When you’re an unmarried Christian with a sex drive, there’s one rule you think about more than others — no premartial sex. It’s not a clear teaching of the Bible, but there are enough implied passages that your pastor makes you think it’s pretty explicit.
A case example is Evangelist Sy Rogers, self-proclaimed “former prostitute, transsexual and gay man” who is on a mission to save young Christians from the horrible, sinful, perverse experience of sexuality:
[Rogers says] “kisses and cuddles” and [french kissing] are foreplay that people should not engage in before marriage.
That’s not unusual. There are thousands of books written about “saving yourself for marriage” and how abstinence is the only acceptable form of birth control.
That mantra has been yelled for decades, but the facts are that 95% of Americans (and I’d guess, the world) have premartial sex (source). Ninety-five percent!
They have utterly failed.
But is it a big deal? It is to them, because they think it is highly offensive to the invisible man in the sky. He doesn’t like sex before marriage, and he should know since Christians think he impregnated the virgin Mary without marrying her.
But seriously — is it really a big deal? Almost everyone who preaches abstinence was not abstinent, and they turned out fine (or so they think). It’s a natural, pleasurable, and wonderful thing for people to do. It’s not an act to take lightly, and I will counsel my children to take it seriously and be wise in their actions.
But Christians need to get over forcing their values on others. If they want to remain abstinent, good for them. Good luck. But when they insist that others have to live exactly like they say or they won’t turn out right, they’ve crossed the line.
What do you think?
I’ve come across a few home-schooled type christians who love the whole no kissing before marriage thing. I don’t understand, the bible only hints at no sex before marriage, it says nothing about kissing, and oral is a mystery. Why would christians want to add more rules for themselves when they don’t have to??
I suppose “adding more rules” is a form of overacheiving. Just like the kids in school would didn’t want to just get the A but went for the full out 100%. Plus it is a way to feel superior to other people too.
As far as the alleged no sex before marriage within Christian circles…..I notice that most of the male preachers and writers (er, like the 95%) always manage to let out about their wild period in college or whenever. Just so we know he is not really a sissy or anything. wink, wink, nod, nod. But of course he is now turned around for Christ in a godly marriage and the rest of us shouldn’t be doing those things.
The “fornicators shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven” is the unambiguous statement that supports the total ban on premarital sex. It is a bit more than a hint. Snogging etc. are argued by fundies to be bad because they increase the chances of your becoming a fornicator. Which for my money makes it all the better!
fornicators shall not see the Kingdom of Heaven
is hardly unambiguous because of the Greek word/s behind the English text. There’s more than a little debate about what those words mean in what contexts, which makes the entire discussion about premarital sex much more ambiguous than most Evangelicals would want to allow.
I haven’t often agreed with how Daniel represents “what the bible says,” but here, I think he’s right. Premarital sex is only implicitly denounced in the bible and is usually derived from passages about extramarital sex or acceptance of NT Jewish cultural norms.
That said, I’m glad I did what I did, and I wouldn’t do it differently if I had the chance. And fwiw, my decision didn’t have to do with “offending the invisible man in the sky,” but more to do with respect for my (then future) wife and our future together.
Crikey! I’m amazed how much of those 8 years of brainwashing are still affecting my thinking now I’m 40. Of course the translations we were using were biased by the assumptions of the translators. Thanks for helping me remember to be more analytical of these things, BR.
Just wait a sec. Why should pre-marital sex be less respectful towards your wife? Virginity is not anymore an important part of the value of a woman.
Virginity is not anymore an important part of the value of a woman.
Either you misunderstood my comment about respect, or I’ve misunderstood this comment here.
I didn’t say that I would only respect a woman who’s a virgin. I simply said that I kept my virginity out of respect for the woman I would be marrying. In other words, I respected my wife; therefore, I didn’t sleep with anyone else before marrying her.
But why keeping your virginity would be a sign of respect towards the woman you’d end marrying? Just curious…
Sorry, perhaps I though your comment implied something more than it simply did. I understanded that you wouldn’t have had sex with her before marry her, as a sign of respect.
So it is not because you think she should marry virgin, but because you want to be her the only woman you have had sex with? (have I understanded that correctly now?)
(Sorry, I understand that’s a very personal question. Of course you are free not to answer it)
It is personal, and I don’t mind being vague in my response; hopefully you don’t either.
I wanted to have that connection with one person and one person only, and that was out of respect for both her and me. So we waited.
I’m not trying to imply that people who don’t choose that don’t respect themselves or each other, though, please don’t misunderstand.
Ah, gotcha. No, I don’t mind vagueness at all. I was just curious, is all. :)
The equavalent of ‘fornicators’ in my language and the Bible in my language is itharia (from the verb gutharia: to tear down or demolish) which applies to married people most of the time. If there’s any rule that’s hard to follow, it’s that one. I mean God put these feelings in us and fulfilling them is only natural.
