posted
Well, see what happens when I go be a Mommy and take my kids to dance and spend time with them.
You've moved beyond it now but I'm taking up issue with things that were said and assumed about me back on page four.
I love how you, who do not know me, can presume to tell me what caused the problems in my marriage. Do you think I just made this story up to make a point on this thread?
I am the only person (besides my husband and my therapist) who knows what effect premarital sex and cohabitation had on my marriage. Who the &*%^ do you think you are to presume to know otherwise? To tell me it was something else. Like you know my emotional health and history better than I do?
This is why I quit hatrack and why I'm going to do it again.
No one LISTENS to people. They immediately dismiss what they don't want to hear. You want to have sex without consequences, so when people bring up consequences like the chances of pregnancy (and I have a birth control child conceived while I was taking those 99.9% effective pills), and the emotional wounds that can result you find some reason to ignore what we're saying.
I am a person who fully supported the idea of cohabitation and then came to regret it later after marriage. Not that many people here have the perspective I do on it and yet YOU DON'T GIVE A %^$& ABOUT WHAT I'M SAYING BECAUSE IT ISN'T WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.
Gah. I'm done. I should have known better.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:But do you see the difference going on with the people in this thread, the premarital sex supporters aren't saying everyone should have it, rather that it is a judgment call for each person to make, and one that should be made after educating one's self, and reflecting on one's one and one's partner's feelings on the matter. It doesn't seem to me that the other side is willing to provide the same allowance.
But that's not the impression I get from this thread, especially the beginning. There are a few who have posted, and like you, have a "it's your choice" motif, but the only ones I have said anything against are those saying it is something that should be done or is for some ungiven and unsupported reason better. It's not "better" in any justifiable way, it's just something you choose to do because you want to do it. Any other attribution to it would be dishonest. I certainly don't feel that everyone should abstain, but that they should be honest about why they either are or are not. It works both ways.
Posts: 346 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Leonide, you said that you had deep, heartfelt talks about the possibility of pregnancy. And now you've said (essentially) that there isn't any point in making plans for things that aren't going to happen. The point is that in cases where the consequence could be devestating, it is wise to make plans, even when the chances are slim the plans will be necessary. And where the the consequence could be devestating, it's downright foolish *not* to have a plan.
We're planning on dealing it the best way we know how when it happens. We don't know where either of us will be at that point, and while both of us is adverse to the idea of abortion, we still don't know whether adoption or keeping the child would be the best course of action, because we don't know how we'll both be financially at that point. Or stability-wise -- neither of us has a full-time job at this point, and we might decide it'd be unfair to bring a child into that scenario. Just because we've had deep, heartfelt talks about this doesn't mean that we laid out a plan. We know each other's feelings on abortion and acknowledge that at this point in our lives we're probably neither of us adequately equipped to parent a child. But we still don't know how we'll feel in that exact situation, so we haven't agreed on anything in stone. We know that we'll help each other and support each other and come to a mutual decision that hopefully encompasses what's best for everyone involved, and not just ourselves. I can't tell you right now what I would do if I got pregnant, because I'm not and I can't tell you that how I feel about it now would be my feelings if I actually was. To assure you that I would know my feelings would be a lie, and I don't think you'll accept anything less then a protestation of certainty. I'm not certain. Neither is Greg. Honestly neither of us can tell you right now what exactly we'd do. I'm sorry, neither of us is willing to make promises right now that we might not be able to keep.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I personally would like to save that for someone who I know will value it. You can learn a lot from the way a guy reacts to not getting any, as well."
I imagine you're certainly right, but you could certainly turn the statement around, and suggest that one could learn a lot about one's partner if they found out a primary reason for a non-sexual relationship was to test him to see if he was a lustful, self-interested --- or not. I believe quite a few guys, both sleazy and not wouldn't react well to that.
