The Perfect Relationship Secret: Virginity?

I was raised in the purity culture. You know, purity rings, purity balls, courtship, saving your first kiss for the wedding, and all that jazz. One thing I find very interesting in retrospect is that all of that gave me absolutely no idea how to actually carry on a relationship. The message I got was simple:

The key to a perfect marriage is to be a virgin on the wedding night. 

If you both waited till your wedding night, I was taught, your marriage would start off on great footing because you would both know you could trust each other explicitly. That foundation of trust, built on mutual virginity until the wedding night, would start you off perfectly in marriage.

Furthermore, the way you could tell if a guy was worthwhile or not was whether or not he respected you while you were courting – i.e., whether or not he wanted to be physically involved with you before the wedding. Any guy who wanted sex before the wedding should be tossed out immediately, but if a guy respected your desire to wait for the wedding, he was a keeper.

Now some of these issues, such as respect and trust, are important. But basing everything about respect and trust on premarital sex and wedding night virginity is just silly, and boiling “respecting women” down to whether or not you want to have sex with them before the wedding – i.e., boiling it down to their bodies – is misogynistic and objectifying. There is so much more to a relationship than that, and so much more to women than that. Heck, while I’m at it, there’s more to men than wanting to have sex. But when it comes to relationship advice, that’s about all I got.

I never learned about the importance of communication and cooperation. I never learned about the importance of discussing expectations. I never learned that relationships are based on give and take, that some times they suck and sometimes they rock, that they’re about hard work with the awesome payoff of emotional support. I never learned how to deal with disagreement or disappointment. None of this. Instead, what I got was “don’t have sex until your wedding night.”

I look around at abstinence only sex ed programs, purity balls, and purity pledges, and I can’t for the life of me figure out why conservatives are so surprised at the high divorce rate. How backwards is that, focusing everything on not having sex until the wedding rather than teaching actual relationship skills? Conservatives talk about all the girls who are “taken advantage of” by boyfriends who just want sex, but their solution is not to teach those girls good relationship skills but to tell them to only go out with guys who agree not to have sex with them.

What should we actually be worried about here? A guy who wants to have sex with his girlfriend, or a guy who emotionally abuses and intimidates his girlfriend? For conservatives, you have to remember, the two are one and the same. Guy who wants sex with girlfriend = abuser. Guy who will wait until marriage for sex = awesome. Except of course that that’s not actually how it works. Regardless, conservatives seem way more concerned about whether or not two teens or young adults are having sex than about whether they are practicing good relationship skills.

Now all this said, I’m not really sure I want conservatives to turn their attention to teaching relationship skills, for the simple point that I’m not sure I’d be too pleased with what they taught. The number one manual for married women in the conservative community where I grew up was Debi Pearl’s Created To Be His Helpmeet, which teaches the following:

  • The key to a happy marriage is the husband leading and the wife submitting, on, well, everything.
  • If a guy is unhappy in his marriage, it’s probably because his wife is nagging or trying to “wear the pants.
  • If a woman doesn’t have sex with her husband regularly, and at least pretend to like it, he will understandably look elsewhere.
  • Women need to cover up so as not to lead the men around them astray into lust and temptation.

In Debi Pearl’s world, the key to a good relationship is the wifely submission and male leadership. Wives must never question their husbands’ judgement, or discuss their husbands’ flaws, but rather focus on encouraging and uplifting their husbands, helping them to be the best men they can possibly be. This actually seems to be the theme of every advice book on marriage that ever went through my parents’ house. “Wives, submit, let your men lead, and your relationship will be perfect. And if it’s not, then pray some more.”

While I don’t really want conservatives to start spreading this kind of relationship advice, I do think it’s interesting to note that they seem to care more about whether two people in a relationship are having sex than about whether those two people are practicing healthy communication and relationship skills. So next time you hear about a new emphasis on abstinence only sex education or some purity event or book, this is something to remember. For conservatives, whether or not a relationship is healthy is all about the sex. Communication, cooperation, compromise? Nope. That stuff is so secondary.

And they think we’re the ones obsessed with sex?

Nine-Year-Old Sluts and Masturbating Dinner Guests
The Modesty Rules---Not So Simple, Really
The Cold, Unforgiving World of Geoffrey Botkin
Evangelical Christianity's Patriarchal Alternative to Fifty Shades of Grey
About Libby Anne

Libby Anne grew up in a large evangelical homeschool family highly involved in the Christian Right. College turned her world upside down, and she is today an atheist, a feminist, and a progressive. She blogs about leaving religion, her experience with the Christian Patriarchy and Quiverfull movements, the detrimental effects of the "purity culture," the contradictions of conservative politics, and the importance of feminism.

