quote:I don't barter with my body parts in that fashion; it smacks too much of prostitution.
But you've promised that only she gets your body parts that way as long as you're married. How is that not bartering with your body parts? Is being sexually faithful prostitution? Or do I totally not get what you are saying?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But you've promised that only she gets your body parts that way as long as you're married."
No, I haven't. What I've promised is that no one ELSE can have my body parts while I remain married to her.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nope. She's welcome to my body parts regardless of whether or not I'm married to her. I simply have no interest in letting OTHER people have access to my body.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I see the difference you are getting at. But how is it less like prostitution to you? I ask because I don't understand what you meant to begin with.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's because it's not an exchange. I'm not withholding some special part of myself from someone else in order to win Christy's affection; neither have I traded exclusive access to my body -- which is not, I freely admit, in remarkably high demand anyway -- to her as part of our lifelong commitment to each other.
That I will not have sex with anyone else is a symptom, not a cause, of what I feel for her. I don't believe our moments together are any less special than they would be if I'd never held hands with another soul; I don't believe they're more special than they would be if she'd bagged her entire high school basketball team. Because what makes those moments special from an emotional point of view is what I feel for her as my life partner, and that has absolutely nothing to do with what either of us may or may not have done with other people in the past.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That I will not have sex with anyone else is a symptom, not a cause, of what I feel for her.
Do you believe it is a cause for those who save themselves and enjoy their partner saving themselves as well?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps. But that strikes me as inutterably shallow; it's an odd sort of anti-fetish, really. It seems like a shame to let an obsession with sex dominate your love life so completely.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: To expect it of your partner is to have great self-respect and look out for your own needs in an entirely appropriate way.
I'm not sure that these two things are even correlated, much less causated.
What I meant, Tom, is that if it's what you want in your partner, it's an entirely appropriate and healthy thing to wait for a partner who meets that criteria... e.g. if it's important to you, by all means get it.
What got edited out was a long diatribe about expecting it of a partner that couldn't meet those needs because of his past... but I realized I was projecting a bit when I re-read lightpaths' post... hence the edit.
sorry for the confusion.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comparing saving yourself for marriage with prostitution is utterly stupid. I can't believe you would even type it with a straight face.
Waiting until marriage to have sex is not a bartering chip for marriage. (If you marry me, look what you'll get ALL to yourself. Never touched! Never unwrapped! All for you!) It is not a reward for the spouse for marriage. (In return for marrying me, look what lovely prize you'll get...) Waiting until marriage to have sex is about believing that you shouldn't be intimate like that with more than one person if your lifetime. It may be idealistic and you may not agree with it, but to compare it to prostitution is absolutely absurd.
quote: "Those things did make me sad--sad because my spouse hadn't let me open the whole physical sexual package, but only saved the last bit of wrapping for me to take off."
I really hope you don't take this the wrong way, but this attitude strikes me as being astoundingly self-absorbed -- but, then, I don't conflate physical attraction with emotional attachment.
I don't see her attitude as self-absorbed either. She had gone to great lengths to save herself completely for her husband--it was important to her. Is she supposed to pretend that reciprocation is NOT important to her? It hurt her and was something that she had to deal with. Obviously she did, and she still married him. I'm sure their life together has not suffered because of it. It is not self-absorbed to want something that's important to you from your spouse. It is not self-absorbed to want to be able to say, I'm the only one who's done this with my husband/wife. No one else has been here. It is not self-absorbed to not want to think about your spouse being with another person. Ever. If it's important to you. If it's not, that's fine. But I think in choosing a mate and in living with a mate, we all have things we want a certain way. We might learn to live without them, but it's not right for someone else to say it's self-absorbed.
And back to my original statement because it ticks me off... Saying to your husband or wife, I am untouched, I waited for you, is a GIFT. It is not payment and it is not something to be paid for. You don't have to agree that it's a good thing. You can say that it's okay for some people but not for others. That's fine. And hopefully, people who do wait for marriage find spouses who, while they might not have waited, will at least appreciate the gift.
posted
"Waiting until marriage to have sex is about believing that you shouldn't be intimate like that with more than one person if your lifetime."
