Pre-marital sex and religion

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Erki

You can always PM me, I'd gladly help. Although yes, I'm not so very loud on this forum so people probably don't know as much about me as they do about A_L. But an issue exchange would be interesting - I've grown a bit tired of my own.

I'm tired of mine as well. A_L specifically disagrees with me and I specifically wanted someone who disagrees with me. I read something you wrote elsewhere, and I think you agree with me Erki , at least in part. Maybe you'll hear from me, just for diversity of opinion.

Can I also pm you if I need help with a Finnish sentence? You understand Finnish, right?

Originally Posted by Angela

Why should a woman feel compassion for her man? Why should she care about his issues? Same reason he should do the same for her. Because they've chosen each other, as evidenced by being in a romantic relationship for a year. And aside from that? Because they're both human beings. (I hate "shoulds"; what I mean here is that it works better.)

And when one's issue conflicts with the other's values, whose takes precedence? The fact is, two people with significant conflicting values should avoid getting involved.

Originally Posted by Angela

In this case, I think you have misunderstood Mark -- he seems to really love this girl and wants to make his relationship work with respect and understanding.

Actually, I apologize, as I wasn't referring to his situation when I wrote that.

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Bitsy - Guilt sucks! Do be clear with yourself and any partners about your boundaries, but don't beat yourself up if you don't always stay true to them. If you are looking to God to tell you you are bad, look elsewhere. There is no condemnation.

I don't have guilt, I have pain. I'm talking about emotional pain, not religion or God. If I haven't stayed true to my boundaries, it is because I believed things from the man that turned out not to be true, and because I loved him deeply.

Originally Posted by geekchic9

I looked this up in my New American Bible, and it didn't say that. It says "refrain from immorality." I'll type in the rest later, as I have to go to work now. It's interesting how some bibles say "no fornication" and others don't.

I used the King James translation. It would be necessary to consult the original script and not a translation, however, I have been told that the more recent translations are farther and farther away from the original text, which is why I used the King James one. Sometimes I consult Bibles in other languages, French, German, Spanish, Finnish etc. and I get a little worried or upset due to the differences, some which seem significant to me, and then I just think, well, I have to learn Greek and see for myself...

[Angela]

Aspiring, have you ever thought of going into politics?

Regarding Shamou's point about not buying the cow until after you've made sure you like its milk, I agree that if you're a sexual person its risky to marry someone you've never had any sexual contact at all with. I'm sure many religious people consider that risk worthwhile, but I don't. I would want to make sure that someone I was legally bonded with was Good, Game, and Giving, and I don't think you can tell that until you're actually milking the cow. Just talking to the cow won't tell you how good her milk will be. Also, what if your partner turns out to be lactose intolerant? So to speak.

I am so sorry for the bovine metaphor. It's one my mom pushed a lot! That's probably why I'm so Bossy.

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

Can I also pm you if I need help with a Finnish sentence? You understand Finnish, right?

Ma puhun Suomi väga paska, ma puhun Viro.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

And when one's issue conflicts with the other's values, whose takes precedence? The fact is, two people with significant conflicting values should avoid getting involved.

I sure agree with that! With this couple, it looks like their values are very similar, but diverged after they'd been together for a good long while, so it might have been harder to predict.

Since they're already in a partnership, I don't think it's a matter of one partner's values taking precedence. I think it's a matter of: how can we work this out with love, respect, freedom and compassion, so that it works out optimally for both of us? It might mean separating, but wouldn't you rather separate with love, respect, freedom, compassion, and best wishes for each other's future, than with bitterness and a total lack of understanding?

No matter what the issue, when one partner says, in effect, "Look, buddy, this is where I'm at, this is how it is, this is black & white, deal with it," she's not exactly generating love, respect, freedom and compassion in the conversation. That's perfectly okay, but don't you and I want our relationships to be optimal?

[Dan.Linehan]

I don't believe in gay sex before civil union.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

I don't have guilt, I have pain. I'm talking about emotional pain, not religion or God. If I haven't stayed true to my boundaries, it is because I believed things from the man that turned out not to be true, and because I loved him deeply.