I graduated from a private conservative christian university where we had to take a bible class every semester. In one of my classes, we’d have “question fridays”- where the majority of the questions were about sex. And obviously, as young, horny college students who were trying to walk the “straight and narrow” the question, “how far is too far” was asked. Our teachers response was “asking that question is like asking how far can I test god or how much guilt am I willing to place on myself and my partner(s).”
That made sense then. Now, I am ashamed/embarrassed I accepted that answer.
We had a similar line fed to us when I joined a hyper-evangelical church at 18. It’s easy for us to look back in hindsight and realise that the fact that you can ask the question shows that the rule itself is nonsensical.
When I was a teenager the question of kissing before marriage was a major deal. This was a huge issue that ought to be discussed. People needed to think about it and pray about it and read the bible about it and form strong opinions about it. Also, topics like tattoos and men with earrings were similarly important.
Makes me realize how stupid I was as a teenager. But I take a little comfort knowing that everyone else is stupid as a teenager as well.
This is kinda OT but my former pastor used to always preach “you just really need to pray about this” on any topic where someone disagreed with him. It struck me as quirky odd that he was so sure that it was always the other party who was the one in error and needed to be doing the praying.
Better yet, young Krixstains…. Men have your genitals removed, to help improve the human species. Women, Stop bathing, shaving, doing your hair, and using all implements to deal with your “CURSE”! The smell alone will keep men away, and you will therefore not even be tempted! Or, you could read the old Testament, upon which Krixstianity is based, and you will discover that those old Jews viewed sex as a ‘Blessing”, not as a curse! Stop listening to your conservative preachers who really don’t know what they’re talking about
What happend to “Try before you buy”?
LOL love it.
The point isn’t that they stop pre-marital sex. The point is that they tried to do everything in their power to stop it. If they’ve done everything they can do, then when they die and Osiris has their heart on one side of the scale and a feather on the other side they’re sure that their intent to keep everyone from sinning will keep their heart from weighing too much and allow them access to the Field of Reeds for their afterlife, rather than being cast into Oblivion for their sinfulness.
Anyone who goes on radio or tv advocating abstinence, should be asked how they were personally able to wait until marriage. The should give exact details on exactly how they were able to do this. The absitence only crowd is so ignorant and hypocritical it is truly sickning.
What you will get is “I didn’t. I made horrible mistakes and I was a sinner. But now I’ve seen the light and people should do what I say, not what I did and they’ll be better off for it.” They won’t even see it as hypocrisy — just imparting the “wisdom” that they earned through hard knocks so that other people don’t have to make the same “mistakes” that they did.
And I’m not sure that they’re wrong about that view (other than the fact that it isn’t what I’d call “wisdom” myself). Hell I didn’t call my dad a hypocrite when he told me not to take up smoking even though he was a pack-a-day smoker himself. He knew all of the downsides of smoking and that there was very little upside and that he was an addict who was (at the time) spending over $15 a week on things that were killing him slowly. I’d be an idiot not to listen to his advice on the topic. Just like I would have been an idiot when I was a teenager to not listen to the high school dropout I knew who was working two minimum wage jobs to support a wife and kid he had when he once told me “Always use birth control” – clearly he was speaking from a level of experience that I didn’t have and didn’t really want to have.
The real problem I have with the abstinence only people is that their advice is bad, incredibly unhealthy, and impervious to simple things like “facts” and “evidence” and “logic” and “better ideas”. Not that they’re didn’t practice what they’re preaching now when they were kids.
“hard knocks” LOL
Yah, I hear that alot. My friend said, “I’ve turned over a new leaf.” 3 out of wedlock children, 3 affairs and 3 ex-wives later I asked him “What leaf are you on now?”
Exactly. How is that abstinence only working out for you, Bristol Palin?
Anyone who goes on radio or tv advocating abstinence, should be asked how they were personally able to wait until marriage. The should give exact details on exactly how they were able to do this. The absitence only crowd is so ignorant and hypocritical it is truly sickning.
There are plenty of people who do just what you ask; they just don’t make the news.
Google, “I kissed Dating Goodbye” for a well-known example.
That book is so full of rules and high expectations that it made me terrified of the possibility of a relationship. It advocates not even considering having a “dating relationship” until you are totally ready (financially, spiritually etc. ) for marriage and raising kids.
Teachings that were derived from the idea of this book nearly ruined my life and left me nearly incapable of a healthy relationship.
At this point, I would say that making a teenager read and follow that book as if it were the bible itself is child abuse.
Why or even how is it insane to perserve one’s self until marriage? Yes we are all human meaning all have sinned because no man was perfect except Jesus, yet it is not impossible to deny the flesh and please the spirit. It just takes self discipline. Sex is not everything and too many people make it a big deal.
It’s only the prime directive of your entire biology to reproduce. Though it seems like a common theme, it does border on insanity to expect people to ‘wait until marriage’, as it goes against humanity’s very nature.