  • Ophelia Benson

    It’s related to your post about disagreement a couple of days ago. Both are about the simplification and impoverishment that goes with dogmatic thinking.

    I mean honestly…it’s so absurd it’s laughable. As if sexual “fidelity” were the only thing that mattered – as if nothing else could present difficulties – not selfishness, not bad moods, not just plain boredom or mismatched temperament…

    This is the problem with the severely goddy, which is that they don’t seem to understand the human world at all.

    • bcoppola

      Well, y’know, according to an annoying ad that sometimes pops up here, Xtians are “not of this world”.

  • a miasma of incandescent plasma

    Most people I know have a little checklist they use to measure their partner and relationship’s health. I guess I never really thought about the fact there are people who’s checklist looks like this:

    1) Does he/she want to have sex with me?
    – Yes – Dump!
    – No – Keep!
    The End.

    It’s nice to know what family values boils down to. :eye roll:

  • Steve

    Even the sex part on of itself is problematic. Kids are taught their whole lives how sex is bad and something to be avoided. How even having sexual thoughts are a great evil that needs to be suppressed. Then they are supposed to suddenly flip a switch and have awesome sex. Yet they aren’t mentally prepared for it or don’t know what to do physically

    • Libby Anne

      Yep! I wrote about that here.

      • Happiestsadist

        I had often wondered about how that sort of thing actually played out in real life, and that is heartbreaking! I’m glad you seem to be in a better place now.

  • Twist

    I’ve always been more than a little creeped out with the obsession with virginity. Firstly, these guys always seem much more concerned with female virginity than male. No matter how it’s dressed up it all seems to boil down to if you are a woman, you are not a person. You are a hole with a seal over it, and once someone has broken that seal, you’re damaged and less than whole and unless you’re already owned (married) nobody decent will want to have anything to do with you. You can tell by the metaphors they use for women who have sex outside of marriage, sweets that have been sucked by other people, sticky tape that’s been stuck down and pulled off, that we’re not really people to them. It saddens me that there are so many girls and young women willfully embracing the notion that their only worth is their hymen, and you know, fuck whether they’ve actually got anything in common with the person they’re going to marry, as long as they’re both virgins the marriage will be A-OK. It seems like a recipe for a lot of unhealthy marriages.

    But then this:

    The key to a happy marriage is the husband leading and the wife submitting, on, well, everything.

    doesn’t exactly scream ‘healthy relationship’ either.

    • LoreleiHI

      And how. I was sexually abused, and the pastor of my parents church told me to not say anything, because if people knew then, and quote, “No decent woman will be your friend, and no decent man will have you.”

      Yep! My father using me as a sex toy made ME dirty and useless! And they would be right, because they were decent people! /sigh

      Of course, my father was welcomed with open arms by the congregation, because he had repented. Clean slate. Only I was tainted by what he had done.

      Fundamentalist views on sex and purity are fucked up. And they fucked me up more than I can explain. ><

      • Blue Duck

        Oh LoreleiHI, that is so horrible. I never cease to be appalled at all these churches who forgive, protect, and treat as totally normal abusers and treat the victims like dog crap. And these religious yahoos are supposed to be the moral ones? ARGHH

        Internet {{hugs}} LoreleiHI.

    • kisekileia

      In my experience as an evangelical teenager, guys were expected to be just as “pure” as girls. While girls got more flak about modesty, guys got more anti-masturbation and anti-porn talk than girls did. I knew so many guys who thought they were depraved sex addicts because they couldn’t completely refrain from masturbation. What was really unfortunate was that since these guys were told that all expression of their sexuality was wrong, they didn’t learn to distinguish between sexual expression that is actually harmful (e.g. hitting on much younger girls, exhibitionism) and sexual expression that isn’t. As a result, their inability to completely stifle their sexuality led to some really problematic sexual conduct. I think a huge amount of “sex addiction” is actually caused by the purity culture.

      • Twist

        Yeah, I’ve suspected that at least some sex addiction are simply normal healthy sex drives as experienced by someone who has been brought up to believe that sex is a sinful thing that they shouldn’t want. I mean, teaching young people to believe that they are depraved perverts for occasionally masturbating is beyond fucked up. I’d say, if a person feels an uncontrollable compulsion to masturbate so much that they can’t leave the house/can’t go to work/are doing it in public/injuring themselves, then that’s a problem. Otherwise, wank away.