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I am of the opinion that we shouldn't (there's that word again) change our boundaries based on what other people do or say. Then, regardless of their integrity, we will be able to look at ourselves in the mirror. I have not been able to live this, so I know it's easier said than done. Since I am not sure exactly what types of things he led you to believe and what boundaries that led you to overstep, I will not offer any advice there. You can also feel free to PM me any time if you want someone else to talk to.

Originally Posted by Angela

Aspiring, have you ever thought of going into politics?

Are you saying I'm shady?

Originally Posted by Angela

Regarding Shamou's point about not buying the cow until after you've made sure you like its milk, I agree that if you're a sexual person its risky to marry someone you've never had any sexual contact at all with. I'm sure many religious people consider that risk worthwhile, but I don't. I would want to make sure that someone I was legally bonded with was Good, Game, and Giving, and I don't think you can tell that until you're actually milking the cow. Just talking to the cow won't tell you how good her milk will be. Also, what if your partner turns out to be lactose intolerant? So to speak.

I am so sorry for the bovine metaphor. It's one my mom pushed a lot! That's probably why I'm so Bossy.

I'm impressed with your ability to take that metaphor to the conclusion. Literary genius you are. I can see what you mean. I think for someone who has the religious conviction of 'no sex before marriage' it's so important that they will risk it. And from what I've seen in my experience, it tends to work out for them. I can't think of any reason other than the religious to take that standpoint (abstaining) other than the old saying about buying the cow when you get the milk for free, but obviously lots of people end up married who've had sex so I think it only pertains to some. Safety is also a primary concern, but that's a whole other ballgame. I for one (when I was a True Love Waits adherant) just trusted that I would marry the right person (since God had it all figured out) and it wouldn't be a problem.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Dan.Linehan

I don't believe in gay sex before civil union.

Hehehehehe. I <3 Dan!

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by Angela

I sure agree with that! With this couple, it looks like their values are very similar, but diverged after they'd been together for a good long while, so it might have been harder to predict.

Since they're already in a partnership, I don't think it's a matter of one partner's values taking precedence. I think it's a matter of: how can we work this out with love, respect, freedom and compassion, so that it works out optimally for both of us? It might mean separating, but wouldn't you rather separate with love, respect, freedom, compassion, and best wishes for each other's future, than with bitterness and a total lack of understanding?

No matter what the issue, when one partner says, in effect, "Look, buddy, this is where I'm at, this is how it is, this is black & white, deal with it," she's not exactly generating love, respect, freedom and compassion in the conversation. That's perfectly okay, but don't you and I want our relationships to be optimal?

Amen, sister! Three posts in a row. I'm on a roll.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by {aspiring_to_clarity}

Are you saying I'm shady?

No, I'm saying you are a natural diplomat -- one who aligns good feelings in herself and in others.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Hehe. I knew you meant it in a nice way, I just despise politicians!

[Erin Pavlina]

I don't usually chime in on a post when I haven't read all the responses but I'm in a hurry and really wanted to just comment on the original poster's question, especially when I saw it was in my forum. So forgive me for not reading all the responses. I am sure they were all polite and well thought out.

It's very simple. Your girlfriend has now decided she doesn't want to have sex before marriage. That's her right.

You now have to make the decision of whether you want to be with a woman who has that requirement or not. The choice is now yours. It seems like she is very committed to her decision.

it's unfortunate that she changed her mind midway through the relationship but it's not really unfair so I wouldn't judge her harshly for it. You may not like her decision but you will probably agree it's hers to make.

Now let's say you decide to leave her over this because it's important to you to "know" a woman before you marry her. Then she is the one with teh choice. She can either separate from you knowing that you are both committed to your own ideals, or she may even change her mind. But make each decision as it comes. That's my advice.

[Bitsy]

Originally Posted by Angela

I sure agree with that! With this couple, it looks like their values are very similar, but diverged after they'd been together for a good long while, so it might have been harder to predict.

He said that they were not having sex from the start due to her religious beliefs, so it was out there...just waiting...

Anyhow, re-reading that, her reasons are nothing at all like my reasons.

Originally Posted by Erki

Ma puhun Suomi väga paska, ma puhun Viro.

