The word "pure" and other aspects of abstinence rhetoric bother me.....

[Joanne]

Note pertinent to discussion; I believe in sex and a certain threshold of intimacy without intercourse is Biblically, practically and maturly best enjoyed in committed, healthy, life long relationships. I teach my kids it's best to wait physically and emotionally. I also teach them about sex, intimacy, specific acts I am reasonably certain peers know, sti and birth control.

 

I do not believe in parent imposed or ultra conservative models of courtship although I respect the love and care behind them.

 

The use of the word "pure" with regard to young adults who have not had sex makes me...cringe. IMO, much of the rhetoric and emphasis on sex (even and especially no sex) could easily be counter productive.

 

Sex and the desire for it are natural, God given, wonderful. The desire to mate, to couple, to be in intimate relationship is good! The desire to feel that way in teen years and early adulthood are biologically scripted.

 

I think restricting affection, kissing are....icky. I intellectually understand the "logic" behind it, i just disgree with the restriction.

 

The levels of supervision imposed by parents adopting a conservative model go against what I believe is deveopmentally appropriate for older teens and young adults. It's not a match for the relationship dynamic I believe is best for parent and near adults or early adults.

 

Watching the Very Duggar Wedding, I was not impressed, I was stongly opposed.

 

Sex and sexuality is not a switch you can turn off and on: it's a part of our being, our core, our very selves.compartmentalizing it tends to emphasize it rather than make it part of a whole, full, terrific life.

 

I'd rahter see words such as "kind" "polite" "chivalric" "generous" "helpful". At least they relate to behavior that speaks to character.

 

Not having had sex does not equal pure. It means not having sex and does not confer any additional information about that child or adult.

 

My mom discouraged sex (and even tampon use!) In a way that made me ultimately feel dirty even before I "went there".

 

I don't expect my post to change minds. As I said in another post, believing as I do does not mean I encourage promiscuity.

[Karen sn]

Well said.

I have a friend who even after marriage felt wrong having sex.

[skaterbabs]

Joanne, I agree with you.

[NancyNellen]

I think the reason you see the word "pure" is because it is a Biblical word. Titus 2:5 admonishes the older women to teach the younger women "to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored." It is also translated "chaste" in the KJ & NKJ. If you check a definition of these words, chaste & pure, you will see that both have references to being "innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse", (this, as the M-W dictionary defines "chaste", a listed synonym of "pure").

 

I know you are in the camp that chooses not to read the Word of God as literal, but there are many of us who do. Since, then, "pure" is an agreed-upon translation for the original Greek word in the text, it makes sense to use it in this context.

 

Biblically-speaking, not having sex outside of marriage does equal pure. It does give additional information about the person: that they have not given into lust. Of course, for those who consider the Bible to be full of nothing but words (not you, specifically) there will be no impetus to follow them. But for those of us who consider them the very breathed words of the God of the Universe, we will, with the Spirit's help, strive to uphold them, live them out, and teach them diligently to our children.

[JudoMom]

I think the reason you see the word "pure" is because it is a Biblical word. Titus 2:5 admonishes the older women to teach the younger women "to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored." It is also translated "chaste" in the KJ & NKJ. If you check a definition of these words, chaste & pure, you will see that both have references to being "innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse", (this, as the M-W dictionary defines "chaste", a listed synonym of "pure").

 

I know you are in the camp that chooses not to read the Word of God as literal, but there are many of us who do. Since, then, "pure" is an agreed-upon translation for the original Greek word in the text, it makes sense to use it in this context.

 

Biblically-speaking, not having sex outside of marriage does equal pure. It does give additional information about the person: that they have not given into lust. Of course, for those who consider the Bible to be full of nothing but words (not you, specifically) there will be no impetus to follow them. But for those of us who consider them the very breathed words of the God of the Universe, we will, with the Spirit's help, strive to uphold them, live them out, and teach them diligently to our children.

 

:iagree:

[Pamela H in Texas]

When I read your post, I do see a certain subset of the "wait" community. I think, however, that possibly it's a fairly small subset.