I can certainly respect the saving it for someone who will value it, but the rest of that while sort of cynically useful, also could be destructive to relationships. I don't know many men who like to jump through hoops, most prefer straight honesty on matters like this (as I imagine women prefer as well).
posted
AJ, nope, I had to have disasters fall on my head before I caught on to the value of judicious planning. And no, between us, when we got married, we had our 401(k)'s and a little in the bank. Part of our planning has been to live way below our means, making the emergency fund necessary. We met our goal as of about 3 months ago. But all while we were saving, we made sure that *if* disaster struck, we had some sort of plan in place, even without the assets we were working to build. We still tried to make some sort of plan.
I'm *not* saying it's easy. I have been procrastinating planning for the possibility of my death. I don't want to think about it. But the truth I cannot deny is that if I died right now, there would be some very serious repercussions for my children, especially my son (who is mine by my first marriage and is not adopted by my current husband) -- and I *have* to plan for that, however slim the possibility that the plans are necessary. I feel bad that I've put it off as long as I have, and am grateful that it hasn't been necessary.
In Leo and Strider's case, I suspect that a pregnancy would be just a little more concerning than it would if they were married. Since they aren't married, and the effects of a pregnancy is concerning enough to trigger deep, heartfelt talks, I think not having a real plan is irresponsible. Sorry, but there it is.
Just as irresponsible as my not having my will done.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In Leo and Strider's case, I suspect that a pregnancy would be just a little more concerning than it would if they were married. Since they aren't married, and the effects of a pregnancy is concerning enough to trigger deep, heartfelt talks, I think not having a real plan is irresponsible. Sorry, but there it is.
I think you're misinterpreting what i mean by "deep, heartfelt talks" Strider and I have deep, heartfelt talks about *everything.* I'm also going through some emotional "stuff" right now which causes me to get overly upset about just about everything. Plus the talks were mainly before I started taking the Depro-provera. Pravera. Prevera. whatever. Primavera. Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
graywolfe: That's not the _only_ reason for it by a long shot. But lately, all I've been meeting are sleazy guys with additions to the Lame Lines Hall of Fame...
Anyways. There is a lot more to it, but I also haven't been in a long-term relationship yet. Any guy who thinks he should get laid after four days....
Posts: 9057 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, see what happens when I go be a Mommy and take my kids to dance and spend time with them.
You've moved beyond it now but I'm taking up issue with things that were said and assumed about me back on page four.
I love how you, who do not know me, can presume to tell me what caused the problems in my marriage. Do you think I just made this story up to make a point on this thread?
I am the only person (besides my husband and my therapist) who knows what effect premarital sex and cohabitation had on my marriage. Who the &*%^ do you think you are to presume to know otherwise? To tell me it was something else. Like you know my emotional health and history better than I do?
This is why I quit hatrack and why I'm going to do it again.
No one LISTENS to people. They immediately dismiss what they don't want to hear. You want to have sex without consequences, so when people bring up consequences like the chances of pregnancy (and I have a birth control child conceived while I was taking those 99.9% effective pills), and the emotional wounds that can result you find some reason to ignore what we're saying.
I am a person who fully supported the idea of cohabitation and then came to regret it later after marriage. Not that many people here have the perspective I do on it and yet YOU DON'T GIVE A %^$& ABOUT WHAT I'M SAYING BECAUSE IT ISN'T WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.
Gah. I'm done. I should have known better.
Yeah, Adrian, chill out.
You've cited your unhappiness with pre-marital co-habitation based on your history, but you have yet to provide substantial reasons beyond heartbreak against pre-marital sex -- and heartbreak's available in all forms of love, not solely co-habitation.
The problem here is that you're not listening to people. You're so intent on believing that pre-marital sexual relationships are wrong that you're refusing to consider the alternative -- after all, if you had a bad experience, all pre-marital relationships are doomed to failure?
Your past is unconvincing when you try to apply it to everyone else. While I certainly feel for you, and regret that you went through a bad experience, it's not indicative of everyone else's lives or futures.
The only two concrete reasons brought up in this thread have been post-marital satisfaction (which is steadily being dismissed as unscientific and unrealistic) and risks of pregnancy or venereal disease. Which, while real risks, can be avoided and prevented with responsible, mature birth control. Your reason of emotional hurt is an inherent risk in all relationships that run the risk of love and failure, and isn't a convincing argument for or against pre-marital sex -- though it is a rather obvious argument against premature marriage.