As the bible is not some holy book, and merely a bunch of other books smashed together, and Jesus cannot be proven to have existed, your arguments for the silly idea are moot.
Maybe thats why allot of these fundy types like marrying there girls off at 12 or 13. One sure way to avoid pre-marital sex for the girls anyway. I’m pretty sure the boys would get a pass if they fell off the straight and narrow.(I wonder if farm animals count? =0)
I’ve absolutely noticed a trend where people don’t seriously enter into the evangelical ministry until AFTER they’ve lived their youth, had promiscuous sex, and experimented with substances. It’s “Do as I say, not as I do” at its best.
Whats worse, though, is that these people are seen as somehow more qualified to teach the dangers of such behavior, despite the fact that they used to participate it and have (apparently) turned out just fine for it.
Wow… talk about guilt issues. I hated myself with a serious zeal for years because of my “sin” and how I had made myself “impure”. I spent way more time feeling guilty than I did actually doing anything worth feeling guilty about. I wish that, when I was in high school, someone would have just grabbed me by the shoulders, looked me dead in the eye, and said, “It’s OKAY. It’s NORMAL. You’re fine.” and let me be a teenager. God, what a waste of my own time.
Exactly. People make such a big deal out of normal things.
I was the same way. I lived with SO MUCH guilt for so long, just for masturbating or even just looking at girls.
This mindset also contributed greatly to ruining my marriage. Sex was always something I couldn’t have, and when I got some, it was a thrill because it was forbidden. At least it was a thrill until the onset of paralyzing guilt. But then we got married, and now we were “allowed” to have sex, and it was no big deal. The thrill was gone.
Sex is not a big deal. Too many people idolize it to make it appear to be like finding Gold when it is not. Yes it is pleasurable but it’s not a “Oh my Gosh Must Have”. That’s why you have so many young people who are virgins giving away their virginity because everyone else is doing it, and they feel as though it’s what they’re suppose to do and since having sex is what’s normal, sex itself becomes a priority instead of the respect of their own bodies. Even if you do have sex before marriage, well okay. You messed up and feel guilt but sincerely repent and move on. Just in case you did not know, repent means to turn away from. that’s why even those who have indulged in premarital sex will still have a chance to enter heaven by repenting and not repeating. It’s simple. We make it hard trying to justify wrong based off of feelings.
False. Patently.
Technically correct, it is not gold. It is much more important, useful, and fun.
Your frigidity is not shared by most of the population.
No, they’re doing it because they want to. Your fixation on virginity is a bit creepy.
This is the correct feeling. Anything else is a detrimental denial, of ones perfectly natural reproductive urges.
Demonstrate the inverse relationship of having sex, to respecting ones body. Otherwise admit that your position is flawed.
Why should one feel guilt for this? Do you have some need for other people to feel guilty for their actions? That’s only a little sick, and twisted.
Technically, one could screw men, women, children, pigs, goats, and a Chihuahua, murder men, women, and children by the millions, ask for Jesus’ forgiveness, and sit right next to you in the heaven you believe in.
It’s simple. You want to dictate what others do with their bodies, whether or not they should feel guilt, and all around make an ass of yourself, based on your ‘feelings’ that a god is real, and it happens to be one in that disgusting book of genocide, sacrifice, and child rape.
Well, I say enjoy your body in whatever way you like, but be responsible since there could be consequences. We are physically built for regular sex (regular sex affects hormones, neurotransmitters, etc), so it is healthy to have regular sex as long as you don’t expose yourself to diseases or unwanted pregnancies.
Also, parents should quit teaching their sons the old “why buy the cow” bullsh*t concerning women. It is demeaning and denies us sexual agency. This whole double standard in which men get to *wink wink* about their past, but women don’t is total misogynist crap.
Yeah, the problem with the “buy the cow” line is how it equates us with livestock. I am not to be owned, corralled, or herded. You do not buy me. Interestingly, I have similar issues when men say things like, “I like a woman with meat on her bones!” Great that you like people who look healthy and not emaciated. Wonderful. All the same, I’m not a f-ing steak.
Oh, but steak is sooooo delicious! Yum,yum! :P
It’s always and at all times better to enjoy the steak than to be the steak.
Ha ha! That’s true! Although being called “delicious” wouldn’t be the worst thing I was ever told. :)
Can I have a bite? ;-)
I couldn’t agree more. Instead of teaching kids to abstain, they should just give them all the facts and let them make their own decisions.
And, if they had any brains at all they’d teach their children about birth-control so they wouldn’t have so many un-wanted children….. thereby lowering the incidence of abortion.
Give kids the facts and let them make their own decisions?
Are you insane?!
It’s about power and control.
Too many choices is what led us into the state we’re in now.. STD’s, STI’s, HIV, AIDS,… and the sad thing is that half the people carrying sexually transmitted diseases don’t even know they have one because some deseases are asymptomatic. This being said, “It’s a free world though”, right? People are free to share their unaware desease to the next person they have sex with, and the next after that and who ever else might come down the line. But it’s okay as long as we’re not the ones to get a disease.. Oh wait how do you even know if you have one?? Rejecting abstinence is like rejecting self-control, but I forgot: selfcontrol now-a-days isn’t normal.