 

First, I've seen it in VERY few IRL though I live in Texas also which is known pretty well for being conservative and taking things to extremes. And second, I think that writing makes it impossible to fully convey things online. For example, I most certainly don't FEEL part of "them" but I'm not sure that most of my writing on the subject separates me from them. I ASSUME that more people are more natural than they seem on a message board when expressing about that topic, when IRL, life just rolls along like a creek.

 

Not sure I'm making any sense.

 

Also, I think it's important to realize that past 18, we're talking that these are adults making their own choices. I think it is perfectly fine for adults to make their own choices also. I may or may not agree with the choices my children (or anyone else) makes but I completely agree with adults having the right to make those choices.

 

I guess I just think this looks a lot more natural for most of us. It has some definitely beliefs behind it, but it isn't a forced/stressed out situation. It just is the same as anything else that God made sure we were aware of his standards about. And we simply show we love him (1 John 5:3).

Edited July 18, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[skaterbabs]

I'm not sure that's what the OP meant when she referenced the word "pure." Often, an individual will consider themself "pure" or a virgin despite being involved sexually with someone else because penetration did not take place - leading, of course, to the somewhat modern concept of the "technical virgin". So it's not the origin, but the modern interpretation and use, of the word.

[Lovedtodeath]

I think I know what you are getting at. I have a friend who was terrified on her wedding night b/c she had never even kissed her husband. I don't agree with unsupervised dating that raises the likely-hood of premarital sex, but I don't agree with her situation either.

[lionfamily1999]

I'm not sure that's what the OP meant when she referenced the word "pure." Often, an individual will consider themself "pure" or a virgin despite being involved sexually with someone else because penetration did not take place - leading, of course, to the somewhat modern concept of the "technical virgin". So it's not the origin, but the modern interpretation and use, of the word.

I was under the impression she meant using it to equate not having had sexual relations with being pure. Thereby implying that someone who has had sex is not pure.

 

I'm pretty sure that the people who are concerned with sexual purity do mean that someone who has had extra marital sex is not pure.

 

IMO, it's all opinions and I don't see it as so very disparaging.

[Lovedtodeath]

 

I am not concerned that our conservative views will damage or shame our children (well, sometimes I wonder that but only when I let in the psychology of the current day- the anti Biblical stance of everything being about "me me me" ;)). My goal is not to teach them that they are mini gods and should be treated as such. My goal is to teach them that there is *one* God who they can turn to, and that the best way to live their lives and have a long, happy life, is to follow his commands. They are there for our protection and benefit. I'm sure that DOES sound very offensive and restrictive to those who don't believe, but that's what I believe, and what I feel is most important to teach my children.

You can believe this without shaming your children into never enjoying sex. Their are Bible verses that speak of Isaac and Rebecca enjoying each other as only a husband and wife would, verses about being intoxicated with the wife of your youth, etc.

[Joanne]

I think I know what you are getting at. I have a friend who was terrified on her wedding night b/c she had never even kissed her husband. I don't agree with unsupervised dating that raises the likely-hood of premarital sex, but I don't agree with her situation either.

 

FWIW, I don't think it necessarily raises the likelihood of premarital sex, either.

 

I think the emphasis on sex (or no sex) elevates the topic to an unhealthy status in the whole of human and character development.

[lionfamily1999]

I see what you mean, even if your quote did not come through (Blessed Winter, I think?).

 

There are ways to guide without guilt. You don't have to pc your language to your kids and when teaching them right from wrong, you don't have to add caveats.

 

I was not pure till marraige, but I will (and for dd, have) tell my dcs that sex IN marraige blows extra-marital sex out of the water. Why? Because you know it's okay, it's NOT the wrong thing to do. Dh and I agree, being married means you're more comfortable, trusting, understanding, and relaxed; all those things equal a better bed mate.

[stripe]

I read this book recently Performing virginity and testing chastity in the Middle Ages by Kathleen Coyne Kelly

 

Purity is a specific quality, and something a bit different than virginity. Both are terms that can get a bit hard to define.

 

But I think it's important to realize that loving intimacy within marriage is pure as well, and overemphasizing the sullying nature of intercourse can backfire.

[Lovedtodeath]

FWIW, I don't think it necessarily raises the likelihood of premarital sex, either.

likelihood. LOL I don't have spell check. ;) Thanks.

 

But I think it's important to realize that loving intimacy within marriage is pure as well, and overemphasizing the sullying nature of intercourse can backfire.

