Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We could have a discussion on the availability of penicillin in the year 1394 BCE.
That discussion would last exactly 0 seconds since penicillin did not exist.
Did it ever occur to you that many of the prohibitions were "fair cop" propositions?
You know, they came to the right conclusions for the wrong reasons?
The purpose behind the prohibition against fornicating was to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases.
Your anachronistic view of the ancient Near East is nothing short of disgusting. There were no cities with populations in the Millions or even the 100s of 1,000s or even the 10s of 1,000s.
For 1,000 years Jerusalem was back-water podunk town of 1,200 people. After the northern kingdom fell, the influx of refugees caused the population to swell to about 12,000 and that was large by the standards of the day.
Villages generally had 80-120 people and towns up to about 800.
As you can see, it wouldn't take long for a sexually transmitted disease to spread through the post-puberty population (since women generally married right after the onset of menses.)
While sexually transmitted diseases are generally not fatal, many can produce fatal side-effects and also infect the unborn.
Promiscuous women are at high risk for PIDs (Pelvic Inflammatory Diseases) which leave scars and lesions on the lining of the uterus prevent embryos from implanting.
Yes, they're sterile.
The social structure was family, clan, and tribe.
If your family cannot reproduce, it dies out. If your clan cannot reproduce, it dies out or gets absorbed into another clan (same thing as dying out), and if your tribe cannot reproduce, it dies out or gets absorbed into another tribe.
Anyone who actually bothers to read the Hebrew texts might note there are also prohibitions against eating pork, certain avians, and scavengers.
It doesn't take a big brain with a multi-million dollar lab to figure out that many virus jump from swine and avians to humans.
An animal dies of rabies. A scavenger eats the rabies infected carcass. You kill the scavenger and while butchering it get rabies infected blood on your hands and you stick your fingers in your eyes, nose, and mouth and now you got rabies or you don't properly cook the meat to 185° and now you got rabies.
Fish like catfish were banned.
I won't eat catfish out of the Great Miami, not because I don't like catfish rather because the tanneries in upstream Hamilton dumped Chromic Acid into the river and steel mills and rolling mills in upstream Middletown and New Miami dumped lots of toxic waste into the river.
Catfish are bottom-feeders which is were all the heavy metals like Chromium and Mercury sit and the catfish are full of it.
Peoples in the ancient Near East didn't have the science or understanding to figure out why something was harmful they only knew through experience and observation that it potentially was with the point being those prohibitions had nothing to do with morality and everything to do with people's health and well-being.
Nice.
Sex has never been a moral issue in most cultures. It is always about health and incidentally character. Anything ingested in any part of the body needed careful attention. Kama Sutra is not porn to be hidden, it is literature on the art of living to be studied, composed by Vatsayana, a philosopher saint in some early, very early century.
Marriage is not about sex. A contract to secure property, status, and other things.
Sex has never been a moral issue in most cultures. It is always about health and incidentally character. Anything ingested in any part of the body needed careful attention. Kama Sutra is not porn to be hidden, it is literature on the art of living to be studied, composed by Vatsayana, a philosopher saint in some early, very early century.
Marriage is not about sex. A contract to secure property, status, and other things.
I'd like to know what culture you're actually involved in where sex is not a moral issue.
Christianity is the remedy for guilt?
You are a card Mike.
Catholicism is practically the embodiment of guilt.
Don't do this, don't do that, God is watching your every move, everyone is a sinner, go confess your sins.
The Catholic church is obsessed with guilt.
The Catholic Church is "obsessed" with helping people to get right with God.
The sense of guilt is universal to humanity. Unless one is a sociopath in need of psychological help, everyone feels guilt. The concept was not invented by the Catholic Church. Catholicism teaches us how we can get right with God, thereby ameliorating our sense of personal guilt. People want guidance on how to best live their lives, and the Catholic Faith is providing the answers when it says "don't do this, don't do that".
Saying "everyone is a sinner" is nothing but an acknowledgment of this universal sense of guilt.
I think Cruithine has a great point that some people are completely different in bed. Just hypothetically talking here, a man might want different holes than the woman is comfortable with. A man might want it quick and rough while I might like it slow, snuggling, and gentle with kisses. A man might enjoy finishing in different locations that the woman doesn't want. One might be adventurous and want to try something outdoors, the other might be horrified by the idea. There are a million different things.
Everybody wants things they'll never get. Those things people want may be unreasonable, impossible, or simply immoral.
