as yours?

 

[joesnow]

I think that you need to discuss this with your girl rather than trying it. Think of thoery rather than practice. I respect the non kissing realationships, but believe what is right for some may not be for others.

 

[intricatic]

thanks for your response.

I have to ask though, since i dont think you addressed this question of mine earlier,

what do you do, if you wait until marriage until the first kiss, and you find out you have no spark with them? Like what if there are chemistry problems?

Or suppose in the months to follow you realize that their appetite for kissing or sex isnt the same as yours?

Physical intimacy isn't the most important part of a romantic relationship; problems that arise with physical intimacy are also the easiest problems to fix, in the long run. I like sherri's advice, personally.

The problem that most couples have that don't abstain is that physical intimacy attains a much higher degree of importance in the relationship than it would be safe to have. The result is that it overshadows everything else and causes people to be much less aware of incompatibilities in other areas.

 

[findinghope06]

A couple who'd just gotten engaged came to a pastor at our church a while back wanting to know "how far they could go" before marriage.

The pastor paused, unsure exactly what to say and so he said a quick prayer.

The reply he felt God gave him was "you can go as far as you would if her father was in the room" - "because her father is in the room"

I thought that was great.

Basically until you're both standing at the alter you don't know you'll end up together - until then, everything physical you do with someone just robs your future spouse (and yourself because you can't take it back and give it 'fresh' to someone else) (unless Gods been involved). And not only that, I've noticed over the years growing up in the church and watching my friends get married, that those who get physical before marriage don't get the same spark in the same ways afterwards.

ie people who save their first kiss for the alter usually still get the same 'buzz' out of it for the rest of their marriage. Whereas those that don't, lose that specialness. Holding hands the same.

In otherwords (from my observations) what you save, you keep the thrill from for the rest of your marriage. What you give up, you lose the edge off.

Hope this is of help.

i agree!!

 

[Alenci]

The problem that most couples have that don't abstain is that physical intimacy attains a much higher degree of importance in the relationship than it would be safe to have. The result is that it overshadows everything else and causes people to be much less aware of incompatibilities in other areas.

This is very, very true!

The reply he felt God gave him was "you can go as far as you would if her father was in the room" - "because her father is in the room"

*applause*

Basically until you're both standing at the alter you don't know you'll end up together - until then, everything physical you do with someone just robs your future spouse (and yourself because you can't take it back and give it 'fresh' to someone else) (unless Gods been involved).

This is true as well.

As for my own take on things... there are obviously set-in-stone limits on behavior that is sexual in nature, although not strictly speaking sex (those borderline sort of behaviors). And these limits differ for different couples. But in general, people should be able to identify them.

Below that, there is less harmful behavior, which I could potentially justify (for example, certain more innocent kinds of kissing). However, I feel that most of this behavior has a tendency to be taken to excess, if not even to lead to more. Thus it encourages the couple to focus too much on the physical aspect of the relationship. For this reason, I would not let a man put his arm around my waist (unless dancing or keeping me from falling off of a ski lift as I'm getting on- yes, true story! ), kiss me, etc. etc. (I haven't made strict guidelines, because I trust that I would know what was inappropriate when I found myself in the situation, although other sorts of people do need to sit down and come up with concrete guidelines). I also don't hold hands because of the tendency for couples to become disgustingly clingy. But that's more a matter of personality and taste than anything else.

 

[NoMoreTearsWithJesus]

A couple who'd just gotten engaged came to a pastor at our church a while back wanting to know "how far they could go" before marriage.

The pastor paused, unsure exactly what to say and so he said a quick prayer.

The reply he felt God gave him was "you can go as far as you would if her father was in the room" - "because her father is in the room"

I thought that was great.

Basically until you're both standing at the alter you don't know you'll end up together - until then, everything physical you do with someone just robs your future spouse (and yourself because you can't take it back and give it 'fresh' to someone else) (unless Gods been involved). And not only that, I've noticed over the years growing up in the church and watching my friends get married, that those who get physical before marriage don't get the same spark in the same ways afterwards.

ie people who save their first kiss for the alter usually still get the same 'buzz' out of it for the rest of their marriage. Whereas those that don't, lose that specialness. Holding hands the same.

In otherwords (from my observations) what you save, you keep the thrill from for the rest of your marriage. What you give up, you lose the edge off.

