Saving Yourself for Marriage?

[Me Myself]

Woman is already man's equal. That you don't see yourself, or other women, as equal to men and in need of marriage in order to be accepted and be equal is more telling of you than of people who choose to engage in relations outside of a marriage.

Actually, I would find it sad if more men would accept that view. It firmly places them upon a pedestal and tells them that women are not "equal" to them, they are pretty much just to be bought and paid for with a marriage contract. Then, magically, they are "equal" and they get the perverse pride of "popping the cherry". And if she doesn't still have hers? Well...guess she's "damaged goods", who would want that? :sarcastic

You do seem to be debating, however, that it is the case that someone must be using someone if it is not within the bounds of magical lollipop marriage. As if signatures on a piece of paper redefine the interactions and emotions and so on involved in sex.

First, love, respect, and honor can exist outside the bounds of marriage as well.

Second, not every man who has sex with a woman outside of marriage is using her, AND a woman is just as capable as a man of using a guy for sex if that happens to even be the case.

And finally...again...a woman IS a man's equal.

All of the above. 100%

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you have cases or studies or is this purely anecdotal?

Anecdotal is good of course, when one is thinking of potential problems, but I wondered how common the problem you describe is.

No scientific studies, just personal experience and several accounts I've heard from other people.

 

[Sunstone]

Likewise for waiting. People can have real problems integrating sex into their relationship post-marriage if their pre-marriage relationship was sex-free... especially if they've been raised to think of sex as something dirty or sinful.

I've read that point made by no less than James Dobson himself.

 

[Draka]

Let's lay this out there and just see what bites it gets and from whom.

I present a couple. By all appearances a happy, loving, committed couple. Been together for perhaps a decade or so, maybe two, maybe more, who knows. Have children together. The children are happy, the parents are happy, the family...happy and loving. Now, for whatever reasons the couple may have, they just have never gotten legally married. They could not love each other or be committed to each other any more were they to have that paper. It would not suddenly change the dynamic of their relationship, just the legalities involved.

Now...who is "using" who?
Do they have "the real thing" or a "cheap, superficial, temporary imitation"?
Are they "without honor"?
Are they "not equal"?
Do they not have "love or loyalty"?
Do they not have "self-control"?

Now, if after all those years, for some reason, perhaps to cinch down some legalities, they were to go ahead and get married, would all that time, all those years, be considered time where they were using each other in pre-marital "sin"? Could it be said "they just couldn't control themselves" and they were "without honor" or "were not equal"?

Come, someone, please, tell us of this couple.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Let's lay this out there and just see what bites it gets and from whom.

I present a couple. By all appearances a happy, loving, committed couple. Been together for perhaps a decade or so, maybe two, maybe more, who knows. Have children together. The children are happy, the parents are happy, the family...happy and loving. Now, for whatever reasons the couple may have, they just have never gotten legally married. They could not love each other or be committed to each other any more were they to have that paper. It would not suddenly change the dynamic of their relationship, just the legalities involved.

Now...who is "using" who?
Do they have "the real thing" or a "cheap, superficial, temporary imitation"?
Are they "without honor"?
Are they "not equal"?
Do they not have "love or loyalty"?
Do they not have "self-control"?

Now, if after all those years, for some reason, perhaps to cinch down some legalities, they were to go ahead and get married, would all that time, all those years, be considered time where they were using each other in pre-marital "sin"? Could it be said "they just couldn't control themselves" and they were "without honor" or "were not equal"?

Come, someone, please, tell us of this couple.

Hey...there ya go. I KNOW this couple.
Quick story. My business partner has gone to Dubai for work. He and his wife have been together as long as I've known him (15 years) and probably a bit longer than that. Anyways, not married, one kid, both monogamous. I mean, as far as I know, but actually, I'd almost back it in.

Daughter is well-raised, one of the nicest kids I've met. Having said that, she's 12-13, so just entering the time where that could change.

Anyways, to make things easier in Dubai, due to some of the laws there, they changed their going away party into a surprise wedding. So they're now legally married. I think they'd be surprised to learn their relationship only just became real.

 

[Me Myself]

Abstaining until marriage as an institution is advantageous for perpetuating culture based off Honor/Shame codes of conduct in the sexual arena. For people? Not so much, IMO.

I feel individually if people are asexual, or if they choose celibacy because they wish to place their focus and energy on something else they wish to explore, then abstaining is advantageous for them. For people who are only abstaining because they have been browbeaten into believing that they'll go to hell, or they're sluts, or they're reckless, or they're only inviting trouble if they had sex before marriage, then abstaining is painfully NOT advantageous. I believe abstaining for those purposes represses sexual desire and finds it manifests in all kinds of psychological disorders that many times go unnoticed.

I would encourage people to respect and honor themselves and those who they may or may not be intimate with. I believe the boundaries of intimacy before marriage ought only to be determined by informed consent, and not made by religious institutions.

I think this might be e most sensible post on the subject so far.

 

[Sunstone]

I think this might be e most sensible post on the subject so far.

I think you might be right. But please don't tell Heather. She's just a girl.

 

[DallasApple]

Let's lay this out there and just see what bites it gets and from whom.

I present a couple. By all appearances a happy, loving, committed couple. Been together for perhaps a decade or so, maybe two, maybe more, who knows. Have children together. The children are happy, the parents are happy, the family...happy and loving. Now, for whatever reasons the couple may have, they just have never gotten legally married. They could not love each other or be committed to each other any more were they to have that paper. It would not suddenly change the dynamic of their relationship, just the legalities involved.

Now...who is "using" who?
Do they have "the real thing" or a "cheap, superficial, temporary imitation"?
Are they "without honor"?
Are they "not equal"?
Do they not have "love or loyalty"?
Do they not have "self-control"?