Marriage is not about getting what we want, but rather is about sacrificing what we want for the good of the spouse. If we understood this, we would not make unreasonable or immoral demands of our spouse; and we would be content in knowing that through these personal sacrifices we are winning salvation for ourself and our spouse.
So many great answers. What I gathered is that the OP wants a stamp of approval, probably to convince the partner that he/she wants to have sex with, that they should have sex to see if they are compatible. It appears that sexual compatibility is at the top of the list of what makes a marriage a success or not. OP doesn't realize what marriage is about, and how over time things evolve.
Reasons to avoid sex before marriage: pregnancy (one should make sure they have a plan for an "oops"), sexually transmitted diseases, even "reputation" for some.
Two virgins having sex and going from that point forward makes as much sense as "try before you buy", as how many times would one have to have sex with someone to really know, in the long term, just how much sex and likely "types" of sex that the partner may want over the next 50 years or not.
What a silly notion in the first place. Still say OP is looking to convince someone they should not wait until marriage, and looking for reasons, of which there really aren't any.
So many great answers. What I gathered is that the OP wants a stamp of approval, probably to convince the partner that he/she wants to have sex with, that they should have sex to see if they are compatible. It appears that sexual compatibility is at the top of the list of what makes a marriage a success or not. OP doesn't realize what marriage is about, and how over time things evolve.
I would say that if one partner wants premarital sex and the other does not, then they are sexually incompatible—not necessarily because of what each prefers (or ends up preferring) in the bedroom—but because one wants premarital sex and the other, well, does not.
Neither approach is inherently better or worse. What’s important is that both partners are on the same page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Reasons to avoid sex before marriage: pregnancy (one should make sure they have a plan for an "oops"), sexually transmitted diseases, even "reputation" for some.
Eh. Properly using reliable birth control methods makes it highly unlikely (though certainly not impossible) for pregnancy to result. If a condom bursts or slips off, take the morning after pill. If a pregnancy results and you don’t want to raise a child, abort the fetus or place the child for adoption. I prefer the former, but I understand why others prefer the latter.
Avoiding STIs also comes down to taking reasonable precautions with protective contraceptive methods and regular testing when sexually active with multiple partners.
Anyone who judges you for the number of sexual partners you had before marriage can take a long walk off a short pier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
Two virgins having sex and going from that point forward makes as much sense as "try before you buy", as how many times would one have to have sex with someone to really know, in the long term, just how much sex and likely "types" of sex that the partner may want over the next 50 years or not.
See first comment, although there is certainly a risk that partners who wait until marriage to have intercourse will find themselves fundamentally incompatible. I don’t think that risk is large, but it’s not nonexistent either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnywhereElse
What a silly notion in the first place. Still say OP is looking to convince someone they should not wait until marriage, and looking for reasons, of which there really aren't any.
If you cannot obtain sexual satisfaction without coaxing and cajoling your partner, you probably need a new partner.
I would say that if one partner wants premarital sex and the other does not, then they are sexually incompatible—not necessarily because of what each prefers (or ends up preferring) in the bedroom—but because one wants premarital sex and the other, well, does not.
Neither approach is inherently better or worse. What’s important is that both partners are on the same page.
Eh. Properly using reliable birth control methods makes it highly unlikely (though certainly not impossible) for pregnancy to result. If a condom bursts or slips off, take the morning after pill. If a pregnancy results and you don’t want to raise a child, abort the fetus or place the child for adoption. I prefer the former, but I understand why others prefer the latter.
Avoiding STIs also comes down to taking reasonable precautions with protective contraceptive methods and regular testing when sexually active with multiple partners.
Anyone who judges you for the number of sexual partners you had before marriage can take a long walk off a short pier.
See first comment, although there is certainly a risk that partners who wait until marriage to have intercourse will find themselves fundamentally incompatible. I don’t think that risk is large, but it’s not nonexistent either.
If you cannot obtain sexual satisfaction without coaxing and cajoling your partner, you probably need a new partner.
A very good post, in my view.
There are many things that can make a couple incompatible. Sex is only one of them. Certainly, religion is another.
I would say that if one partner wants premarital sex and the other does not, then they are sexually incompatible—not necessarily because of what each prefers (or ends up preferring) in the bedroom—but because one wants premarital sex and the other, well, does not.
Neither approach is inherently better or worse. What’s important is that both partners are on the same page.
Eh. Properly using reliable birth control methods makes it highly unlikely (though certainly not impossible) for pregnancy to result. If a condom bursts or slips off, take the morning after pill. If a pregnancy results and you don’t want to raise a child, abort the fetus or place the child for adoption. I prefer the former, but I understand why others prefer the latter.
