Your experience with abstinence

[Wandered Off]

He compared me and a man to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

Tell him to use a peanut butter and banana sandwich next time.

 

[Green Gaia]

<-- now has another reason not to eat peanut butter. My gf will be glad since she hates the stuff to begin with. :cover:

 

[Dezzie]

Tell him to use a peanut butter and banana sandwich next time.

lol! nice

 

[whereismynotecard]

Let me make this clear though:

If I wanted to have secks, I would feel no reason to wait until I was married. If I ever get married, I'll just divorce the guy anyway, so what difference would it make? I've just never met anyone I'd want to have secks with. I don't like anyone enough to do that with them.

 

[Dezzie]

<-- now has another reason not to eat peanut butter. My gf will be glad since she hates the stuff to begin with. :cover:

haha sorry for ruining your peanut butter experience!

 

[Green Gaia]

haha sorry for ruining your peanut butter experience!

That's Ok. Jelly sandwiches are good too.

 

[cottonflowers]

Which brings me to another point: I think that saving sex for marriage can create a situation where a person rushes to get married at least in part out of desire for sex. If you keep sex within a committed relationship but don't necessarily wait for marriage, I think it helps prevent marrying for bad or unhealthy reasons.

If you read the Bible and find Paul's letters, you'll see that he took the view that marriage was something you ought to do if you can't hold out not having sex much longer; it's a legalistic ceremony to give those "burning with lust" permission to have sex. His take was that people should dedicate themselves to God's work and that marriage was a distraction from that, but acceptable and preferable to giving into sexual temptation. I think that view still holds true. While marriage means a lot more now, I do still believe those who don't feel a need for that kind of companionship should leave marriage to others and concentrate on doing God's work on earth.

I'm curious what might be problematic about a one-night stand. Are one night stands problematic because they are meaningless? And what makes a one night stand meaningless?

I think sex without a firm emotional commitment and an established relationship is wrong, so a one-night stand is wrong. It's meaningless because you don't know or probably even truly care about the person; it's just about physical satisfaction and I view that as rather selfish. I suppose some people could cite one night stands they've had with good friends, but the typical definition is with someone you scarcely know. How can sex without an emotional connection mean anything at all? Just because it feels good doesn't mean it means anything.

My Father actually had a 'sex talk' (only the best haha) with me about 5-6 years ago. He made a pretty good analogy. He compared me and a man to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You may laugh, but it's good. He told me I am the side of the bread with the jelly and the man is the side with the peanut butter. He said when you have sex, you combine together creating the complete sandwich. He said that if one day I end up not being with that man I laid down with, my side of the sandwich is now soiled with globs of the peanut butter. I wouldn't be pure anymore... or clean. I would have that man's "peanut butter" still stuck to my jelly... lol I have always loved that analogy. It made me look at things in a better perspective. haha

I never got the pb&j story, but similar analogies were used on me in junior high and high school. Even though I think someone can re-commit to sexual purity, physically you can't change a thing, so good story to remember. I also remeber being taught about how it isn't just between you and your partner unless you wait. Once you've been with someone, you've been with all their partners...and their partners' partners...and so on...YUCK! So, if you have a couple of partners before marriage, and some people have dozens or whatever...gross!

Well, since same gender couples are not allowed to marry, I wasn't about to wait on that. Probably wouldn't have waited anyway.... :angel2:

Please don't take offense to this question, but if marriage wasn't worth waiting for anyway, what is the purpose of marriage, in your eyes? Not just your post but most posts here seem to present marriage as just something you end up doing, not something precious and blessed. What's the difference between marriage and dating then, aside from legal stuff like the way you do your taxes?

If I ever get married, I'll just divorce the guy anyway, so what difference would it make?

:sorry1: but that is the saddest commentary I've ever heard on marriage. Why would you marry, just to divorce? What does marriage mean to you?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you read the Bible and find Paul's letters, you'll see that he took the view that marriage was something you ought to do if you can't hold out not having sex much longer; it's a legalistic ceremony to give those "burning with lust" permission to have sex. His take was that people should dedicate themselves to God's work and that marriage was a distraction from that, but acceptable and preferable to giving into sexual temptation. I think that view still holds true. While marriage means a lot more now, I do still believe those who don't feel a need for that kind of companionship should leave marriage to others and concentrate on doing God's work on earth.