Giving control of your self to a church because you’re scared of the variety of choices, is exactly “like rejecting self-control”.
*sigh* All life carries some risk. One of the features of adulthood is the ability to weigh pros and cons for different actions and make a decision in the light of that. If I never drive I’ll (almost) completely avoid the risk of being killed in a car accident, but I have made an adult decision to enhance my life by driving, so educated myself and conduct my driving behaviour in order to minimise the risks. Sex is just the same. You can choose to live without driving or sex and there’s even some good reasons, but generally speaking the benefits far outweigh the risks and the risks can be minimised. Just telling everybody that you can’t do something except under certain rules made up by a bunch of guys mostly to control paternity and inheritance is treating adults like children. I’d rather be paid the compliment of being treated like the adult I am.
Incidentally, not having sex before marriage does not guarantee avoiding all infections considered to be STI’s – I can catch any number of strange diseases just by being in my workplace. What if I’m raped, or my theoretical spouse cheats on me and brings home some infection, or I get stabbed by a syringe-wielding robber in a 7-11 when I’m trying to buy milk?
Frankly, I’m actually glad that I have had sex with more than one person, and glad that my partner has as well. In fact, if either of us had reached the age we are without having sexual partners before we met each other I would have considered it a negative, a sign that we were severely emotionally underdeveloped. Nor have I ever had guilt or suffered negative consequences from having a sexual relationship that was purely for the fun of it, knowing that it was as friends and not more.
“Frankly, I’m actually glad that I have had sex with more than one person, and glad that my partner has as well.”
Personally I’m glad that my better half had her oral training on another set of equipment and not mine – there are just so many things that can go wrong!
yep ;-)
Oh yes, self control is perfectly normal, though like other forms of control it has to be first taught and then practised. Don’t have sex without a condom. Be responsible enough to go and have regular checkups if you are sexually active. Don’t ever do something without consent. Be respectful of your partner. Etc. Etc. Etc. Gotta say the biblical view of sex is not respectful of women.
Human beings are hardwired by evolution for 2 very important aspects of life. We have to survive and we have to ensure the next generation of our species.
With that said, what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own lives is no ones business. When it comes to the very private matter of sex, anyone that thinks they can speak for others, is talking out their ass. The article does not mention ages, thank goodness. But when it comes to the sexual exploration of people not considered adults, that is under the control of the parents, and no one else.
As far as churches and religions go, it’s not about stopping sex. They don’t care about stopping sex, they care about control. The more control they can exercise over the flock, the more the flock will do their bidding. If they can control the most basic of human needs, they can make the sheep do anything. Fear, guilt, condemnation, threats of hell and damnation, are all tools used by the power hungry control freaks to keep the sheep in line. I know, I spent more than 30 years of my life in nothing but fundy evangelical churches.
I was so brain washed by these jokers that I actual feared growing up. And when I did reach that age where I discovered how much pleasure my body could give me, the guilt tore me apart. Every Sunday when the prick up front would go into his “Word of Knowledge” ploy, I literally wanted to puke. I was scared to death that the sky fairy would give me away, in front of everyone, and I would have to confess to enjoying the physical sensations of growing up. I got lucky, he never did call me out. But the scars left behind from that guilt run deep and the anger comes to the surface from time to time.
So the next time you hear some joker spouting off about abstinence only, no sex before marriage and the evils of masturbation, give it to them with both barrels. My standard line is:
“Shut the fuck up and keep your nose in your own shit. It’s not your life and it is not your skin, you don’t get a say in the matter.”
Sorry Daniel if I sound angry, but I am. This is a very raw nerve with me and brings back some rather painful memories.
Add to that being attracted to members of both sexes, and you’ve got double the guilt issues…
Karl- I understand your anger! It’s interesting to hear about a man’s guilt because in my situation, men/guys who “slipped” weren’t nearly as berated as women who were “forever tainted” by sexual “impurity”. I guess the guilt is handed out to both genders in some churches. I’m so sorry they did that to you! Whichever gender it is done to, it is wrong, wrong, wrong!
I have heard lots of anecdotes that evangelical teens are redefining the technical meaning of ‘having sex’ (thank you Bill) to exclude such things as fellatio. I’m wondering how wide spread this is.
Sex, like education and art, brings us closer to our human nature, our humanity. It therefore, pulls us from the illusion of a god that oppressive faiths push on us. Sex is especially of interests to religions, not just for this reason, but also because they can create a sense of shame around something that naturally exists in everyone, thereby creating the problem, and then peddling the solution. I posted a good video about it here
This extension of the “no sex before marriage†is a particular pernicious strategy that religion uses to latch itself onto human nature. If you cannot move forward in your psychosexual growth without invoking ceremony and dogma then you must carry with you the vestment of that religion and it does extremely well to tap into that. It ties guilt to the feelings invoked and strangles people via peer pressure until they submit to the social ceremony—essentially making marriage a fetish.