And yet that's not what's coming through on this thread. Because if it were just a personal decision, people wouldn't be disappointed that their spouses hadn't made similar decisions.
"It is not self-absorbed to want to be able to say, I'm the only one who's done this with my husband/wife. No one else has been here."
Sure it is. Is it inherently more special to climb a mountain no one has ever climbed, or is the only real benefit to climbing the mountain first a blast of ego at conquering the virgin territory?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The part I take issue with is comparing a spouse to a mountain. Mountains are there for everyone. You need to share and not throw a fit if you can't have it all to yourself.
Spouses are not there for everyone. I don't have to share my spouse. Maybe that's self-absorbed, but that's okay with me. My spouse is MINE. No one else's. I don't think you would disagree with that part. Where we differ, I think, is applying that concept to our spouse and to ourselves BEFORE we are married. I don't want to share. Not now and not in the past.
And to answer your mountain analogy directly... it's not about achieving a goal and being the first. It's that the mountain chose you to be the only climber.
quote: Where we differ, I think, is applying that concept to our spouse and to ourselves BEFORE we are married. I don't want to share. Not now and not in the past.
And here I agree with Tom. Would you love your spouse less if if he (she/they) had been shared in the past?
Maybe you would.
I wouldn't. I love my husband because of who *he* is. I do not love him because of who he has, or hasn't interacted with (or to what degree) in the past.
So I'm not the "first" one up. Neither is he. Who cares?
I'm the only one that matters in the long term. As he is to me. He's the only one who will be fathering my children. I'll be the one giving birth. We'll be raising them. We'll be family. And that's all that matters.
posted
I actually agree with Tom about the implications of keeping yourself as an untouched specimen for someone smacking of prostitution. It's because it's objectifying - instead of being Katie, I'm a thing, valuable because no one else has had his hands on all of me.
That's slightly different from wanting someone who has stayed away from sex for moral or more personal reasons. For the first, that someone is less valuable if touched, whatever the reason. For the second, not having sex before is part of their belief system and who they are, part of their character. It is different.
To be more specific, the first treats someone like cattle and leaves no room for repentance. The second does.
I wouldn't have a problem with someone who has had sex before, because what matters is who they are now. And I would be greatly repulsed by someone who liked who I am now, but because I was someone else before, would want nothing to do with me.
posted
imogen, I never said my husband waited for me. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't--that's a personal matter. But my love for him is the same either way. Both partners waiting is the ideal that I believe in. But while it is my ideal, I decided a long time ago that whether or not my future spouse waited for me would not change our relationship. Whether or not he was a virgin was never a dealbreaker in any of my dating relationships. I knew that was an unrealistic request. I would, however, be grateful if he did wait. But I wouldn't hold it against him if he didn't.
I'm talking ideals, not really reality. I've always understood that people make mistakes and one sin isn't bigger than another sin. I would expect to be told what happened before me, but after that, I put it behind me. It doesn't matter anymore. And I expect the same treatment in return.
Those of us who wait do it because it is important to us. I think it's okay for us to want the same from our spouses. And some of us are okay with it if he/she didn't wait. And some of us aren't. I can't say I agree with that sentiment, but if they really feel that way, maybe it's just best for them to wait until they find another virgin.
I have lots of reasons why I waited. And the one about giving my husband a gift is a small one. The majority of reasons are all about ME--my physical, emotional, and spiritual health.
posted
Katarin - I didn't really mean to attack your marriage personally. I guess responding to your personal anecdote meant I did, and I'm sorry for that.
quote: The majority of reasons are all about ME--my physical, emotional, and spiritual health.
I completely respect this and would never argue with it. If more women thought like this I think a lot of problems would be decreased. Also, if more men thought like this, a lot of problems would be decreased.
But in your analogy - to my reading at least, you made the virgin out to be the pure. The unobtainable. And when it was obtained, it was sullied. That was what I had issue with.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
imogen, Nonono. I'm sorry. I didn't think you were attacking me. It's cool.
quote: But in your analogy - to my reading at least, you made the virgin out to be the pure. The unobtainable. And when it was obtained, it was sullied. That was what I had issue with.