I've read them; I disagree with them. I think that getting married to avoid going to Hell because of lust isn't healthy either.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that people should get married for love. Not for keeping out of hellfire, not to give onesself permission to have nookie, not to live up to the expectations of parents or the community... just love.

 

[Sunstone]

My Father actually had a 'sex talk' (only the best haha) with me about 5-6 years ago. He made a pretty good analogy. He compared me and a man to a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. You may laugh, but it's good. He told me I am the side of the bread with the jelly and the man is the side with the peanut butter. He said when you have sex, you combine together creating the complete sandwich. He said that if one day I end up not being with that man I laid down with, my side of the sandwich is now soiled with globs of the peanut butter. I wouldn't be pure anymore... or clean. I would have that man's "peanut butter" still stuck to my jelly... lol I have always loved that analogy. It made me look at things in a better perspective. haha

It seems I must regretfully disagree with your father. I simply do not believe, nor has it been my experience, that most people are in any significant or meaningful way degraded, polluted, or tainted by consensual sex. I wonder what could possibly compel someone to believe your father's strange analogy makes any sense at all? Is there some aspect of sex I don't understand? Precisely how is a person degraded, polluted, or tainted by consensual sex? Please enlighten me!

 

[Sunstone]

I think sex without a firm emotional commitment and an established relationship is wrong, so a one-night stand is wrong. It's meaningless because you don't know or probably even truly care about the person; it's just about physical satisfaction and I view that as rather selfish. I suppose some people could cite one night stands they've had with good friends, but the typical definition is with someone you scarcely know. How can sex without an emotional connection mean anything at all? Just because it feels good doesn't mean it means anything.

It sounds to me like you've never managed to have a meaningful one night stand. But is your personal failure to have had a meaningful one night stand sufficient grounds on which to assert that all one night stands are meaningless? If so, how?

I never got the pb&j story, but similar analogies were used on me in junior high and high school. Even though I think someone can re-commit to sexual purity, physically you can't change a thing, so good story to remember. I also remeber being taught about how it isn't just between you and your partner unless you wait. Once you've been with someone, you've been with all their partners...and their partners' partners...and so on...YUCK! So, if you have a couple of partners before marriage, and some people have dozens or whatever...gross!

Do you think second and third marriages are yucky and gross? For that matter, do you think second and third marriages are necessarily inferior in any meaningful way to first marriages?

Please don't take offense to this question, but if marriage wasn't worth waiting for anyway, what is the purpose of marriage, in your eyes? Not just your post but most posts here seem to present marriage as just something you end up doing, not something precious and blessed. What's the difference between marriage and dating then, aside from legal stuff like the way you do your taxes?

For your attitude here to make sense, don't you need to assume that virgin sex is all or almost all that makes a marriage special? And if that is so, then doesn't that notion seem a wee bit lunatic?

 

[cottonflowers]

I've read them; I disagree with them. I think that getting married to avoid going to Hell because of lust isn't healthy either.

Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think that people should get married for love. Not for keeping out of hellfire, not to give onesself permission to have nookie, not to live up to the expectations of parents or the community... just love.

I don't really believe that someone who has premarital sex will go to Hell for it, especially if they later sincerely repent for their mistake and continue to try their best. That's what grace and salvation is all about. And I don't really think people should get married just so it's OK to have sex. That seems like a fairly meaningless relationship. However, I do think marriage is about more than just heat of the moment love. How many times have you been in love, or thought you were? I can think of a dozen times at least, and all of those former crushes and interests aren't part of my life anymore save for one, who I wouldn't ever consider dating or marrying now. A marriage needs more than sentiment, which is probably why so many fail, since people have no idea of the hard work and dedication required. Support and stability, which I think can be found through the couple's walk with God, is what keeps a marriage going. Sadly, not all Christians care very much about inviting God into their marriages and I do think that's why wordly influence gets in and lets those marriages fail.

 

[Vasilisa Jade]

I planned on waiting until I was married. Yeah, that lasted until I was 15. I really blowed that one :yes:. Talk about a goal diving head first down the crapper...

I have always just been so impatient and overly curious about everything. The curiosity killed the cat definitely applies to me.

But I have seriously realized that sex brings aspects of a relationship between two people into light, which otherwise would have stayed hidden. It is best to test your relationship with a prospective husband in all ways before you agree to marriage, in my opinion.

Sex changes some people, and it is best to see those changes early on.

 

[Sunstone]

You have many interesting opinions, Cornflower, but so few of them seem to be based on careful observation. Is there any particular reason for that?