Some people simply don't want to take that chance. And since this thread is on a Christianity board, I'm sure "a few" here are against modern birth control.
Condoms are not completely reliable
Abortion is not as easy to obtain since Roe v. Wade was overturned, plus, some don't believe in abortion.
And, so believe that if pregnancy does result, they'd never want to be in a position to choose between keeping a child, or giving it up for adoption.
These reasons aren't just "Eh" for some. They're serious. And they're perfectly valid.
Quote:
Avoiding STIs also comes down to taking reasonable precautions with protective contraceptive methods and regular testing when sexually active with multiple partners.
Again, some may not want to take that chance, especially knowing that some STI's/STD's, you can't get rid of.
Quote:
Anyone who judges you for the number of sexual partners you had before marriage can take a long walk off a short pier.
Ever hear of "retro-active jealousy"? Happens more than you think, and I've seen a few marriage end because of it.
Quote:
See first comment, although there is certainly a risk that partners who wait until marriage to have intercourse will find themselves fundamentally incompatible. I don’t think that risk is large, but it’s not nonexistent either.
If you cannot obtain sexual satisfaction without coaxing and cajoling your partner, you probably need a new partner.
Some people simply don't want to take that chance. And since this thread is on a Christianity board, I'm sure "a few" here are against modern birth control.
Condoms are not completely reliable
Abortion is not as easy to obtain since Roe v. Wade was overturned, plus, some don't believe in abortion.
And, so believe that if pregnancy does result, they'd never want to be in a position to choose between keeping a child, or giving it up for adoption.
It’s actually the general Religion and Spirituality board. Regardless, people are free to be for against modern birth control and make family planning choices as they see fit. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others, and abstinence from premarital sex for everyone in between.
Certainly, it’s shameful that American women no longer have the absolute right to an abortion pre-viability in the United States. Although even pre-Dobbs, there was no shortage of barriers in deep red states that made access to safe and legal abortions effectively insurmountable for women of limited financial means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
These reasons aren't just "Eh" for some. They're serious. And they're perfectly valid.
I never said anyone was joking or that their personal preferences are invalid. But if the only thing keeping you from premarital sex is fear of getting yourself or someone else pregnant because you don’t trust yourself to put on a condom or take a birth control pill or have an IUD placed, then you should probably brush up on both sex education and basic probability and statistics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
Again, some may not want to take that chance, especially knowing that some STI's/STD's, you can't get rid of.
And that’s fine for those people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
Ever hear of "retro-active jealousy"? Happens more than you think, and I've seen a few marriage end because of it.
You mean sl**-shaming? Sure I have. It’s absolutely abhorrent. But the nice thing about freedom of association is that people are free to enter into and dissolve relationships for reasons good, bad, and indifferent. If you want to sl**-shame (and it’s almost always “sl**”-shaming due to gender double-standards), then sl**-shame away.
It’s actually the general Religion and Spirituality board. Regardless, people are free to be for against modern birth control and make family planning choices as they see fit. Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others, and abstinence from premarital sex for everyone in between.
Certainly, it’s shameful that American women no longer have the absolute right to an abortion pre-viability in the United States. Although even pre-Dobbs, there was no shortage of barriers in deep red states that made access to safe and legal abortions effectively insurmountable for women of limited financial means.
I never said anyone was joking or that their personal preferences are invalid. But if the only thing keeping you from premarital sex is fear of getting yourself or someone else pregnant because you don’t trust yourself to put on a condom or take a birth control pill or have an IUD placed, then you should probably brush up on both sex education and basic probability and statistics.
And that’s fine for those people.
Like I mentioned before, birth control can and DOES fail. While the probability of becoming pregant has been greatly reduced, it's not eliminated.
And that's just too much of a chance that some want to take.
Quote:
You mean sl**-shaming? Sure I have. It’s absolutely abhorrent. But the nice thing about freedom of association is that people are free to enter into and dissolve relationships for reasons good, bad, and indifferent. If you want to sl**-shame (and it’s almost always “sl**”-shaming due to gender double-standards), then sl**-shame away.
Sl**-shaming and retroactive jealousy aren't the same thing.
Retroactive jealousy is about having an unhealthy obsession or preoccupation with your partner's romantic past to the point of it causing you distress.
Sl** shaming is about criticizing people -- especially women -- who are perceived to be promiscuous and/or in violation of some 'code' of acceptable sexual behavior.
Retroactive jealousy can fall under the umbrella of OCD behaviors.
Sl** shaming...doesn't.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