Again, dude, relax. We are listening -- but listening doesn't necessarily lead to conviction and agreement, especially when your arguments are supported by little else than anecdotal evidence. Please come up with some reasonable or scientific arguments, and no doubt you'll be able to sway some minds -- at least, more minds than you would with this-happened-to-me-so-it's-representative-of-premarital-relationships.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Leo, I was writing when you posted. What you said is fair. I understand not wanting to put in concrete that you'd have an abortion -- the reality could very well change your mind and I do understand that. I'd call "well, right now I think we'd have an abortion, but unless we are actually there, I don't think I could commit to Greg that's what I'd do" as much of a plan as you could make under the circumstances. Me, I couldn't have an abortion under any circumstances, and having that choice right out, I'd have to either not have sex (not an option either) or start figuring out what we would do with another baby. We had a vasectomy to make it as certain as we could. Still, in the back of my mind, I know the possibility exists, and am okay with it. Sounds like you are too, and that's really what I was looking for...to make sure you were actually looking at it full in the face.
quote: "well, right now I think we'd have an abortion, but unless we are actually there, I don't think I could commit to Greg that's what I'd do"
I think that chances are, although again I can't speak for the actual occurrence, I would chose adoption over abortion any time. And maybe, if circumstances were more favorable, I'd chose to keep the child. Committing to Greg is not an issue I consider meshed in with the choosing what to do with a surprise pregnancy -- I think we could weather that as we've weathered our other relationship storms. I'm already committed to Greg, the issue would be what we would do with our baby.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
I mean, if you don't see a problem with it, what's the value in waiting?
Maybe, kat, it's because she judges what is right for her, but understands that her decisions may not be the right ones for someone else.
I have to be honest here, people, this is a personal issue. I don't care about statistics, or your religion or your moral values. Sex is an intimate act between two people and it needs to *stay* between two people. If they have a child, it is their responsibility to care properly for the child or accept the other consequences of their actions. It is none of your concern. Maybe this *is* a Hatrack thread...but in my opinion, it shouldn't be.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kasie, for my part, I knew how this would go, I knew I was going to have to defend my experience, as kat noted multiple times. I reap what I sow.
posted
"graywolfe: That's not the _only_ reason for it by a long shot. But lately, all I've been meeting are sleazy guys with additions to the Lame Lines Hall of Fame...
Anyways. There is a lot more to it, but I also haven't been in a long-term relationship yet. Any guy who thinks he should get laid after four days...."
Oh, alright. I'm sympathetic, I understand where you're coming from, as I was rather unusual growing up (found the seemingly "one for me" when I was 15, and the relationship lasted for 7 years until it imploded)and was deeply familiar w/the guys you are no doubt running into. It's not fun trying to suss out the players from the genuinely trustworthy guys, at least that's what I'd presume.
Good luck to you, I fully understand the motivation, I just wish people could be more straight w/one another, but for many, that would eliminate the fun of the chase and "the game" and what not. That's not true of myself, but it does seem true of a lot of people I knew growing up and over the past decade since finishing High School.
Posts: 752 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I asked pH, it was very honestly a sincerely curious question.
pH had made a decision that she felt was right for her, and it didn't seem to have anything to do with general beliefs. I wondered what those specific reasons would be.
Thank you for answering. Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I also wait until after dinner to have my dessert. Does this mean that the enjoyment of dessert is not as big of a deal to me as it is to others?"
Yes. Because, clearly, it was more important to those others than whatever factors would have otherwise made them wait to eat dessert. In the same way, waiting to have sex implies that the pleasure of sex is a lower priority for you than other considerations.
This isn't a bad thing, by any stretch of the imagination. However, it DOES suggest that, as you don't place as high a priority on it, you can't be expected to value it as much.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not a big believer in "absence makes the heart grow fonder," Tom?