A particularly corrosive outgrowth of this behavior is that it is at odds with educating people on maturity, maturation, the social implications of sexuality, and how to be responsible both biologically and socially. It makes a foolish taboo out of the subject, and then sets up a giant wall of silence for adolescents to slam into when their bodies mature. This ultimately leads them to seek answers elsewhere or simply rebel, actions which are instantly vilified by the dogma and used as guilt exploits to herd them as adults.
The moral implications are particularly short-sighted since the position ignores informed responsibility and demands robotic submission.
It invites hostility from the youth towards elders (who for all appearance know better already because they didn’t and don’t want to follow their own edicts now that they happen to be better informed.)
While I don’t agree with the reasons people give for pre-maritial abstinence, I can sometimes see why people would want it.
My recent-ex would sometimes say that he wishes he hadn’t had sex with his previous girlfriend, because he felt it made sex with me less special. (Of course, this was when he thought he wanted to be with me forever. sigh…) I don’t know what he thinks about it now.
No offense, but guys say shit like that because they know women love to hear it.
*SIGH* Temporarily forgot that this is the Internet – source of all cynicism in the universe :P
I figured I could get away with the truth there, because we were talking about an ex. I wouldn’t mess with a man’s game if he was still in the picture. :)
HAHA!
No offense, Ty, but that’s a grossly ignorant and offensive statement. I say that “shit” because I mean it.
Yah, because that exchange was all about you.
I made a comment above that sounds almost exactly like what Ty typed.
Again, you’re not reading my comment … seems like we’ve been on this merry go round before.
I knew you were going to say something like this.
Victim, you are playing it poorly.
“above that sounds almost exactly like what Ty typed.”
Perhaps you should have replied to him up there you know where you just admitted it was RELEVANT. But no, you decided to jump into a brief exchange between Korny and TY. Didn’t want miss out on another opportunity to play the Victim and get your Martyr Jollies?
Blaming me for not stalking your posts through the entire article. Why should I go to the trouble when you could have been talking about something that occurred outside this blog and deflected all inquiries into it as you have done in the past. I see no reason to read through your evasions and histrionics.
But no, you decided to jump into a brief exchange between Korny and TY. Didn’t want miss out on another opportunity to play the Victim and get your Martyr Jollies?
Didn’t you just jump into the middle of an exchange between me and Ty?
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
So, butt out. I don’t respond to your posts, because I’m sick of arguing with you. Perhaps you should do the same.
“Didn’t you just jump into the middle of an exchange between me and Ty?”
You mean that “exchange” and obvious joke between two other people that occurred TWO DAYS before you threw yourself down on the ground and wailed “Whiplash!, I’ve got Whiplash!” Claiming grievous injury long after everyone has left the scene.
I’m not “butting in” there’s nothing to but into. I’m just laughing at the clown who’s wailing and gnashing his teeth in a plaintive cry for attention.
“So, butt out. I don’t respond to your posts, because I’m sick of arguing with you. Perhaps you should do the same.”
If your actions embarrass you, then STOP.
If nothing else, Sunny Day, you’re worth a laugh. Conversations, not so much, which is why I usually don’t bother interacting with you. I do get a good chuckle from you caricatures, though, and this one has piqued my curiosity.
You’ve got me pegged though. Posting at UF is little more than a cry for attention from the perpetual victim. Did I leave anything out? Cry for attention. Check. Playing the victim. Check. What else?
Oh, did I take you at your word? WOW, you got me! A second time even! That’s my mistake, won’t happen again. Unfortunately your evasion skill has gone down 5 more points.
“So, butt out. I don’t respond to your posts, because I’m sick of arguing with you. Perhaps you should do the same.”
Oh gee, the Grenade that you threw your self-righteous indignation upon was a Dud.
“I have to say, I assumed brgulker was joking, because I know *I* was.”
Funny TY I knew brgulker wasn’t.
Glad to see I’ve got you pegged correctly. I guess I should thank you for being honest enough to fill out your score card and playing long enough for people to see you demonstrate your willingness to play the victim and work off your martyr complex.
I have to say, I assumed brgulker was joking, because I know *I* was.
Misread you, then. Easy enough to do. My bad.
I have somewhat mixed feelings on this. I’m right now listening to a song by the Blood Brothers talking about the degradation and psychological damage that mindless promiscuity can cause. I somewhat think the rather cavalier attitude towards sexual intercourse in our culture is a bad thing, but I don’t necessarily think abstinence is the correct answer to that.
The ideal situation, I think, would be if people could teach their children to think of sexual intercourse as an expression of love rather than something to pursue drunkenly for its own sake.