Kyllä Virolainen Erki puhut suomea . You just have a few typos in there, that's all, right? .

[Erki]

Originally Posted by Bitsy

Kyllä Virolainen Erki puhut suomea . You just have a few typos in there, that's all, right? .

Unfortunately, no. I could help you, should you decide to learn Estonian though.

[Jill]

I guess I'm the only one here who thinks that this woman is most likely cheating on the guy and has simply found a convenient excuse to stop having any sexual relations with him.

Or maybe not cheating, but has fallen out of love and too timid to break it off completely.

[oberlee]

Regarding Jill's comment--

It's possible. But I think it's equally possible that she's been reading too much bible and kind of went all-or-nothing on her beliefs, as many people, especially young people, can do. And now she feels guilty.

I haven't read all the posts, and there are some great comments. Personally, I just think that marriage is a man-made bond; commitment and love are not. If you love someone and want to have an intimate relationship, I don't see how you can do that without being sexual. Good sex (or otherwise) = good relationship. Bad sex = bad relationship.

It's such a major part of a relationship. Why be in one without being sexual? That's the whole point (unless you're 12).

Doesn't mean you have to have intercourse, but I think that if there's no sexual things going on, you might as well just be friends, especially if you feel differently.

It's tricky because if you dumped her for this, as personally I think you should if she sticks to this, you have to maneuver through the whole "he dumped me because I didn't put out" thing, so if that's what it comes to, just be tactful and graceful with it.

I feel for ya!

[Jill]

It's such a major part of a relationship. Why be in one without being sexual? That's the whole point (unless you're 12).

Exactly. And that's why I think she's cheating.

[Shamou]

Originally Posted by Jill

Exactly. And that's why I think she's cheating.

Or maybe she has found an alternative to, "Not tonight, dear, I have a headache..."

.

[Angela]

What happened to Mark, the OP? Did all our speculation overwhelm the poor guy?

Mark, please let us know what's happening with you.

[{aspiring_to_clarity}]

Originally Posted by oberlee

Why be in one without being sexual?

Because you have strong religious convictions that prevent it. It may seem alien to some, but I've known plenty of people who didn't have sex before marriage and went on to live perfectly happy married lives. To them, the point of a dating relationship is to find a mate, not to have sex. That's something for marriage.

Yes, Mark, where are you? How are things going?

[The David]

It sounds like she could have another motive, but I've known plenty of people who 'become Christians' and then suddenly stop having sex.

[Jason S]

Angela, I like your logic on this one. If I'm following you correctly, your point is that it's not about the sex, it's about the way in which GF came to the decision, and how she froze Mark out of it. Had Mark posted that he and his GF had been planning to move to Chicago and suddenly she dropped an ultimatum in his lap--LA or bust--I don't think subsequent posts would have been nearly so passionate.

People are not nearly as rational as they are rationalized, and depending upon your own personal beliefs, there are plenty of arguments out there that can be used to rationalize a defense of either Mark or his GF. Ultimately, because of the way in which things seem to have unfolded, I agree that it sounds like Mark's GF is either playing games or has someone else in her life exerting pressure. Shifts in personal decisions and evolving values tend to be soft and gradual--reflecting the evolving nature of the underlying values--while shifts due to exertion tend to be harder and more immediate.

Mark, it's likely that something's up. I'd ask her about it.

More generally speaking, I thought that the following would apply to this thread; it's an excerpt from a post I made to my blog from this past July, about how Americans view sex. I'll let it speak for itself:

Deeply rooted in your biology are the urges to keep safe, to eat, and to procreate. Think about that: denying yourself sex is about as natural as denying yourself shelter. Would you give up dinner if someone claimed that it’s immoral to eat after four in the afternoon? Should sleeping outdoors be considered a sign of piety?

...Here’s the ultimate in irony: if someone’s hungry, the political and religious machines work to get that person food. If he’s homeless, they provide him shelter. But should he and his consensual partner want to get their freak on, look out! Sex is the source of life and, done right, much pleasure. Don’t let society’s collective confusion deprive you of this last vestige pure, natural joy left on earth.