      • Petticoat Philosopher

        This is a good point, but could it be that girls don’t get as much anti-masturbation lecturing because they’re seen as inherently less sexual? Like nobody even worries that girls will be too tempted by masturbation anyway?

        And I think this is a harmful attitude too, because when girls do start having sexual feelings, there isn’t even a paradigm to in which they can even fit their experience. And it’s an attitude that permeates all of society to some degree. Even growing up in a very sex-positive household, I can remember feelings a vague sense of shame about masturbation because, although I heard people talk about boys masturbating all the time (whether it was “boys shouldn’t masturbate because it’s dirty” or “boys should masturbate because it’s healthy” or “When boys masturbate, it’s really funny, let’s make whole movie franchises about it!”), hardly anyone even mentioned it as something that girls could do too. So what did that make me? To boyish? Too oversexed? It’s not a hang-up I completely got over until college.

        I sometimes wonder if conservatively raised girls felt this way x 10!

      • natalie

        I was raised in a fundamentalist school. Boys were expected to be pure, just like girs. We were never told “girls, be pure” but rather “girls, if a guy pressures you to sleep with him, he doesn’t love you.”

        The advice actually helped me dodge some bullets. Just sayin…

  • Nathaniel

    Based on these rules, the perfect husband would be a gay man.

    Think about it. No chance of the husband trying to have sex with the lady before marriage. Sex would be all the about the procreation. No need to worry about what you wear, as there is no danger in tempting your friend’s husbands if they’re all gay. No wondering about whether there’s a chance of him straying, or even looking at other women. Best of all, little to almost no sex.

    Which is a relief, since we all know that women only barely tolerate sex to get a good man.

    • Ace of Sevens

      And now you know how making gay sex acceptable destroys marriage. There are lots of these closet cases in evangelical churches.

    • jeffengel

      Yep, it’s the secret behind religious opposition to gay marriage – those gay men are stealing their women’s gay grooms! They’ll be left with nothing but men who want sex with them.

  • Nomen Nescio

    #2, as if that weren’t unbelievable enough, the recommended reactions (keep/dump) to the answers magically flip once you’re married — with no explanation as to why.

  • ButchKitties

    The Purity Brigade is not obsessed with sex the way a person dealing with anorexia is not obsessed with food.

    • kisekileia

      Agreed. Those two dynamics are extremely similar. Deprivation leads to obsession the same way with sex as it does with food.

  • eric

    I do think it’s interesting to note that they seem to care more about whether two people in a relationship are having sex than about whether those two people are practicing healthy communication and relationship skills.

    What you are seeing is just a consequence of deep-seated misogyny. Healthy communication and relationship skills are important for dealing with people. When dealing with property, it is truth-in-advertising which is important: is what’s in the box what is promised on the box. When ultraconservatives stress physical virginity over communication skills, what they are really doing is reinforcing the notion of women as property.

  • jamessweet

    I’ve said it in the past and I’ll say it again: When my sons grow up, if either of them tell me they are planning to marry another person whom they have not yet had sex with, they’re going to get a serious talking to. Sexual compatibility is, um, kind of important to an intimate relationship. Don’t want to just go in “guessing” on that front, do we?

    • Happiestsadist

      I won’t buy a pair of pants without trying them on, or a lipstick without swatching it on my hand, or a tin of tea without at least smelling it, and very few people would argue against these practices. And I’m supposed to spend my life with someone, with deep emotional commitment, without actually seeing if we’re compatible? Like that’s less relevant than a $10 tube of lipstick? Aw hell no.

    • kisekileia

      Yep. It is possible for two people’s anatomy to be physically incompatible. It would be heartbreaking to discover that on one’s wedding night.

    • Twist

      Agreed, having one partner perpetually bored or frustrated, or conversely, feeling pressured into things that they don’t enjoy or aren’t comfortable with isn’t going to lead to marital bliss.

  • M.Nieuweboer

    1. If my (female) counterpart never questions my (male) judgments I get gradually very, very insecure. I expect her to protect me against my stupidities.
    2. I prefer experienced women to virgins, who by definition know zilch. Btw after all the celebrations on our wedding day (they lasted until 4, 5 AM) we were way too tired for any sex. So we didn’t even try.