Great question, Daniel. It’s got me thinking of how our consumer economy has turned sex into another product, undermining our traditional cultural attitudes towards it, and managing to debase the act and those who engage in it. Resonates very closely with some of Michael Pollan’s points about food culture and the American food economy in Omnivore’s Dilemma, which I’m currently reading.
about the degradation and psychological damage that mindless promiscuity can cause.
Which? Frankly, promiscuity only causes “degradation” and “psychological damage” because of those “traditional cultural attitudes” towards it, since people tend to make a huge deal out of what is simply a bodily function.
I habitually hear stories from people who, in hindsight, really REALLY wished they hadn’t slept with this person, or that person, or all of those people… Guys and girls. Because it made that relationship more complicated than they wanted it to be, or it made another relationship more difficult. Or the fact that they got different messages about the relationship from each other because they slept together.
However, even if we decide that degredation and psychological damage are entirely culturally determined, there are still inherent physical risks to promiscuity. The risk of STD’s, or accidental pregnancy (and you can never reduce these risks to zero). The risk of picking a casual sex partner who is violent or will rip you off – because you didn’t take the time to get to know them properly. And the fact that promiscuity usually, although not always, occurs in conjunction with binge-drinking and the risks of that.
Oh, of course; I don’t say “go forth and have wild monkey sex all around”. I’m a lover of everything in moderation – and of course as safely as possible. I’d tell the same about eating fast food or pizza or whatever tickles your fancy – I see no harm in it, but there’s a threshold between the pleasurable and the insanely dangerous.
I just don’t think all the perceived traumas and dramas of promiscuity are because of promiscuity itself, but because of those preconceived notions traditionally held by people. Such as:
Why would it make things more complicated if not because people see sex as something other than a bodily function? It’s a consequence, methinks, exactly those traditions – because people see sex as something that should be special (hence the mixed signals in the relationship, the difficulties).
I suppose it also depends on what you consider promiscuity. Some people would consider a girl who has casual sex with more than one person – even people she knows – as promiscuous. I wouldn’t, but there are people who would.
Hmmmm…..
Considering. Not sure I believe you, but considering.
Personally, I think the combination of the hormonal side effects of having sex (good sex at any rate) combined with the neccesary physical intimacy means it will always remain emotionally entangled for at least some people.
Possibly, yeah. I’m not the best person to talk about such a thing. But I can’t help but wonder whether those perceived emotional ties would end becoming something different – perhaps even better – than what they are now. I wonder what’s purely biological and what’s cultural.
Then again, culture is also a consequence of biology. Maybe we’re evolving past the more primitive, hunter-gatherer impulses that were necessary for our survival once, but aren’t so relevant anymore…
@ Siberia:
Which? Frankly, promiscuity only causes “degradation†and “psychological damage†because of those “traditional cultural attitudes†towards it, since people tend to make a huge deal out of what is simply a bodily function.
There’s a bio-psycho reason that sex can be damaging. When we have sex, certain chemicals are released in our bodies that are associated with bonding and trust. So, having sex actually amplifies the feelings we might already have for a person.
Sex with a stranger causes you to feel a bond with that stranger; when the stranger leaves, the bond is broken. That’s why casual sex can absolutely have damaging effects.
Obviously, one can condition oneself to adapt … but whether or not such conditioning or desirable would be a matter of debate.
There’s a bio-psycho reason that sex can be damaging. When we have sex, certain chemicals are released in our bodies that are associated with bonding and trust. So, having sex actually amplifies the feelings we might already have for a person.
Sounds like an excellent reason to have more sex – surely bonding and trusting more people is a good thing! But is the effect that strong? Would it be as strong without the cultural background? Food for thought. Must investigate more.
Sex with a stranger causes you to feel a bond with that stranger; when the stranger leaves, the bond is broken. That’s why casual sex can absolutely have damaging effects.
But wouldn’t it go both ways? Wouldn’t the stranger feel at least some modicum of need to keep around – what with the bonding? Who knows, maybe a friendship could start from a casual encounter like that (a romantic notion, mayhaps, but I’m not in the habit of having sex with random strangers, so I wouldn’t know).
Then again, I wasn’t really refering to promiscuity on the sense of having wild sex with random strangers, necessarily. Think of a girl or boy who has casual sex with his/her friends while not a relationship – or even polyamorous relationships. To some people that would be considered promiscuity. My point is that that wouldn’t be necessarily bad; it could even have positive effects.
What happens if you save yourself for marriage but then find out the sex sucks? And that if you had sex before you got married you could have avoided that? A healthy sexual relationship is important to any intimate friends.
Sex only sucks when untrained people try to perform it! We should begin sex-education in Elementary school, expressly designed to be age appropriate, and continued through High school so that people can form a healthier attitude towards what is such an important part of life!
“Sex only sucks when untrained people try to perform it!”
Disagree. It also sucks when one partner occasionally flips out and screams at you during the act, or says, in the height of coitus and with complete disgust, “You’re probably thinking of [the girl who was shown getting a bikini wax in the hair issue of Bullshit!]“, all brought on by weird hangups caused by a fundamentalist upbringing.