I'm sorry, but I have difficulty believing that you're equating lack of self-control and giving something higher priority.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would hardly call deciding to have pre-marital sex exercising a lack of "self-control", rivka, but I would call you saying that slightly insulting. Or did i misread you?
posted
Implies is a sticky word, there, Eddie. Maybe those who are abstaining considers themselves to be exercising self-control, but I certainly don't have any uncontrollable passions that need satiating or I'll explode. I have sex because I want to. It was a conscious decision, and not a shedding of my self-control. Trust me, I have a hard enough time controlling my emotions as it is --I am able to recognize when I'm doing just that.
edit: ah, sorry I misread, rivka but Eddie! *shakes fist*
posted
I don't like Tom's implication that if something is important, it needs to be sought after and done right away, or else its obviously not important.
Not a big believer in delayed gratification?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I'm really not sure how you're reaching that conclusion. When I was single, having sex was not a huge priority to me. That's because, to me, sex was important and valuable enough to wait until later, when I could enjoy it with my wife. And whatever my sexual priorities were when I was single, they're different now that I'm married. I especially dislike the claim that since I wanted to wait until marriage to have sex, I don't value it as much. I'm sure I value it as much as anyone else who values sex.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question I've been wondering: why do those of you with religious moral reasons against pre-marital sex consider it a wonderful, beautiful, intimate thing? Is it because it's a highly pleasurable and personal experience that you save for your partner? Or is it because of what you're hoping to create with it?
posted
It's not that I don't believe in delayed gratification. I just don't believe that most people who choose to wait to have sex do so because they think the physical act will be improved by the delay.
In my anecdotal experience, the vast majority of such people abstain from premarital sex because something else -- like, for example, the regard of God -- matters more to them.
Since this is clearly not the case for those who do NOT abstain, we can conclude that those people who wait to enjoy sex place less importance on the physical pleasure of sex, relative to their actions, than those who do not.
It's a matter of priority. If I wait to buy a stereo -- even though I can currently afford the stereo -- because I want to keep a certain nest egg safe, I clearly value my nest egg more than I value the stereo; someone who goes out and buys the stereo immediately, then, obviously places a higher relative value on the stereo itself.
-----
That said, I'm certainly aware that, having had sex, someone who had previously abstained from sex might suddenly place a higher value on sexual enjoyment once he or she experienced it. Barring a return to single status, though, I don't think there's any way to judge how much more important sex might become to any such individual.
Tom: I think I'm understanding you now. But I would say that people who wait to enjoy sex place less importance on the physical pleasure of sex right then. Once married, I think they value it as much as anyone else.
[ February 02, 2004, 11:03 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a hard time believing the latter doesn't take priority, Jon, since time and again the religious-minded on this board have said that sex is supposed to be only for procreation, as ordained by God.
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Honestly? I see it as the emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual merging of two people in an act of pure, unselfish love and pleasure that unites those two people in all aspects of their lives.
I also see it as a beautiful act of creation of a human life. That's amazing to me.
Posts: 1903 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, Leonide? It seems to me that time and again, the religious Jatraqueros have said that sex is both things.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: I see it as the emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual merging of two people in an act of pure, unselfish love and pleasure that unites those two people in all aspects of their lives.
I don't see a marriage stipulation there, yet I know you believe that that has to come first. Why can't this apply to Greg and I? There's nothing selfish about our love making -- it's emotional, physical, psychological, and spiritual in our own way, though not religiously so...and it unites us in ways really impossible in my eyes without close, intimate contact. Yet somehow it's considered sub-par because we don't have a certificate claiming that it's legal?
quote: It seems to me that time and again, the religious Jatraqueros have said that sex is both things.
But the latter must still take precedence, because you're only to engage in the act if a child is the goal, am I right? I freely acknowledge I could be totally off on this one, it's just been my general impression.
posted
We believe that the ultimate expression of physical love goes hand-in-hand with the ultimate expression of commitment—marriage.
quote:But the latter must still take precendence, because you're only to engage in the act if a child is the goal, am I right? I freely acknowledge I could be totally off on this one, it's just been my general impression.