  • Sercee

    This reminds me of something I’ve chatted with people about regarding Japanese Hentai culture: a society is so strict on censoring sex that it creates products which outlet sex in an extreme and obscene manner. It’s ironic that a country which defaces art portraying nudity and requires dildos to look like faces and be marketted as massagers turns out school-girl fetishes and tentacle beasts (not like I have any problem with tentacle beasts… anyway…).

    It seems to me that Abrahamic religions put sex on such a pedestal of inaccessibility that they can’t help but project it on every other aspect of their lives. They see it everywhere because they think they can’t have it – if a kid is told repeatedly they’re not allowed to have the cookies, then the kid’s always going to want the cookies. When they see other people eating the cookies, and enjoying the hell out of it then they want to control that not just to control those people (which happens a lot, as these religions are based on controlling the population) but also as a desperate attempt to push it away. “You can’t have the cookie because I can’t have the cookie, and if I see you enjoying the cookie then you’re an evil person who must be stopped because you’re interfering with my denial of self, I mean religion.” These religious folk obessive about sex to the point of hurting others.

  • Kes

    I’ve always wondered if the “Purity Culture” really was based on as much naivete and wishful thinking as it seemed to be, and it’s actually kinda depressing to find out that it is.

    Here’s a bunch of disjointed thoughts about the modern Virginity Cult:

    I once heard Dr. Ruth speak. She discussed the sexuality of children, how it exists, and should be recognized as such and not dismissed as perverted or related to “bathroom matters”. Her words rang very true with me; I’ve been masturbating since the age of 5 (probably earlier, but I don’t remember back that far.) It was something I listed mentally as among my favorite activities, well before I understood what it was or why I was doing it (incidentally, I’m a woman). I was raised with some vague ideas that virginity was good and sex was bad, or at least potentially dangerous, but never connected *that* with touching myself until I was in high school.

    How does a person raised with purity as an ideal reconcile it with bodily pleasure? Do they just treat everything below the waist as if it doesn’t exist? I used to think, after I realized that masturbation was sexual, that it was therefore bad. Then one night I thought to myself, “Hey, this feels good. It feels right. It’s safe, it’s not hurting anyone and I’m not going to be ashamed of doing it anymore.” Is it even possible for a child raised in purity culture to come to that conclusion? It took me at least three years to give up my self-blaming, and I’d never been indoctrinated by anyone.

    Dr. Ruth also mentioned counseling an Orthodox Jewish couple who hadn’t conceived after a year of marriage. She made some recommendations about positions and use of pillows and they just stared blankly at her. So she gently asked how they had been trying to get pregnant. They had been lying side by side in bed every night. That’s how it was done, right? Based on what you’ve written, I wouldn’t be surprised that this was a common situation between young couples raised to be “pure”. As another poster said, how does one “flip the switch” from years of repression and guilt to giving in to their lust? People being what they are, I’d bet a fair number just don’t. Or they do the Christian equivalent of “laying back and thinking of England” (which was originally a satirical joke, but seems to be coming tragically true.) Which is Just. So. Sad.

    • Libby Anne

      You’ll probably find my post here interesting. Thank you for your comments!

  • Anon, for this

    I appreciate this post and the post you linked to, earlier. I was raised in a Conservative home, in which a woman was supposed to be absurdly submissive: no intellectual life, no physical life outside a prescriptive formula for ‘womanhood’, no spiritual* life (outside the one tru way**)

    I was a rebel, by personality, and it resulted in some beatings.

    When I got married, it was because my family felt they had found someone to take me on, as ‘spoiled goods,’ and were able to pressure me into it. Because there was no communication between my parents, nor any allowed in the religion in general, I expected that our relationship would fail. After all, I had not been a virgin, something which was often commented on during the wedding ceremony (in fact, they refused to let me wear white, since I was ‘spoiled’ and white was a reward for the pure.)

    My first marriage did fall apart, partially because my Catholic husband felt he had the prerogative to cheat as he wished (after all, I was ‘spoiled’, so there was no reason to be faithful to me), and partially because I had no idea how to negotiate or communicate.

    After all, that was supposed to be something I had forgone by not being a virgin when I married.

    tl;dr That shit fucks you UP.

    *Not religious life, life as a moral actor. Those are very different.

    *Which can only be known by my father or the male pastor.