Now, if after all those years, for some reason, perhaps to cinch down some legalities, they were to go ahead and get married, would all that time, all those years, be considered time where they were using each other in pre-marital "sin"? Could it be said "they just couldn't control themselves" and they were "without honor" or "were not equal"?

Come, someone, please, tell us of this couple.

I would consider them married myself.And many states would too.Its called "common law".

I knew a couple like that.They had 4 children.They even referred to each other as "husband" and "wife".

 

[Shermana]

Everyone does love a virgin...

Exactly.

Therefore, there's nothing but pure economic reason and sense for women who want to compete for the upper status males, no amount of complaining will change this fact.

 

[Sunstone]

...women who want to compete for the upper status males...

I wonder where you get your impression that upper status males decisively prefer virgins?

 

[Pegg]

And finally...again...a woman IS a man's equal.

just to be sure, i'll reiterate what i meant


a woman IS a mans equal... but men who use women for sex do not treat them as if they are equals which is why marriage is more honorable then simply using a woman for sex (or vise versa)

that is why God does not want men and women to engage in sex outside of the bonds of marriage... people being used for pleasure is a bad thing.

 

[Draka]

"Upper status"? "Upper status"? If the only thing that is determining that lovely term is the amount of money in a man's bank, then the fact that he would actually base what he looks for in a woman as to whether or not she has her hymen still intact makes the rest of him quite "lowly" to me. Why on Earth would I be interested in such a man?

I am no prostitute, nor gold digger. I'd much rather hold my head high and have sex out of wedlock for actual love with a poor man, than sell the right to "pop my cherry" to some sleazy rich guy. Funny that the same man who spoke of honor seems not to care if the woman really has any.

 

[Pegg]

I'm happy to play a straight bat, and not go with the sarcastic comments. You're right...I wouldn't look from a religious viewpoint. But I'm interested in your opinion.

I wasn't married in a church, and I made sure there was no mention of God in my wedding. So does it still count?

yes, it still counts.

Your marriage is still approved and recognised by him.

 

[Sunstone]

just to be sure, i'll reiterate what i meant


a woman IS a mans equal... but men who use women for sex do not treat them as if they are equals which is why marriage is more honorable then simply using a woman for sex (or vise versa)

that is why God does not want men and women to engage in sex outside of the bonds of marriage... people being used for pleasure is a bad thing.

What you say seems to assume a naivety about many an out of marriage sex act.

 

[Draka]

just to be sure, i'll reiterate what i meant


a woman IS a mans equal... but men who use women for sex do not treat them as if they are equals which is why marriage is more honorable then simply using a woman for sex (or vise versa)

that is why God does not want men and women to engage in sex outside of the bonds of marriage... people being used for pleasure is a bad thing.

Have you read anything else I've written? Care to address any of the other points I've put to you? Or perhaps the scenario I put out?

 

[Shermana]

"Upper status"? "Upper status"? If the only thing that is determining that lovely term is the amount of money in a man's bank, then the fact that he would actually base what he looks for in a woman as to whether or not she has her hymen still intact makes the rest of him quite "lowly" to me. Why on Earth would I be interested in such a man?

I am no prostitute, nor gold digger. I'd much rather hold my head high and have sex out of wedlock for actual love with a poor man, than sell the right to "pop my cherry" to some sleazy rich guy. Funny that the same man who spoke of honor seems not to care if the woman really has any.

When the day comes that the grand majority of women aren't concerned about the social status and financials of their prospective mates, please do let me know!

I guess we have different definitions of "Honor". Besides, I'm trying to discuss this from a purely secular vantage point.

Until then, there ain't nothing much you can do about upper status men being notorious for wanting the goods mostly untouched.

 

[Pegg]

I genuinely want to understand what you're trying to say. So far it sounds like you degrade women more than I would ever think to.

lets put it another way, you dont own the right to use a womans body for your own pleasure.

women are not toys.

woman are Gods daughters who deserve to be treated with respect.



when you use them (and thats what is happening when you have no intention of marrying) you do not show any respect for them. You are treating them like 'things' to be used rather then 'someone' who has an intelligent mind deserving of respect and honour.

 

[Draka]

When the day comes that the grand majority of women aren't concerned about the status and financials of their prospective mates, please do let me know!

I guess we have different definitions of "Honor". Besides, I'm trying to discuss this from a purely secular vantage point.

Until then, there ain't nothing much you can do about upper status men being notorious for wanting the goods mostly untouched.

I really don't think the vast majority of women ARE concerned with the status and financials of their prospective mates. I also think you are a bit deluded about "upper status" men as well.

And no crap we have different definitions of "honor". I certainly don't find what you seem to find honorable very honorable at all. I can also hold my head high with honor and I bet you can't even fathom why.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

When the day comes that the grand majority of women aren't concerned about the social status and financials of their prospective mates, please do let me know!

I guess we have different definitions of "Honor". Besides, I'm trying to discuss this from a purely secular vantage point.

Until then, there ain't nothing much you can do about upper status men being notorious for wanting the goods mostly untouched.

Personally, I don't give a hoot about what upper status men want. Doesn't define who I am or my worth as a woman. And besides, sometimes they can be so wrong about things.

 

[Pegg]

Have you read anything else I've written? Care to address any of the other points I've put to you? Or perhaps the scenario I put out?

no I dont need to argue your points because i agree with them

I just wanted to clear up the misconception you had with regard to what you think i was saying. i never said a woman was not a mans equal... i was saying EXACTLY that.....and thats why a man who takes a woman in marriage, rather then just using her body for sex, is also showing that he views her that way