Nope. I think you have to accept the possibility that you could have a child before you have sex, but I don't think that you should only have sex if you're planning on having a child. I'm sure there are other religions that disagree, but that's what my church says (other Mormon Jatraqueros, feel free to correct me).
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking strictly in terms of (Orthodox) Judaism (simply because I don't know enough to answer for anyone else), procreation is NOT seen as the primary goal of sex.
quote: At its highest use, the sexual union brings holiness into the world, as it bonds husband and wife together, spiritually, physically and emotionally.
Closeness between a husband and wife is not just a nice thing, but rather, it is the re-creation on a physical plane of a deeper spiritual reality. According to Jewish thought, a husband and wife were originally one soul before birth, split into two halves when the younger [I think she means older] of the two was conceived. When they reunite in marriage, their bond is unique because it represents the recreation of a single entity, of one soul.
quote:But the latter must still take precedence, because you're only to engage in the act if a child is the goal, am I right? I freely acknowledge I could be totally off on this one, it's just been my general impression.
Nope, you're totally off on this one.
Posts: 26 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
My opinion on this thread: the people who were telling Belle that they know better than she does about an experience that she LIVED THROUGH, instead of actually believing her account, have some nerve. She knows what happened to her and why. Her analysis of her own situation is valid, even if you think it does not apply to your particular case.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
Debates like this end up polarizing the issue of sex in a strange way. It's not like a couple either gets sexual or doesn't. There's a continuum of acts, from kissing up to vaginal intercourse, and one of the things I see missing in the 'abstinence' agenda is an acknowledgement of the fact that physical intimacy takes a number of forms.
Is oral sex too personal to undertake before marriage? What about petting? What about dry-humping?
quote:My opinion on this thread: the people who were telling Belle that they know better than she does about an experience that she LIVED THROUGH, instead of actually believing her account, have some nerve. She knows what happened to her and why. Her analysis of her own situation is valid, even if you think it does not apply to your particular case.
Seems to me that's exactly what Lalo said: her analysis is valid, but it doesn't apply to other people.
quote:But all while we were saving, we made sure that *if* disaster struck, we had some sort of plan in place, even without the assets we were working to build
What if there was no change you could ever save enough money, or make any plan whatsoever? I know for sure, if a disaster struck my family, from the moment my parents got married, up until now, there would be no means to deal with it. If they wanted to wait, I would have never been born. For 25 years of marriage, they never got a chance to make any kind of planning possible. So were they supposed to spend their lives separately, not having sex and not having children because they couldn't deal with an unexpected accident?
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, I know several married couples who would argue quite positively that their premarital sex has not harmed their relationship at all. Does this mean their example applies to everyone? Of course not. Same with Belle's.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yozhik, it has worked both ways in this thread. Could you add the same indignation for Leonide and Strider?
-Bok
EDIT: Sorry, ignore the above, it was ill-thought out. Leonide and Strider made it clear that they weren't going to take it personally. Belle did not, and we should have acted appropriately.
She has yet to explain exactly how premarital sex harmed her marriage. Understanding requires more than someone saying "Because it's so." If Belle wants to get angry at someone,she should be angry at herself for not bothering to take the time to try and elaborate what it is she means, rather than walking away in a huff when people say they don't agree with, or understand, her analysis.
quote: Wrong. Living together and having sex before marriage did not help our relationship. It hurt it. We've spent a lot of years having to work through the issues that came up because of it. The fact that I started our relationship with the fear and the idea in the back of my mind that "I'd better be careful here, he could leave me and abandon me so I need to check things out and hold back" meant that for years I was not wholly committed to this marriage.
I didn't accept the love my husband tried to offer me, because I was still holding back. It took years, and therapy, and the incredible patience and understanding of my husband before I was really able to participate completely in our marriage and be a devoted, committed partner to the degree that both of us wanted me to be.
Of course, it wasn't one-sided. He went through much of the same thing, but to a lesser degree. He also didn't have the same battle scars I did entering the relationship.
I'm standing here from experience, saying that having sex before marriage didn't increase our chances of having a happy marriage and in fact probably hurt it for some time.
