Saving Yourself for Marriage?

[Draka]

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.

That, my dear, is bullhockey. How can you even pretend to know how he is treating them or what he thinks of them or how he feels about about them just because he might not be married to them? You don't know...you can't know. In fact, speaking your language here for a moment, only your God knows that. For all you know, I.S.L.A.M. may have more love and respect and honor for a girlfriend of his than your husband has ever felt for you. You just don't know.

 

[Pegg]

That, my dear, is bullhockey. How can you even pretend to know how he is treating them or what he thinks of them or how he feels about about them just because he might not be married to them? You don't know...you can't know. In fact, speaking your language here for a moment, only your God knows that. For all you know, I.S.L.A.M. may have more love and respect and honor for a girlfriend of his than your husband has ever felt for you. You just don't know.

i am not specifically applying my comment to him... it goes for everyone.

 

[Shermana]

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.

Great! Now let me know when the grand majority of women stop giving this "hoot".

 

[Draka]

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

So the couple that had been together for years but never married...you don't claim that they are using each other or are not equals or any of the other things you have been saying?

 

[Shermana]

Draka:

I really don't think the vast majority of women ARE concerned with the status and financials of their prospective mates.

I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I think you're under the assumption your minority opinion is the majority. If you honestly don't think the vast majority of women are heavily interested in the social status and financials of men, I think you're from an entirely different planet, or you don't get out much, or are you projecting your own idealism onto the factual reality.

I also think you are a bit deluded about "upper status" men as well.

I think YOU are deluded about what "upper status" males want. Especially in non-Western countries! (Though still very much so in Western countries).

And no crap we have different definitions of "honor". I certainly don't find what you seem to find honorable very honorable at all.

That in itself is a whole thread's worth of debate, of what is "honor".

I can also hold my head high with honor and I bet you can't even fathom why

So can I, but you probably wouldn't agree with my reasoning all the same.

 

[Draka]

i am not specifically applying my comment to him... it goes for everyone.

So, if my guy and I, we never have any intention of marrying, would you say we have no loyalty to each other? No love? Is one of us using the other? Which one? Would our relationship be a "cheap imitation"? And a "cheap imitation" of what exactly?

 

[Pegg]

So the couple that had been together for years but never married...you don't claim that they are using each other or are not equals or any of the other things you have been saying?

perhaps they havnt married because they prefer to leave the door open to leave when they've had enough of each other


not much of a commitment there.

 

[Shermana]

perhaps they havnt married because they prefer to leave the door open to leave when they've had enough of each other


not much of a commitment there.

I cant' really imagine any other reason....well, other than the financial and legal issues.

Perhaps their argument is that temporary commitment is just as good as a permanent one or something.

 

[Draka]

Draka:


I really don't think you know what you're talking about. I think you're under the assumption your minority opinion is the majority. If you honestly don't think the vast majority of women are heavily interested in the social status and financials of men, I think you're from an entirely different planet, or you don't get out much, or are you projecting your own idealism onto the factual reality.

I think quite the same of you actually. As a woman, and knowing many women in my life, I can't think of a one I've ever known, myself included, that actually based our judgments of our mates upon their financials and "statuses". Most women, regardless of what you may think, tend to actually want to marry for love, not money. Silly little things us.

I think YOU are deluded about what "upper status" males want. Especially in non-Western countries! (Though still very much so in Western countries).

You know, I'll grant perhaps I don't know what "upper status" men in UAE or Russia or China and so on want, but I still think you a little full of yourself to come in making this general statement that "upper status" men want virgins.

That in itself is a whole thread's worth of debate, of what is "honor".

Knock yourself out starting one then.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that a one night stand can be mutually valuable to two people, and to insist that one of the parties to the one night stand is merely using the other, while the other is merely being exploited by the former, is negligent of reality.

 

[Draka]

perhaps they havnt married because they prefer to leave the door open to leave when they've had enough of each other


not much of a commitment there.

Or perhaps they never found the paper necessary to tell them what they meant to each other. Or perhaps they were holding back on statement grounds that they would not marry until all citizens were legally able to get married in the eyes of the law. Or perhaps there were legal entanglements one was going through and they decided it would be better if they remained legally apart for the time being until everything was sorted out.

How are you to know? You just judge their relationship based on whether or not they have a piece of paper.

 

[dust1n]

You should see the interest I get from the ladies at the parties whenever my friends announce my innocence.

Yeah, but isn't that advantage a little self-defeating considering the interest is... well, limited to that?

 

[Shermana]

It seems to me that a one night stand can be mutually valuable to two people, and to insist that one of the parties to the one night stand is merely using the other, while the other is merely being exploited by the former, is negligent of reality.

A huge amount of women woefully regret their one night stands, whereas very few if any men do. Why could they POSSIBLY regret it? Ah, must be just years of societally conditioned guilt or something, right.