    • Petticoat Philosopher

      You have touched on a very important point here, which is that the ugly, dark side (not that there’s really a bright side) to this ideology is the disrespect and abuse that is justified against women who CHOOSE to be sexually active, or even just sexually interested. After all, if the way to respect a woman is to not have sex with her, what is to be made of a woman who wants to have sex? She’s not “respectable” and there’s no treatment too bad for her.

      I think the former friend who ended up raping me (I have just started talking about this) had a little bit of this programming still in his brain. He identifies as “moderate liberal” and has had plenty of sexual relationships without being married, but he was raised in an ultra-conservative Catholic family–no birth control, far-right politics, the works–and it has a way of making its mark. We’d been friends for a while and this evolved into a friends-with-benefits relationship. He didn’t want anything more serious with me and I didn’t want anything more serious with him. I was very clear on this point. I was interested in friendship and sex, not love and commitment. And I think, on some level, he believed that because I was very open about wanting sex and not dressing it up in fuzzy-wuzzy, lovey-dovey emotions, that I had no sexual boundaries at all and so, therefore, he did not need to respect my “no.” After all, what kind of woman gives it up without even a commitment in return? You can do anything you want to her! Rape is only something that can happen to proper ladies, with proper lady-feelings.


      • ozzyosborne

        {{{hugs}}} That is so terrible. I think authoritarian religion also makes a fetish out of rape, so that only pain/force/strife/subjugation is pleasurable or satisfying. Catholicism is awash in violent and sadomasochistic imagery.

  • Ace of Sevens

    If a woman doesn’t have sex with her husband regularly, and at least pretend to like it, he will understandably look elsewhere.

    I grew up in a similar environment. The funny part is they think this point makes them sex-positive, not like those fuddy-duddies who say sex is just for making babies and you aren’t supposed to enjoy it.

  • howardpeirce

    As fun as it is to talk about sex, there’s a larger issue here.

    As a biological male, and a nominal heterosexual, I have to say, Who the hell wants to be responsible for every decision?

    There’s a real passive-aggressive aspect to making the man solely responsible for all decisions, and any sane, non-sociopathic man ought to reject it outright.

    I’ve been in relationships with very secular, nominally feminist women who nonetheless defer to me on trivial decisions (e.g., where to eat, or what movie to watch). Why? Because who wants to be responsible if the food is bad or the movie is horrible? Nobody, that’s who. You sit through a shitty movie, and then what? Well, the decision-maker has to put up with the inevitable criticisms. “You picked a shitty movie, and these flautas are greasy.”

    How much worse would it be to sit through shitty sex? Or a shitty marriage?

    The alternative, of course, is informed negotiation. But negotiation is for diplomats, right? Certainly nothing to do with whatever romantic situation I’m currently involved in. And of course I don’t have any personal issues that I’m trotting out in public in an off-topic comment. That would be wrong.

    Stop looking at me.

    • ozzyosborne

      As a homosexual female, I concur. It IS passive aggressive. To me, it comes off as punishment for ever complaining about anything. Okay, now it’s YOUR choice, honey, I have no preferences at all. It’s infuriating and doesn’t lead to a healthy relationship. Maybe it would appeal to a narcissist, I don’t know. There are clearly a group of men out there who want to have their way all the time and act like petulant spoiled children.

      There was a really sad murder case on A&E once where this fundy lady (from a family of fundies), short hair, modest clothes, etc, was murdered by her husband, who it turned out was cheating on her and had a secret life with a Harley and a sexy girlfriend who wore her hair down. The woman’s best friend was afraid for her life in the months leading up to the murder, but because of fundyism, the woman wouldn’t do anything to protect herself. (The husband hadn’t made overt threats, but it was clear he had lost respect for her and the marriage was falling apart.)

      Apparently, the husband killed her because he knew she didn’t believe in divorce. He tried to make it look like a burglary gone wrong.

      Fundy women believe they are protecting themselves from the evils of the world by acting as they do. (I’m sure a fundy is dying to argue right now that the wife didn’t pray hard enough and it caused the man to be seduced by “the world”.) Instead, it causes people to ignore their own instincts and leaves them without coping skills.

    • MrPopularSentiment

      That’s a very competitive view of relationships! I’m sorry that you haven’t had better luck in your love life.

      When there’s respect between partners, no one is held accountable for decisions that go sour when both parties agreed to it. If I say that I want my husband to pick a restaurant because I have no preference and we end up having a bad experience at the place he picks, we laugh/moan about the bad experience. Why on earth would we place any blame? I SAID I had no preference! Even if I did have a preference and we ended up going to his selection instead, how can we hold him responsible for something beyond his control? His intentions were good, he never wanted us to have a bad experience. We just did. What’s the purpose of trying to assign blame in that case?