I cannot even begin to tell you how much I wish I had remained celibate throughout our dating period and we had been each other's firsts and onlies beginning on our wedding night.
If you can pick out a cause and effect here where living together is the culprit, my hat is off to you, but I know I can't. And without that, all I can see is mental problems------->living together/problems in marriage, not living together------->problems in marriage.
Edited for politeness: Also, to make it clear, I will take the blame for not explaining myself well enough in my post referring to the above quoted. I'm not discounting Belle's experiences. As has been mentioned, her perception of them is her own. I'm saying that they don't make sense to me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
quote:I have come to believe that the majority of Hatrack pagans believe in the idea of individuals' choice and sovereignty, while the majority of Hatrack Christians believe in the idea of moral codes to restrict that choice based on their belief system. Can you really disagree?
I really tried to stay out of this one, namely because my ideals and my actions in this matter have not matched up perfectly. But this mischaracterization finally stirred me to participate.
Anyway, yes, I can really disagree with this. There is no forced dichotomy between “individual choice” and “moral codes to restrict that choice.” I believe most of the Christians would say that moral codes do not restrict choice so much as guide them.
Nobody here has advocated making pre-marital sex illegal or taking that choice away from others. In fact, for a large part of the thread, I’ve seen people on both sides (although there’s really at least 4 sides here) trying to convince other people why a particular choice is better than others. Saying to someone, “You should do X” does not deny them individual choice or sovereignty – the mere phrasing of the statement assumes such things exist.
It is true that Christian’s (and believers of many other religions) do not think that the simplistic “if it doesn’t hurt another person, it’s OK” mantra is valid. In that sense, “individual sovereignty” is not an idea to be believed in because it ignores duty owed to God and to Self.
But in a larger sense, individual sovereignty is given far more respect, because every choice made by a person matters to someone else who has the power to change those choices but refrains from doing so.
Everyone thinks that some choices made by someone else are wrong. The difference is where the line is drawn. For simplicity’s sake, lets divide all the available moral choices into 4 categories (what goes into each category will vary from person to person):
Actions so wrong that the coercive power of the state should be used to prevent and/or punish them (murder, rape, etc.).
Actions so wrong that the beneficent power of the state should be used to discourage them. (Via anything from education to outright bribery). (Some people see this as inherently coercive as well.)
Actions that are wrong but must be left to the individual conscience of the actor. (I.e., no punishment
Actions that are not wrong.
I know there are many possible gradations between these – for example, where does social stigma belong as a coercive force? But go with me for a minute on this. Suppose:
X is any action.
A believes X belongs in the third category.
B believes X belongs in the fourth category.
Is it “wrong” for A to attempt to convince B that X belongs in the third category? In other words, to what category does the action “Attempt to convince someone that an action belongs in a different category” belong? Assume that the attempt has been made in an unquestionably acceptable forum (such as Hatrack) in a reasonably polite manner. I think the vast majority of this discussion has been people attempting to assign premarital sex (or refraining from premarital sex) to the third or fourth category. In general, it’s been interesting and well-mannered.
quote:It's a matter of priority. If I wait to buy a stereo -- even though I can currently afford the stereo
Well, there's the problem.
I see pre-marital sex credit as buying the stereo on credit and hoping the bills don't catch up with you until you can afford to pay them.
---
As a side note: Leo, I really think that some of the confusion comes from misconceptions. You've been mistaken both about the purpose of sex for many people here, and about attitudes towards marriage for at least me.
posted
"I see pre-marital sex credit as buying the stereo on credit and hoping the bills don't catch up with you until you can afford to pay them."
If this is your concern, let's use a hypothetical: is it okay for a completely sterile person engage in monogamous sex with a partner? Given the elimination in this case of most potential risk, would that also eliminate your objections?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, come on. No tricksy questions that I've already answered and you already know the answers to.
There aren't merely physical and tangible consequences. There are psychological and spiritual consequences as well, and being physically sterile would not protect someone from those.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've put off posting in this thread for a bit, as it was getting heated.. but I changed my mind.