Are one-night stands wrong? | Almost half of women regret one-night stands | The Sun |Woman

Yahoo! Shine - Women's Lifestyle | Healthy Living and Fashion Blogs

 

[Shermana]

Yeah, but isn't that advantage a little self-defeating considering the interest is... well, limited to that?

You don't have to hit a home run, you can enjoy the bases. At least second base in my case.

 

[Sunstone]

A huge amount of women woefully regret their one night stands, whereas very few if any men do. Why could they POSSIBLY regret it? Ah, must be just years of societally conditioned guilt or something, right.

Are one-night stands wrong? | Almost half of women regret one-night stands | The Sun |Woman

Yahoo! Shine - Women's Lifestyle | Healthy Living and Fashion Blogs

Thank you for that information. I don't think it invalidates my statement, however.

 

[dust1n]

You don't have to hit a home run, you can enjoy the bases. At least second base in my case.

One doesn't need to hit a grand slam to enjoy the home plate.

 

[Shermana]

One doesn't need to hit a grand slam to enjoy the home plate.

I'm not sure I understand.

 

[Vinayaka]

Are there any advantages to not having sex before marriage? If so, what are those advantages? How important are they when compared to the advantages, if any, of having sex before marriage?

I'll just answer from the mystical Hindu POV, and not get into some of the other arguments (hopefully) Because marriage is both a mystical union, and a civil union that unites families, in traditional Hinduism it is considered the ideal to be a virgin when one marries.

But you didn't ask whether you meant sex with the same partner, or sex with several partners, so I'll say a bit about both. For the multiple partner part - from the mystical POV, each partner is considered a psychic connection, and each connection has an effect on you, whether you know it or not, so the more connections you have, the more you feel 'side' effects. So when a former partner has an emotional reaction to something, it still affects you, via the mystical connection, like an invisible electric wire. Not all Hindus, let alone all people, would believe this, and the intellect will rationalize it's non-existence. But mystics would believe it. So this is the essential inner reason why promiscuity is frowned upon, as it's not considered healthy for the spirituality of individuals involved.

It is considered also that when virgins marry, the bond is tighter and stronger, so the psychic cord attaching the two people is stronger, not frayed so to speak. An idiom that reflects this is 'tieing the knot'. Of course we're talking ideals here. In arranged marriages, the couple traditionally does not consumate the marriage for 3 or 4 days, depending on regional variances. The first night is spent in the grooms parents house, the second night in her parent's house , and the third night alone, but with a barrier between them. This strongly reinforces the idea that marriage is much more than a sexual union - ie. friends forever, economic union, spiritual brother/sister, parents together, and much more.

The idea on sex before marriage is not considered nearly as much a deterrent to spiritual progress when its just the one couple. Love marriage is getting more common. It would be considered being married on the physical plane, but not on the celestial or astral planes. A marriage informs the inner beings, and that's why Hindu marriages can get complicated, and hard to follow, A lot of it is the priest informing the inner beings, and Gods and God of our religion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I cant' really imagine any other reason....well, other than the financial and legal issues.

Perhaps their argument is that temporary commitment is just as good as a permanent one or something.

Step outside your own worldview for a second.
The friends I was talking about are very pragmatic people, I suppose. They struggle to fathom what the point of marriage is, beyond seeing it as a public declaration of their togetherness.

From their point of view, their child, their home, and their 15-20 years of monogomous life together are actually pretty good at achieving that. You're trying to argue that they need a reason not to get married, and that their lack of marriage indicates a temporary commitment. To the first, they would say very simply there is no need for them to get married. Rather, what reason is there for them to actually do that? To the second, you're blatantly wrong.

When they were going to a country where the rights and equalities of an unmarried couple were not legally equal to a married couple (or at least, close), they got married. They then had a reason to do it.

This isn't my view, but I can certainly understand it. And if you think a piece of paper makes a couple committed, you are kidding yourself. The strength of the relationship is what matters.

The female in the relationship had been married previously. Her husband had cheated on her, and they were divorced. I'm not sure what impact, if any, that has on how you'd view this.

 

[Draka]

A huge amount of women woefully regret their one night stands, whereas very few if any men do. Why could they POSSIBLY regret it? Ah, must be just years of societally conditioned guilt or something, right.

Are one-night stands wrong? | Almost half of women regret one-night stands | The Sun |Woman

Yahoo! Shine - Women's Lifestyle | Healthy Living and Fashion Blogs

Or to rephrase that...
Less than half the women that have one-night-stands actually regret them. The huge majority of them have no problems with them.

Or at least, if you read what the articles say

And yeah, perhaps it does have something to do with conditioning. As young girls we are taught to be all about love and romance. We show our emotions easier as it is more allowed for us to do so growing up. So for some women to emotionally attach when it comes to sex isn't exactly a surprise, but I don't think it's because of why you seem to think it is.