      The only time when blame would be assigned is if one partner does something behind the other partner’s back. For example, let’s say my husband took our savings and invested them without talking to me first. In this case, he would be the Bad Guy even if the investments do really well, because it’s a big decision that impacted me and he didn’t talk to me about it first.

      That’s how things work when people respect each other. You’re a team, not competitors.

  • MrPopularSentiment

    My husband is an atheist and a feminist. We had sex before marriage (although we were each other’s firsts, but that had more to do with how young we met rather than any “purity” thing), and he expects me to be a full participant in making the decisions for the family. We’ve been together nearly 11 years.

    His sister is Muslim and takes religion quite seriously. She thinks it’s a sin to have sex outside of marriage and that wives should submit to their husbands. She has been married, and divorced, twice and is currently single. The issue with her marriages has been that while she holds up wifely submission as an ideal, she (unsurprisingly) isn’t happy when she’s submitting. She’s a strong person with her own interests. When she doesn’t submit properly, her husbands have gotten angry at her “rebelliousness,” and she’s assumed that something is wrong with the relationship when she feels so unhappy while in it.

    On a larger scale, this seems to hold up – families in which both partners are feminists have a lower divorce rate than “traditional” families. Not only are women happier when they feel respected and loved as whole people, but men are happier when they have an adult (a submissive woman is more like a child, really) to share their burdens with. Life is hard, but it’s a lot easier when you have a strong team mate at your side.

  • Judy L.

    It’s always infuriated me this business of “not giving away pieces of your heart”, as if each human being had only a finite amount of heart, a limited capacity to love and be loved, and that you have to protect this scarce commodity.

    Learning how to love and be loved takes time and practice. And howardpeirce @15 above has it wrong: negotiation isn’t about diplomacy, unless you believe that a negotiation is always a competition. Negotiation in a relationship is about cooperation. If no one is held responsible for choices when the consequence of those choices is no big deal (how can anyone know before they see a movie if it’s going to be crap?), then no one needs to assume or lay blame.

    • MrPopularSentiment

      Judy, the part that boggles my mind is the similarity between the criticism of people who date a lot and of people like the Duggars who have so many children. The Duggars are frequently asked how they can possibly love all their children in the same way that I, say, love my one child. They get asked this so much that they have a canned response: “Love only multiplies, it doesn’t divide.”

      And yet, this very same family turns around and say that it’s harmful to “give away” pieces of your heart to multiple partners as you date because then there’s less left for your spouse if/when you get married. Why does the nature of love and how we love suddenly change when it’s “them” instead of “us”?

  • natalie

    I took the advice I was given by the fundamentalists, and refused to sleep with a guy I wasn’t married to. I was in a relationship with a boy, where we communicated very well and spent almost every eving together throughout a summer. We kissed but did nothing more, and though he was very experienced he never pressured me.
    When I went back to school, we attempted a long-distance relationship.

    Not sleeping with him helped me dodge a bullet. If I had given him my virginity, I would have been crushed when he later broke contact in order to sleep with other girls. He now sees me as a friend, but that would not have been possible if I had given him my virginity.

  • natalie

    I also believe that maintaining purity builds character. No one can say it is easy. I’ve always thought that I could play now and pay later, or pay now and play later. Just sayin…

  • Natalie

    I’m just curious: was your husband disappointed that you saved your virginity for him?

  • Natalie

    And if so, why?

  • Libby Anne

    Read this post for the answer to your question.

  • http://yahoo Manvir Kaur

    I totally agree with you and I so young like just 17 n almost to b 18 bt I love my boyfriend,(whome I say my fiancé ) I respect him n let him lead it’s been 3 years of relation n while living in UK still he never had that kind stuff for me he always respect me n want me to be away of sex n stuff. And waiting for our marriage night :p because he is 20. And yes it’s going so good n one hug is worth everything for us :)

  • Miranda

    “Furthermore, the way you could tell if a guy was worthwhile or not was whether or not he respected you while you were courting – i.e., whether or not he wanted to be physically involved with you before the wedding. Any guy who wanted sex before the wedding should be tossed out immediately, but if a guy respected your desire to wait for the wedding, he was a keeper.”

    Or… maybe he’s gay but won’t admit it to anyone. Been there, done that, got the polo shirt. (Good fundies don’t wear t-shirts!)