 

[Draka]

I really think some people need to learn to seperate making love from making whoopee. Making love with your significant other can be a very moving and loving experience. Making whoopee...well that's just fun. To me, there's no shame in two grown consenting adults making whoopee married or not. Shoot, you can't really classify all sex within a commited relationship/marriage as making love either. Sometimes we just want to have fun. What the heck is wrong with that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't really believe that someone who has premarital sex will go to Hell for it, especially if they later sincerely repent for their mistake and continue to try their best. That's what grace and salvation is all about.

If you say so. I think that's the general interpretation of the Epistles passages you referred to, though.

And I don't really think people should get married just so it's OK to have sex. That seems like a fairly meaningless relationship.

So do I, but when you set up a system where the only way you get to have sex is by getting married, I think you introduce the danger that this can occur.

However, I do think marriage is about more than just heat of the moment love.

So do I. I never said different. There are many kinds of love. I wasn't just talking about "heat of the moment" feelings when I said that marriage should be based on love.

How many times have you been in love, or thought you were? I can think of a dozen times at least, and all of those former crushes and interests aren't part of my life anymore save for one, who I wouldn't ever consider dating or marrying now.

There have been a few. I was even engaged to one girl before (long before) I met my wife. Looking back at my own life, I'm glad that I did take my time to find the right woman to marry, rather than rush things for the reasons I mentioned before like desire to get to sex or pressure to live up to family expectations. I was engaged for almost two years before I figured out that my fiancee wasn't really the girl for me.

A marriage needs more than sentiment, which is probably why so many fail, since people have no idea of the hard work and dedication required. Support and stability, which I think can be found through the couple's walk with God, is what keeps a marriage going. Sadly, not all Christians care very much about inviting God into their marriages and I do think that's why wordly influence gets in and lets those marriages fail.

Hmm. Personally, I've found religion to be more of a hindrance than a help when it comes to togetherness, though I'm sure that my being an atheist has something to do with our different perspectives.

 

[Smoke]

I think sex without a firm emotional commitment and an established relationship is wrong, so a one-night stand is wrong. It's meaningless because you don't know or probably even truly care about the person; it's just about physical satisfaction and I view that as rather selfish. I suppose some people could cite one night stands they've had with good friends, but the typical definition is with someone you scarcely know. How can sex without an emotional connection mean anything at all? Just because it feels good doesn't mean it means anything.

You can have an emotional connection without an emotional commitment. I've had some bad one-night stands, but I've also had some wonderful one-night stands with guys I still remember fondly years later. I was thinking of one of them the other day, a smart, sweet, talented, handsome man who (20 years ago) was feeling ancient on his 39th birthday. I wonder what became of him, a little, but mostly I just think back fondly on our night together -- not because of physical satisfaction but because I think we opened our hearts to each other a little, for a while -- enough that my affection for him has remained strong over the years. I don't wish I'd married him; I don't wish I could find him again; I'm just happy for the time we shared together. There are others about whom I feel the same. I think what we shared was very good, and very right, passing though it was.

 

[Sunstone]

You can have an emotional connection without an emotional commitment. I've had some bad one-night stands, but I've also had some wonderful one-night stands with guys I still remember fondly years later. I was thinking of one of them the other day, a smart, sweet, talented, handsome man who (20 years ago) was feeling ancient on his 39th birthday. I wonder what became of him, a little, but mostly I just think back fondly on our night together -- not because of physical satisfaction but because I think we opened our hearts to each other a little, for a while -- enough that my affection for him has remained strong over the years. I don't wish I'd married him; I don't wish I could find him again; I'm just happy for the time we shared together. There are others about whom I feel the same. I think what we shared was very good, and very right, passing though it was.

:clap Well said! This is completely in line with my own experiences (despite the fact I am a much more cold and heartless lover than Bill).

 

[Nanda]

People should do whatever they feel is best for them. I didn't wait for marriage, and I had a few partners before my husband, and I don't regret either of those things. But that's me.

 

[methylatedghosts]

You know.. I tried abstinence once..

.... a week is a very, very long time...

 

[Sunstone]

People should do whatever they feel is best for them. I didn't wait for marriage, and I had a few partners before my husband, and I don't regret either of those things. But that's me.

Now Nanda, quit being reasonable! Either you (1) know what's best for everyone or (2) you don't even know what's best for yourself. There are no other options! I declare! Somedays you just make me want to run screaming from the Forum with your "reasonable this" and "reasonable that" attitude.