… creepy…
“You’re probably thinking of [the girl who was shown getting a bikini wax in the hair issue of Bullshit!]“
There’s only one thing to do in that situation, say Yes.
Face it folks….. you control a person’s sex life, and you’ve controlled that person! The Katholickass church has been doing it for 2,000 years!
Question for Katholicks……….. How can you let a bunch of 80 year old VIRGINS teach you about sex? That’s like letting a blind man teach you how to drive a car!!!!!!!!!
As a former “Katholick”… … … .. you don’t. My church was octagonal, with the altar in the middle and 5 separate columns of pews. The front row had a kneeler built into the floor with a banister running along top with a few support columns. In between, there was open air. If you got lucky, you got your sex education in church when a cute girl wearing a skirt sat in one of those rows and you were at a decent enough angle to observe.
Or, in the case of a Catholic friend of mine, his pastor got arrested for having child porn on his computer. He learned a good lesson about legitimate, illegal sexual deviancy because of that priest.
I have seen a few young Christian couples rush into marriage after only a few months because, ostensibly, it was God’s plan. But really, they just wanted to fuck.
I hit the wrong reply button. I mean to reply to Siberia’s comment about Júlio Ribeiro.
Y’know, this reminds me of a Brazilian author’s words. Júlio Ribeiro was a part of the naturalist movement of Brazilian literature around the 19th century. I remember a quote of his mentioned that the sacrament of marriage was a travesty – because in the end, by the church’s own decree that people should not have sex before marriage, it became no more than a testament of one’s wish to copulate with the other.
I’ve noticed a common trend with the people on the “sex is bad” side of the argument, and that is they make the mistake of equating any for of sex before marriage with promiscuity. In their minds there appears to be no such thing as a non-damaging, non-promiscuous sexual relationship outside of marriage. The logic seems to go that promiscuity carries risk (which can be supported) but they then go on to assume that all pre-marital sex carries the same level of risk, which is obviously untrue.
Of course they seem to think that somehow the reverse is also true – that marriage will prevent promiscuity, which of course is poppycock.
Lets put it this way, a young couple who use condoms and shag like rabbits with each other are much safer than some factually ignorant christian happily doing unprotected anal, which is what ends up happening when they’re so hung up on virginity, but still have all these hormonal urges to get out.
Oh abso-fuckin’-lutely yes!!
So, so true. Thank you for pointing this out with such clarity.
Quite true, quite true.
Sometimes I feel like the only parent alive who actually WANTS their child to have sex before marriage. Apart from the old abstinence-only crap, the thing I hear most often is, “I think we all hope our children will wait until marriage, but it just isn’t reasonable to expect that, so we need to educate them.”
You know what? I really hope my daughter doesn’t wait until she has made such a commitment to have sex with her partner. That is on the same level as having not discussed whether you want children or how you handle your finances. It is so important to a serious relationship, that you need to know what you are getting into before you decide to make a life-long commitment to someone.
I have known at least 2 women who had sexual partners who just didn’t fit well with them, and it was painful to have sex. One of them was dating the guy and was able to see that this clearly wasn’t really working out. The other waited until she was married and now she is married with 2 kids and she never has pleasurable sex. How awful that, assuming she stays married to this man, she will never enjoy sex. The very thing that is supposed to be an intimate expression of love, she dreads. I would never wish such a thing on my child.
I agree.
If we really wanted people to be happy, if we were really concerned about the well-being of our fellow humans, we would want people to be able to explore these facets of their relationships earlier so that marriage would not be harmed.
It is because I respect marriage that I do not wish it to be devalued by those who have not entered into it for the right reasons. No one should feel compelled to marry as a permission to have sex. Marriage should be about the committment between consenting adults. It is because I respect this committment, that I believe it is appropriate to prepare as much as one can to ensure the success of such an endeavor before one enters into it.
I have an acquaintance who was Mormon and he got married because, as he put it, he was constantly randy. Marriage failed (he left Mormonism but not Christianity) and ultimately met another woman. After he had been with her, he discovered people have sexual personalities – which he said hadn’t occured to him earlier in life. And not everyone’s sexual personalities are going to be compatible. Part of his divorce related to this issue. So he says he tells his children to definitely have sex before marriage to ensure compatibility.
Oh and as I’ve also seen some of my friends who have waited until marriage have unsatisfactory sex lives, I’ve posited that the women not liking sex mythos really comes from women marrying guys without being terribly sexually attracted to them – they just never thought enough about it to discern the difference.
I suppose that for some women, there’s the traditional pressure of feeling they have to marry and procreate. It’s expected that a young girl have a boyfriend, then wedding, then babies – so I guess many latch on the first opportunity that presents itself and go forth to multiply without ever considering the long-term implications of being stuck with a person.
