Knowing your partner's libido is important, what are the reasons to wait until marriage to have sex? (salvation, birth control)
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.
A major part of Christianity is that of recognizing our faults and seeking to amend them.
That's kind of our thing.
As I said, one doesn't need Christianity or Christians to feel guilt. All people feel guilt. Christianity is simply the remedy for it.
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.
Despite their strong pro-family values, evangelical Christians have higher than average divorce rates -- in fact, being more likely to be divorced than Americans who claim no religion, according to findings as cited by researchers from Baylor University.
My (now) wife and I waited less than a week to have sex. There was no reason not to do so. Sex is fun, and it brings people closer together. It's a way people in love bond. Then we lived together for two-plus years before we got married. Our 28th anniversary will be in August.
There was no logical reason not to enjoy sex with each other. Illogical reasons? Oh, they abound. Tortured attempts to fit the round peg of reality into the square hole of dogma? Sure. But neither of us have ever played that game.
Why do you think divorce is higher among Christians than it is among atheists? Duh!
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte
[i]Despite their strong pro-family values, evangelical Christians have higher than average divorce rates
You switched it from Christians to Evangelical Christians.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cruithne
Oh how wrong you are Mike.
Let me tell you from a woman's perspective, you are very, very wrong.
I think you have a great point here, but I think EscAlaMike is thinking that communication works out those differences, which is a nice mindset "if" communication is coupled with listening and action.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscAlaMike
"Sexual compatibility" is a joke. If one party has a male sex organ and the other party has a female sex organ, then they are compatible.
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.
You switched it from Christians to Evangelical Christians.
I think you have a great point here, but I think EscAlaMike is thinking that communication works out those differences, which is a nice mindset "if" communication is coupled with listening and action.
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.
Sure, everything above. But how are these preferences different between people bonded in any relationships? These preferences may change as well get older. One might find religion, the other may remain atheist. One may want children, other not. Spicy food, bland food. Introvert, extraver. Extravagant and not.
You may choose to haveca higher priority for sex life than compatability in other respects. That is a preference as well.
Life is full of choices. How we make them and how we compromise is driven by what we value. If a lasting marriage that brings contentment for both is the choice then compromising for that sake is important. If not one settles for sex as priority.
You switched it from Christians to Evangelical Christians.
I think you have a great point here, but I think EscAlaMike is thinking that communication works out those differences, which is a nice mindset "if" communication is coupled with listening and action.
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.
I think Mike has been so brainwashed by Catholic clergy that he hasn't a single personal thought independent of what the Catholic catechism teaches, he parrots the dogma so perfectly. I doubt he was ever atheist. No atheist falls this deeply under the spell of a religion. He's heard this nonsense from the cradle, I'm convinced.
I think Mike has been so brainwashed by Catholic clergy that he hasn't a single personal thought independent of what the Catholic catechism teaches, he parrots the dogma so perfectly. I doubt he was ever atheist. No atheist falls this deeply under the spell of a religion. He's heard this nonsense from the cradle, I'm convinced.
Actually thrill, Mike isn't a 'cradle Catholic'...
You switched it from Christians to Evangelical Christians.
I think you have a great point here, but I think EscAlaMike is thinking that communication works out those differences, which is a nice mindset "if" communication is coupled with listening and action.
.
Right but like I said, no amount of communication is going to sort out physical incompatibility... see below.
Besides which, a lot men aren't the chat-about-our-issues type.. they'd rather pretend there's no problem or get all offended and take it all as criticism.
Then what?
Quote:
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]
All of the above yes plus let's just say it's not a one size fits all situation. There are situations that can lead to a) a great deal of discomfort or b) a great deal.of disappointment.
I'm sure I don't need to spell it out.
It seems like if all those difference and disappointments with the sex life is all resolved before marriage then it will be a successful one. What about the sex was great but I had to get out of the marriage? That happens a lot as well.
If sex was the only aspect of a happy marriage it would be easy to fix. That is not the case with 50% ending in divorce.
This is moreso for those who believe in waiting until marriage to have sex. But, without resorting to metaphysical or supernatural claims. For example, don't say because God said so or because that's what the Bible says. This is not to argue who's right. I'm moreso interested in the reasons or arguments as to why one should wait.
There's one particular issue I have in mind. Knowing your partner's libido or sex is drive is important. If you wait until marriage to have sex, you won't know if your partner has a high or low sex drive. What if you're both on opposite ends? Shouldn't you know if you're sexually compatible before being married?
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.
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.
