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.
I believe, against the southern baptist belief and teaching of my church, that sex before marriage is not a particular "sin" when in a specific context.
The idea is that a woman saves herself for her husband. In modern time, we see that as meaning that a ceremony and legal documentation. The specific context that you could have sex before marriage is with someone you are going to be married to in the near future. Swingers and other sex styles with multiple is still wrong, but I believe that in Gods eyes, the moment you are intimate with another being, you are tied to that person. Intimacy marks the consumation of the marriage. Should this be taught? No. Like every religious liberality, it would be misrepresented and misused to defend all forms of sexual interaction with multiple people.
We all have to realize that although we follow parts of the Bible, it was still written by Man. It also still follows the strict leadership of the social and culturally demanding Jewish faith of the times. At this time, women weren't allowed to be intimate during menstruation because they were considered "unclean". There is so much in the Bible that is written for its own time that we have to adjust and interpret it to fit our own times. Not to say that we should change it to our convenience.
A big no-no for me. Having "intimate ties" with someone does not really, really bind you to them as a marriage should, I think, be marriage merely a legal act or naught (granted, you can have a divorce, but that's not my point; a marriage is supposed to be a permanent sign of a man-and-woman relationship). Plenty of couples before marriage have sex and subsequently end their relationship. This leaves a sort of "hole" in each of them, I think; they've given a part of themselves up to the other person, their most intimate part, and if there is a chance that the relationship can end (and, oh is there a high, high chance for unmarried couples...), then the person is broken in a way. That cannot be fixed; that part of them that they gave, it's gone, my friends!
Therefore, just wait. For the sake of the possibility that you are left unwhole, just wait. I'm of the opinion that it's not impossible to hold oneself back, that there is no reason why sex is required before marriage. However, being that you are entirely free to do whatever you want, and I'm only offering my two cents.
I wouldn't buy a car without test driving it or walking through a house before closing on it, so why would I want to be married "until death do us part" with someone that I have never had sex with before marriage? Does that make any sense? I want to know all about this person to whom I'm going to spend my entire life. Ending a marriage is a very costly and difficult thing, so anything that can be done to prevent it is positive in my book.
Also consider that many people don't get married until later these days, so are you seriously suggesting that people remain celebate into their late 20s or even 30s? I was 27 when I got married 18 years ago, and began having sex at age 17. There was no way I would have waited 10 years to get frisky with women, so what would the alternative be? Get married to the wrong person for sex?
"Test driving" doesn't guarantee anything in a car, house or marriage. There was no way I would have considered marrying a man who couldn't keep his pants zipped the previous 10 years. Marriage doesn't come with a guarantee. You have to make a marriage work. Both parties have to make that happen. Times are not always easy. There are ups and downs and you have to deal with them together. It's not easy staying with the same partner for 42 years. You just make it happen. It works better knowing you are each others "one and only." That's my 2 cents worth.
The more traditional marriage culture was fraught with a lot of problems, hindered with a lot of cultural baggage that truly did not recognize as valid the feelings or personal rights of the female partner. Even until the establishment of the Canadian Constitution under Pierre Elliot Trudeau in the '70s, under Canadian law a woman was considered "chattel" after marriage, and could be treated as such. The modern day rules of Islam still support this ancient, obsolete and entirely primitive male-dominated concept.
It extends to sex before marriage, and was probably intended to provide the husband with an "unsullied" bride. You'll note that under Islam, husbands in some Muslim countries can "stone" their wives for having engaged in extramarital sex. Even when the woman has been forcibly raped, the man can still exclude or punish her. Point being, it's based in male chauvinism hastening back to centuries of religious hype and bias.
In the context of a modern involved and enlightened relationship, to exclude sexual intimacy before some socio-legal bond just to meet old male desires for "possession" is to invite the real possibility of eventual marital collapse. After all, women are often the initiators of divorce now, as they should be!
This does not mean we should abandon common sense or medical sensibilities simply to avoid the spread of STDs. It's just that consenting and compassionate adults should be free to investigate their sexuality with their intended potential life's partner.
And remember: as a group, your priest is hardly in any ethical position any more to be offering sage advice on sexual behavior or ethics.
"Test driving" doesn't guarantee anything in a car, house or marriage..
No one mentioned anything about a "guarantee" and test driving a car gives you an idea of whether driving that car is comfortable and meets your needs. I know the analogy isn't a great one, but I fail to see how not being intimate with your partner is better or more likely to predict success in a marriage. That defies both logic and common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okiegirlfriend
There was no way I would have considered marrying a man who couldn't keep his pants zipped the previous 10 years.
Um...ok. So you'd feel better about marrying a 27 year old virgin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okiegirlfriend
Marriage doesn't come with a guarantee. You have to make a marriage work. Both parties have to make that happen.
Again, who mentioned a guarantee? Where did that even come from? I've been married 18 years, so I understand well about working at a marriage. My point remains that the more things you can do to be sure that the person you marry is compatible with you and meets your needs, the more likely that the marriage will last. How horrible to find out only after getting married that sex with that person isn't satisfying in some way?
heres the issue-men want a freak in the bed. they want to know that their woman will excel sexually. thats not important in the institution of marriage. i love the great sex i have with my fiance. she is amazing. but i didnt have sex with her in the idea that if it wasnt good, i would bail out. we have our differences in what we like as far as positions and lingerie but we compromise. compromise is part of the foundation of marriage, not sexual capability. besides, always remember that you can train your partner to do what you like and vice versa
"Test driving" doesn't guarantee anything in a car, house or marriage. There was no way I would have considered marrying a man who couldn't keep his pants zipped the previous 10 years. Marriage doesn't come with a guarantee. You have to make a marriage work. Both parties have to make that happen. Times are not always easy. There are ups and downs and you have to deal with them together. It's not easy staying with the same partner for 42 years. You just make it happen. It works better knowing you are each others "one and only." That's my 2 cents worth.
Now that's got to be a boring man in bed! Sex is good and natural and more people should have more of it. The world would be a better place if everyone who wants to get laid, was!!
The best way to know someone is to live with them. You get to see the real person, and not just the one that shows up on dates. Obviously if you live with your girlfriend/boyfriend, you're likely going to have sex with them. The more you know about your partner the better, I say.
I don't think it matters one way or the other. Sex before marriage certainly isn't gonna hurt anything. That is, of course, unless the girl gets knocked up and the guy runs out on her
That's what birth control and condoms are for. If enough people had sense to use them, we'd see a lot less unwanted pregnancies and abortions.
I am fully supportive of sex before marriage. All of these religious ideas that sex with somebody other than your ultimate spouse ruins or taints a person is absurd.
Contrary to the opinion of Okiegirlfriend, if I dated somebody and found out that they had NOT had sex in 10 years, I would probably dump them.
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.
Marriage doesn't come with a guarantee. You have to make a marriage work. Both parties have to make that happen. Times are not always easy. There are ups and downs and you have to deal with them together. It's not easy staying with the same partner for 42 years. You just make it happen. It works better knowing you are each others "one and only." 
That's my 2 cents worth.