Hope this is of help.

wow that was great advice i think ill keep that in mind ty

 

[intricatic]

Hey - what's wrong with clingy couples?! :o

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

I am a Christian, 22 yrs old, and havent dated any women before, and I'm unsure how to go about doing so in a healthy way.
I understand that the Bible implicates that sex before marriage is wrong, and most Christians would agree with this.

The problem is that while many can agree that premarital sex is wrong, there is little consensus in Christian circles about other types of physical intimacy.

I know some Christians who believe one should not kiss until they are married. I respect their views and discipline, but is it the best strategy?
What if you 2 do not have similar physical needs? What if your chemistry is off with theirs.

I'm not saying its okay to completely "test drive" the "product" before you "buy it", but shouldnt you have a little bit of an idea of what you are getting into before signing the contract?

Plus it would seem to be more healthy if a relationship made a slow progression both in areas of intimacy and physical intimacy, instead of jumping into the pool so to speak.

But again, I'm not advocating sex before marriage. I want to put limits on my physical behavior, I'm just not sure where to set them.

I fear a lot of things about relationships, such as going too far physically, getting married to the wrong woman, or getting severly hurt from a breakup (i understand you can be even more hurt if you 2 did stuff physically).

These fears have kept me out of the dating world. But it has been very unpleasant being alone, so I want to deal with these fears, and finally meet some women.

Is this question about "too far" a question about sin? Well, ask a hundred different people, "At what point does physical intimacy between a non-married couple become sin?", and you will probably get a hundred different answers. Some people will even tell that there is no such thing as "pre-marital" sex--that marriage begins with intercourse.

Or is this question about "too far" asking, "At what point in physical intimacy is a couple playing with fire?" Is the question not what physical intimacy constitutes sin but, rather, what physical intimacy unavoidably leads to sin? Again, ask a hundred different people and you will likely get a hundred different answers.

Or is this question about "too far" not a question about sin or flirting with sin but, rather, a question about what is most conducive to a rewarding relationship? Well, if that is what the question is then, again, ask a hundred different people and you will likely to get a hundred different answers.

In the first two scenarios--the first two "too far"--the hundred different answers would all be debatable. But with respect to the third "too far": People are unique, people's circumstances and priorities change, and not everybody has the exact same needs. What works for one person may not work for another person. Therefore, with respect to physical intimacy either a man and a woman need to be "compatible" in the first place or both the man and the woman have to be flexible enough to find a happy medium. Stating unequivocally that abstaining from x before y leads to compatibility problems after y or that failure to abstain from x before y leads to compatibility problems after y sounds nice, but I doubt that reality is as simple as either view would lead us to believe.

 

[KrillBee]

Physical intimacy isn't the most important part of a romantic relationship; problems that arise with physical intimacy are also the easiest problems to fix, in the long run. I like sherri's advice, personally.

The problem that most couples have that don't abstain is that physical intimacy attains a much higher degree of importance in the relationship than it would be safe to have. The result is that it overshadows everything else and causes people to be much less aware of incompatibilities in other areas.

True, physical intimacy isnt the most important part. But we should realize that most people wouldnt get married if there weren't some physical intimacy involved! so it still is an issue.

Is this question about "too far" a question about sin? Well, ask a hundred different people, "At what point does physical intimacy between a non-married couple become sin?", and you will probably get a hundred different answers. Some people will even tell that there is no such thing as "pre-marital" sex--that marriage begins with intercourse.

Or is this question about "too far" asking, "At what point in physical intimacy is a couple playing with fire?" Is the question not what physical intimacy constitutes sin but, rather, what physical intimacy unavoidably leads to sin? Again, ask a hundred different people and you will likely get a hundred different answers.

Or is this question about "too far" not a question about sin or flirting with sin but, rather, a question about what is most conducive to a rewarding relationship? Well, if that is what the question is then, again, ask a hundred different people and you will likely to get a hundred different answers.

In the first two scenarios--the first two "too far"--the hundred different answers would all be debatable. But with respect to the third "too far": People are unique, people's circumstances and priorities change, and not everybody has the exact same needs. What works for one person may not work for another person. Therefore, with respect to physical intimacy either a man and a woman need to be "compatible" in the first place or both the man and the woman have to be flexible enough to find a happy medium. Stating unequivocally that abstaining from x before y leads to compatibility problems after y or that failure to abstain from x before y leads to compatibility problems after y sounds nice, but I doubt that reality is as simple as either view would lead us to believe.

wow, thats quite the response!
I guess i didnt even realize that my question was vague.

by too far, i meant as to what constitutes either commiting a sin, or greatly tempting someone to commit a sin.
that my main question.

but with the third point you brought up, that is also important. sometimes going one route might be more rewarding than the other.
usually if we avoid sin, we tend to find a more pleasant route.