Hmm.. Well, that's not what I was going for. Besides, a virgin can be impure. Purity is more than just sex and has a lot to do with who you are as a person. I would venture that it's completely possible for a person who's never been married and isn't a virgin to become a pure person.
My main point of contention is that if you do save yourself for your spouse, it's not prostitution or anything like it.
posted
I'm going to jump in here, admittedly reading only the first and last pages of this thread. But I think katarina worded it well.
What about the spouse of a religious convert who did not have the same moral foundation before they were converted react to that convert's past sexual activity? If it was all about being an exclusive gift, then the spouse of that convert would have a right to be very disappointed and saddened, right?
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I believe that it is right and best to abstain from sex before marriage, I did not come to the marriage alter "a pure virgin". I slipped up on my own belief there, disappointing myself. Porter doesn't love me any less because of it. That doesn't mean it wasn't difficult, on some level, for him to deal with. But once he accepted that, it became a "non-issue".
I think it is difficult for a person who *has* waited to learn to deal with the fact that the other did not--especially when you both have the same beliefs about these things. If the other person came from a different belief system, it would be silly to expect them to act differently.
It may still be hard though, because you have to deal with feelings of inadequacy. They come from a position of experience, and it can make you feel insecure.
The same is true when two people get together and one has had a relationship before and the other hasn't. No sex has to be involved at all for there to be a potential for the one who hasn't been in a relationship to feel at a disadvantage sometimes.
I know for a fact that having multiple relationships gives me the advantage into any new relationship I may enter. It gives me wisdom, confidence, and perspective.
That's just the way it is. If the person is given every reason to be confident in the love of their partner, they can get over being at the disadvantage. But it is natural for it to be hard for the less experienced person whether it is about sex or just simply having been in a some kind of romantic relationship before.
My sister married a guy who'd never had a girlfriend before, and I don't think he has ever completely gotten over the insecurity. (She was "a pure virgin" when they got married.) But that may be because he tends to be insecure about a lot of things.
So really, I don't think this is so much about prostituting oneself as feelings of insecurity that tend to bubble up in the less experienced partner.
If Christy is not insecure at all, either she is not prone to that sort of insecurity, or Tom is very good at fostering security in her about it. But I would find it completely understandable if she had had to deal with insecurity about it at times. At least, that is how I would expect things to be.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amka, Disappointed and saddened? Maybe... for like 5 seconds. This person just converted and became a new person. If God can forgive, who is the spouse to hold it against him/her?
I'm all in favor of Secondary Virginity. (I think that's what it's called.)
posted
My guess is that a pure virgin has not had any sort of sexual contact. While an impure virgin has maybe gotten to 1st, 2nd, or 3rd base. (I really don't know what the bases are...but I'm assuming that a home run is actual sex... while the bases refer to petting, heavy petting, and oral sex.)
posted
I was thinking, the more experienced person can use their experience to make their less-experienced spouse feel very secure. If they are assure them that of all the people they have ever dated, the one they are with now is the best ____ (fill in the blank) and avoid negative comparisons the other way, they are more likely to feel secure.
But if I am always talking about past boyfriends and how they were this and that better than Porter, what is he going to think of my feelings for him?
That is why I shudder at the idea of telling my spouse, "Sex with _____ was better than sex with you". It seems to undermine that, honest though it may be.
But I guess it's like when a wife asks a husband, "Do these pants make me look fat?" If you are asking to know the truth, best be prepared for a less-than-soothing response.
But unless I am directly asked, I am likely to not volunteer such info unless it serves a purpose worth hurting someone's feelings.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But if I am always talking about past boyfriends and how they were this and that better than Porter, what is he going to think of my feelings for him?
No kidding. Even not mentioning sex at all, there's nothing more likely to kill my trust in someone than him telling me about how wonderful everyone but me is.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, practical reason for using the term "pure virgin", I technically was a virgin on our wedding night. But I had had sexual experiences.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I'm saying is that the concept of virginity as a gift to a spouse is a superficial reason to remain a virgin, and every example on this page proves that. I might not go so far as to say it smacks of prostitution, but it is, as katharina said, objectifying.
There would be people who could not accept the impure past of a spouse, even if it has been repented of. Who would want to marry those people? Why wouldn't we? Because they are seeking an object with all the right attributes, not a person.