To be blunt: I have had pre-marital sex. I am currently living with my boyfriend. He was not my first sexual partner (but not far from the first either). I do plan to get married to my current boyfriend, and probably within the next year or so.
I do not regret my choice to have pre-marital sex at all. I have never had sex with a partner I did not love, and never in a way that did not complement, or intensify, my relationship. I have always been extremely careful. I have never fallen pregnant. If I did now, I know my relationship would handle it. Scythrop and I have talked about it - it would be having kids earlier than we planned, but we would deal.
Why have I not gotten married earlier, if I was ready to have sexual relations? Well, I wasn't ready. I do believe that sex must be very special between two people. From my own personal experience, I know that a sexual relationship for me does not necessarily equate to a "forever" commitment. I had a wonderful relationship with my first boyfriend, including the sexual side. We lasted over 3 years, till I broke it off because it wasn't working. I am to this day glad I did that. I am extremely glad we weren't married. But I have never regretted turning our relationship sexual. I guess I do view a sexual relationship as less of a committment than marriage.
With Scythrop - we will get married. But we will also wait for the right time: financially, in terms of our extended families, in terms of our careers, and in terms of ourselves. The fact that we will have had sexual relations before our marriage, and that both of us had sexual partners before we met each other has never caused us problems, and I don't think it will.
quote:You've been mistaken both about the purpose of sex for many people here, and about attitudes towards marriage for at least me.
Katie, I have appreciated how you have tried to be non-judgmental and not to hold others to the standard of your religion throughout this thread. I admire the fact that you recognise your standard is not everyone else's standard. I understand that this is something that you feel deeply about, and I do thank you for keeping your comments calm.
However, I think your comment to Leonide also applies in the reverse: your veiws about sex and marriage are not mine, and indeed I think that some of your veiws about the purpose and role of sex would not belong to the majority (or at least the overwhelming majority ) of those on this forum. Of course, I can't know this: I guess all I'm saying is be careful telling someone else they've misunderstood attitudes, as you may be equally guilty!
Overall I agree with dkw from about 6 pages back: what I believe about sex before marriage only applies to me. If anyone is thinking about getting married, and would call off that marriage based on the sexual prowess (or lack of) of the other partner; well, marriage was a bad idea in the first place!
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
I guess the difference is that I don't think what I believe applies only to me.
It's back to there's no way to both believe in universal consequences and give sanction for actions that court them because the actors do not believe in them. To give sanction would be saying that I don't actually believe what I believe. Somewhere, I'd be lying.
quote: I have come to believe that the majority of Hatrack pagans believe in the idea of individuals' choice and sovereignty, while the majority of Hatrack Christians believe in the idea of moral codes to restrict that choice based on their belief system. Can you really disagree?
I can't find who said this originally, but Dagonee quoted it again above.
I don't think it is quite that cut-and-dried.
I am a Christian. As a Christian, I believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong - it is sin. That is part of my belief structure.
HOWEVER -- I would never get married again without having sex with my partner first. This is based on past personal experience with serious sexual incompatitibilities.
So I guess it looks like I am saying I would rather commit sin, against my beliefs, than be put in a sexually incompatible relationship for long-term.
Which is one of the seriously-long list of reasons why I don't even allow myself to date at this point. All these internal wars -- it is just easier to not have to deal with it at all, by not getting attached to anyone enough to want to have sex.
But, then again, I'm middle-aged. I can have a stance like this because I'm fully prepared to deal with any consequence of my own good or bad choices.
posted
Edit: this is to Katie's post on the last page..
I do understand that. I guess though in that way, you can never separate your 'religous' beliefs from your 'non-religous' ones - in terms of a universal application of your beliefs springing from your faith.
I don't think people are necessarily asking for your sanction though. I personally would never ask you to approve or sanction my relationships because I know they are, in some ways, directly against some religous teachings.
All I can ask, and I think you do deliver is a "I believe this, but I respect your right to believe that". And I do the same back to you.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
No tricksy questions that I've already answered and you already know the answers to.