I am totally against abstinence only. Not only is it unrealistic, but it makes people feel dirty and bad about something that is so natural. However, its always slightly disturbing to me when I hear stories of 12 year olds having sex. I feel like they are not old enough to understand it, and more than likely, they’re being pressured by society and peers (which is a whole other topic). What does every one else think about this?
Methinks it depends on the kid. Some 12-year-olds are a lot more mature than people would like to think they are – yes, they may not fully understand it, but their bodies may want it nonetheless (which is why I think education on such matters should follow throughout the child’s life, not only when puberty hits). I know I was. I know kids who aren’t.
I’ve a friend who’s had the same boyfriend since she was 12. They’re now married. When she was 14 she got pregnant (and aborted it – whether naturally or not, I don’t know). I don’t think she was peer-pressured into sex – granted, she might not get it fully, but she did love him and he, her. They’re still together now – more than twelve years later.
I suppose your right about the maturity level of some 12 year olds. I guess it just weirds me out because to me, 12 is still childhood, and sex throws you in to an adult world whether you like it or not.
I’m not completely sure of this but 100-150 years ago it wasn’t uncommon for girls to get married by the age of 14. Yeah it is weird but early in human history it was important for girls to have as many babies as possible or else the survival of a group and possibly all of mankind to end. I know some states only changed laws about the age people can be married at within the last 50-75 yrs. I not completely sure of these time frames but they should be close.
I don’t know; some people mature quicker than others. To lower or raise them all to some arbitrary standard and expect they behave in accordance to said standard is silly.
Then again, I think there’s a conscious effort to infantilize children. I don’t think they’re nearly as “innocent” as some people would like them to be – which is why I think they should be taught and grow with the knowledge rather than fumble around in the blind because their parents think they can’t handle the truth.
I think it’s the ulterior motive behind the anti-choice on abortion. Particularly enforcing chastity and sexlessness on women. This is evidenced by the lack of mention of “punishing” the men. “Saving babies” is a cover story, a false front for enforced sexlessness, and punishing women who don’t “obey”. Also evidence: saving lives does not seem to me ever to have been a christian priority, at least after people are born. But punishing people, almost always women, for sex, always has been.
Yup. Saving babies is just a front. The real goal of the pro-life movement is to oppress as many women as we possibly can.
The real pro-life slogan: Babies– who cares?!
/end sarcasm
Good thing you put that “/end sarcasm” thing there.
Problem was, I couldn’t tell when you started to be sarcastic.
There are way better ways to save babies. It is a front. Pro-life just sounds better than anti-choice,
I’m all for babies (other than the fact I don’t want them, ever). I just don’t think balls of cells are babies. I’d rather keep those who are, in fact, babies, as in “born”, healthier, rather than push more and more out into suffering.
JonJon,
Save your breath about abortion around here. If you are even remotely pro-life, you will be accused of wanting to oppress and punish women for being sexual agents, regardless of what you say.
I’m moderately pro-life, and it has nothing to do with wanting to oppress women; yet, the same insults and ignorance were thrown my way during the last thread.
I’m not anti-choice, I’m not anti-women, or anti-sex. But I’ve been labeled as all those things. You will be too.
My church was really into the sex addiction, porn addiction, love addiction stuff…they had classes and support groups for every type of sexual “sin” imaginable. My personal theory about the increase in churches that offer “sexual addiction” ministries is that the whole “don’t have sex til you’re married” thing isn’t working, so they’re literally scaring people into thinking they are sex addicts to control their behavior. I was a virgin…never even kissed a guy…and I was convinced I was a sex addict because I masturbated. I even considered signing up for a sex addiction class. Thankfully, I never did. I can’t imagine how that would have psychologically damaged me. And thinking I was a sex addict definitely kept me from getting physical with guys…I was afraid it would “open the floodgates” and I’d become a sex maniac.
Now I know how utterly ridiculous that all is, and I’m able to enjoy my sex life!
Keep in mind there’s a difference between “premarital” sex and promiscuity. Does anyone think it’s a good idea to go around having sex with a bunch of strangers?
Well, I don’t think it’s a good idea because of the health risks involved. It’d be suicidal to go on such a rampage. On a purely philosophical standpoint, however, I’ve no problems with that.
Pingback: Your God Isn’t Pro-Life | Unreasonable Faith
Nicole B wrote:
“I am totally against abstinence only. Not only is it unrealistic, but it makes people feel dirty and bad about something that is so natural. However, its always slightly disturbing to me when I hear stories of 12 year olds having sex. I feel like they are not old enough to understand it, and more than likely, they’re being pressured by society and peers (which is a whole other topic). What does every one else think about this?”
No, abstinence isn’t unrealistic, nor does it make people feel dirty and bad about sex! Where did you get that impression! I waited until I was 27. People who have sex want sex. For many people (all people?) the urge doesn’t get overpowering until you start doing it. It”s basic stimulus response conditioning with a powerful reward doing the conditioning.
Otherwise, I agree with what you wrote.