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, it is a superficial reason. And that would be bad if it were the ONLY reason.
And I agree that anybody who couldn't accept the impure past of a potential spouse, making that the only reason not to marry them, would be a pretty uptight person and not very pleasant to be around. That potential spouse is probably better off without them.
Making a decision to marry or not based on that, to me, is just as bad as making a decision to marry or not based on a sexual audition (to refer to a previous discussion in this thread).
quote:There would be people who could not accept the impure past of a spouse, even if it has been repented of. Who would want to marry those people? Why wouldn't we? Because they are seeking an object with all the right attributes, not a person.
And don't you know people like that? The girl or guy who has a long list of what they want in a spouse, and if they ever find that person, there is usually one of two outcomes:
-objectified person hates list-maker, refuses to interact with her/him
or
-list-maker marries objectified person, finds reality disconcerting, ends up with an unhappy marriage or divorce.
Sometimes it works out. But I've seen the other two much more often, and the list-maker ignoring many opportunities to fall in love with really great people because s/he is too focused on her/his list far more often. Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
List-maker person marries objectified person. They have a fight, List-maker wins. Degraded person. Objectified person.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I'm saying is that the concept of virginity as a gift to a spouse is a superficial reason to remain a virgin, and every example on this page proves that.
What about remaining a virgin because you believe that God commands you to remain chaste, and you do it not only out of respect for your future spouse but in obedience to God? Is that superficial?
Because I think everyone that advocates chastity until marriage thinks there is reason to do so beyond just the "gift to a spouse" reason.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would submit to you that sometimes listmaker marries someone who doesn't fit specifically so listmaker can feel empowered by having something to hold over other person's head, too.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would submit to you that sometimes listmaker marries someone who doesn't fit specifically so listmaker can feel empowered by having something to hold over other person's head, too.
I'm guessing this is very rarely, if ever, done consciously. I've known people to think, "Oh, s/he will change/adjust once we're married," which I think is foolish, but never deliberately, consciously choosing someone who will make them feel empowered.
Now, I have known a couple in which the male was looking for someone to be in charge of him (a pseudo-mommy figure), and found a woman who suited those tastes (after trying and failing with a friend of mine who wanted a more equal partnership).
Posts: 4077 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I've never been able to quite come to terms with is the idea that sex with your spouse (or commited partner) is "special, and beautiful" but sex with every other person you've had sex with...isn't, somehow?
Like, the idea that "sex isn't that important, i've had it before. But with you it's special" Well, if it's something so special, why did you have it before?
It's a mindset I don't quite get. If you know while your with Person A that you don't love him/her, and probably don't want to pursue a long-term relationship, but someday in the future there will be someone who you would feel all those things for and sex really would be special...why would you settle for less?
This isn't an issue of "You didn't wait, you must not love me as much as you said!" This is more of a wondering why anyone would have sex with someone that they didn't care that much about... Beyond "you're fun! and attractive!"...when they know that out there somewhere are other people that they would actually *love* (something that i think would make sex, for most, 10x's better)
The mindset, I guess, is like...well, like hanging out with friends that you only kind of like, just so that you're around people and being social and having fun. As opposed to waiting until your good friends come around and having an absolute blast with them. Because you have a real connection with them, your good friends. You have things in common and shared experiences and compatible personalities. Why waste time with the fair-weather people?
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is more of a wondering why anyone would have sex with someone that they didn't care that much about... Beyond "you're fun! and attractive!"...when they know that out there somewhere are other people that they would actually *love* (something that i think would make sex, for most, 10x's better)
Every single day, hundreds of thousands of people eat something for lunch that isn't their favorite food, but which they still enjoy and find nourishing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it is because sex just isn't a big deal to a lot of people. It is about doing what you feel like doing, and not a lot of thought goes into it. If we are "just animals" why not give into the urge whenever convenient?
Besides, when you are as horny as all get out, you ain't exactly thinking clearly. If a person is serious about avoiding casual sex, they need to know their weaknesses well enough to stay out of situations that make "horny" stronger than "I really shouldn't".
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"It is about doing what you feel like doing, and not a lot of thought goes into it."