 

[Sketcher]

If you could get arrested for it in public, don't do it in private.

 

[Alenci]

If you could get arrested for it in public, don't do it in private.

*laughs wrily*

 

[intricatic]

True, physical intimacy isnt the most important part. But we should realize that most people wouldnt get married if there weren't some physical intimacy involved! so it still is an issue.

You're saying that if you met a woman you found yourself incredibly attracted to on an emotional and intellectual level, you wouldn't want to get married if you found out [somehow] that your libidos were out of proportion?

I don't know about you, but sex really isn't altogether that important to me. I'd be perfectly willing to compromise on that issue in a marriage, probably more so than any other issue. Not to say I wouldn't be willing to compromise in other issues, just that I'm stubborn and hard-headed. If the rest of the relationship is pleasant and fulfilling, the sexual aspect of it would be of far less importance than anything else.

I know it's different for everyone, everyone has their own perception on the importance of physical intimacy as it relates to a relationship as a whole, and it varies from person to person. I just can't see it as something that would determine whether a relationship succeeds or fails.

 

[InTheGarden]

"you can go as far as you would if her father was in the room" -

quote]

I like that a lot! To me it would mean just enough physical contact to know that I had some chemistry with the person but not so much that it would get too tempting! Thanks for sharing that story!

 

[KrillBee]

"you can go as far as you would if her father was in the room" -



I like that a lot! To me it would mean just enough physical contact to know that I had some chemistry with the person but not so much that it would get too tempting! Thanks for sharing that story!

If her father was in the room I dont think I'd even be near her, lol. I tend to take the precautious side, and try not to offend anyone.

 

[KrillBee]

You're saying that if you met a woman you found yourself incredibly attracted to on an emotional and intellectual level, you wouldn't want to get married if you found out [somehow] that your libidos were out of proportion?

I don't know about you, but sex really isn't altogether that important to me. I'd be perfectly willing to compromise on that issue in a marriage, probably more so than any other issue. Not to say I wouldn't be willing to compromise in other issues, just that I'm stubborn and hard-headed. If the rest of the relationship is pleasant and fulfilling, the sexual aspect of it would be of far less importance than anything else.

I know it's different for everyone, everyone has their own perception on the importance of physical intimacy as it relates to a relationship as a whole, and it varies from person to person. I just can't see it as something that would determine whether a relationship succeeds or fails.

The one you marry is the only person that God allows us to have sex with. The ONLY person. Unless she happens to die or something.

Sex is the one thing that makes marriage officially marriage. The physical is what sets apart romantic relationships from friendships.

whats the one thing that married people do that nonmarried close friends dont do? have sex.

and usually because they are allowed to have sex, they live together, and they feel more emotionally tied together, etc. I would rather not be married, than be married to someone and have a horrible sex life with them.

I dont see how one could neglect the sex part of marriage.

 

[Weasel7711]

And with all of these comments we can safely say, it depends on the couple. Talk about it with your girlfriend. Discuss what is more important for you guys physically and dont go beyond the other persons highest boundary. Agree on something and stick to it. Be accountable with a friend about it if you have to.

Personally I have found getting to physically involved just leads to complication later down the line if you end up breaking up. That is mostly just me as I tend to dive into relationships and not think beforehand, then once I realize the water is too deep... the girl gets hurt. Sorry about that bad tie in to the analogy at the end. Im hoping to abstain from excessive physical contact from now on until I get married.

 

[eatenbylocusts]

I would suggest figuring out your boundaries before you get into a relationship, or just don't touch anyone until you figure it out.

My ex-bf had it all figured out. I think I got my first hug on our 4th date and that was after some very deep conversations to determine our compatibility for marriage. We only hugged at the end of our dates. We had started pre-marital classes and we were going to have our first kiss after the classes finished. He had already told me that he didn't think we should french kiss until after marriage.

Personally I think the longer you hold off on the physical stuff the better. The decision to continue the relationship should be based on compatibility, not because you're enjoying the physical contact so much you don't want to stop, or you can't even think about anything else.