In all fairness, it's also possible to think a lot about sex and STILL sleep with someone you don't love, even if you don't think we're "just animals." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every single day, hundreds of thousands of people eat something for lunch that isn't their favorite food, but which they still enjoy and find nourishing.
I can't wait for the day when sex actually *does* become a necessity, but unfortunately that ain't da case.
I think it's confusing to me because I'm such a lover of the finer things. I couldn't imagine sitting in the nosebleed sections of a broadway show...Orchestra, first 10 rows, or why waste the money? When I go out to a nice dinner I get nice food! I don't skimp because of cash, i want what's the best! I don't wear clothes that aren't comfortable, even if they look good, because that means i'm not comfortable! I like good stuff, so i couldn't imagine having ever settled for sex with anyone besides the guy I love, cause it just wouldn't have been that good.
My first kiss was with this guy i had a big crush on and even though kissing is like "whatever" to most people, i actually sort of regret that it wasn't with someone I was actually dating, cause this guy turned out to be a total loser. And a bad kisser. It made me realize that there were ways of telling whether sexual intimacies will be merely agreeable or just plain fantastic with the object of your desire.
Or maybe I'm just spoiled now :-)
Posts: 3516 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
In your case, then, the question is "why would anyone settle for a sub-optimal experience for anything that wasn't actually necessary?" You may as well ask why anyone would go to a regular baseball game when pennant games are available. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, are we talking about the same kind of "thought"?
Another way to say what I meant is that it doesn't occur to that person that there might be anything bad about viewing sex casually. Sure, a lot of people say there is, but they don't know what they are talking about. After all, that person has experienced casual sex, the one preaching against it hasn't. Who's going to know better?
By not giving it a lot of thought, I mean they don't feel bad about it. They see no reason to.
I view my first sexual experiences as bad and wrong for a variety of reasons. Some have to do with the relationship being inherently and dangerously unhealthy. The others have to do with the fact that I honestly believe in chastity, though I didn't do a very good job of living it. (I had a chance to "live it" later in subsequent relationships.)
You mentioned going through a "shallow phase" implying that you do not view sex now as you did then. I don't know how much your view changed though. What did change?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
My reasons behind seeking out relationships, and consequently the priorities placed on aspects of those relationships. I dated many, many people I had no intention of marrying, and had sex with a handful I had no intention of dating. And because at the back of my mind was always this, "You're having fun with this person, but isn't the point of dating ultimately to find a life partner," I kept getting into these disastrously unhealthy long-term relationships with people who weren't emotionally compatible. So one day I woke up, realizing that I could either choose to sleep around without looking for a spouse or look for a spouse without sleeping around, and decided that the latter would be more fulfilling in the long run. But that doesn't mean I actually regret too much of the earlier sleeping around, even if it did complicate my life a bit at times in awkward ways.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why would continuing to look for a spouse while sleeping around not be as good an option for you? Supposedly, while sleeping around, you could find that one of these women was one you were compatable with. You can look for a life partner without getting attached to ones that aren't compatable.
After all, isn't that a lot of what dating is about? You date a lot of different people and eventually you find one you want to stick with. You'll probably kiss or hold hands with a lot of those people, even if it isn't going to "go anywhere". At the very least, you will probably flirt. If you don't have any feelings about casual sex being wrong, why couldn't there be some of that too?
But there may be other complications. It may be that a lot of the women you'd be sleeping with wouldn't be as willing as you to look at it as casual. They might, one after the other, be seeking at least some commitment from you--if they view sex as an emotional investment. That could get exhausting after awhile. You might not feel any guilt about your behavior objectively, but you may feel a sort of "secondary guilt" based on their expectations, even if they are subtle rather than overt.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Why would continuing to look for a spouse while sleeping around not be as good an option for you?"
Because the things that make a good sex partner are not necessarily the same things that make a good spouse, and I realized that it made more sense to focus my efforts on the latter. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Saying to your husband or wife, I am untouched, I waited for you, is a GIFT. It is not payment and it is not something to be paid for. You don't have to agree that it's a good thing. You can say that it's okay for some people but not for others. That's fine. And hopefully, people who do wait for marriage find spouses who, while they might not have waited, will at least appreciate the gift.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