:iagree:

[TravelingChris]

We are conservative Christians but so far we have not had any promise ceremonies or anything of that sort with our now adult and two teens. We all get different kids. My older two are introverts who weren't socially outgoing. In particular, with my older daughter, I am not about to go into any promise ring thing or anything like that since she has issues with modesty. Issues like being terrified of surgery not because of cutting but because of not wearing a bra during it. With a child like that, the less I mention purity, chastity or anything like that the better. For a very long time she has been insisting that while she might marry, he better not want her to take off her clothes or have tea. Only just this summer has she stopped adding in the thing about no tea every time she mentions marriage. I don't think she has come arround yet to tea in marriage but I am not about to bring up any talk of purity with her. She has more than enough of that.

 

Our youngest is around girls who talk about boyfriends or wannebe boyfriends but she has expressed no interest yet so no talks with her like that yet either. My oldest was embarassed by the whole idea of purity talks at a previous church.

[Rita]

FWIW, I don't think it necessarily raises the likelihood of premarital sex, either.

 

I think the emphasis on sex (or no sex) elevates the topic to an unhealthy status in the whole of human and character development.

 

Joanne, I see where you are coming from, and agree. We have very dear friends, and their dd got married last year. The mother (and to a lesser extent, the father), emphasized "purity" to such an extent that the poor bride has had some serious issues concerning s3x. Poor child!! I don't want that for my boys. I don't want them sleeping around, but I don't want them to think s3x is bad/dirty/unpure.

As a conservative Christian, I don't think the Lord wants us to view His gift as dirty.

Blessings,

Rita

[theresatwist]

Note pertinent to discussion; I believe in sex and a certain threshold of intimacy without intercourse is Biblically, practically and maturly best enjoyed in committed, healthy, life long relationships. I teach my kids it's best to wait physically and emotionally. I also teach them about sex, intimacy, specific acts I am reasonably certain peers know, sti and birth control.

 

I do not believe in parent imposed or ultra conservative models of courtship although I respect the love and care behind them.

 

The use of the word "pure" with regard to young adults who have not had sex makes me...cringe. IMO, much of the rhetoric and emphasis on sex (even and especially no sex) could easily be counter productive.

 

Sex and the desire for it are natural, God given, wonderful. The desire to mate, to couple, to be in intimate relationship is good! The desire to feel that way in teen years and early adulthood are biologically scripted.

 

I think restricting affection, kissing are....icky. I intellectually understand the "logic" behind it, i just disgree with the restriction.

 

The levels of supervision imposed by parents adopting a conservative model go against what I believe is deveopmentally appropriate for older teens and young adults. It's not a match for the relationship dynamic I believe is best for parent and near adults or early adults.

 

Watching the Very Duggar Wedding, I was not impressed, I was stongly opposed.

 

Sex and sexuality is not a switch you can turn off and on: it's a part of our being, our core, our very selves.compartmentalizing it tends to emphasize it rather than make it part of a whole, full, terrific life.

 

I'd rahter see words such as "kind" "polite" "chivalric" "generous" "helpful". At least they relate to behavior that speaks to character.

 

Not having had sex does not equal pure. It means not having sex and does not confer any additional information about that child or adult.

 

My mom discouraged sex (and even tampon use!) In a way that made me ultimately feel dirty even before I "went there".

 

I don't expect my post to change minds. As I said in another post, believing as I do does not mean I encourage promiscuity.

 

:iagree:I agree completely. I was raised by pretty liberal-minded parents. But as far as sex ed goes I intend to be much more open with my kids than my parent were with me. I don't think sex should be a taboo subject. I think the more information a kid has (I use the word kid, I mean kids ages 12 or 13 and up) the better. I believe you need to know the facts, even the perhaps somewhat uncomfortable ones, to make the best decisions. Obviously, these are just my personal beliefs.

[skaterbabs]

I was under the impression she meant using it to equate not having had sexual relations with being pure. Thereby implying that someone who has had sex is not pure.

 

I'm pretty sure that the people who are concerned with sexual purity do mean that someone who has had extra marital sex is not pure.

 

IMO, it's all opinions and I don't see it as so very disparaging.

 

I think, and again, she may well disagree, is that purity is as much a status of the mind as a status of the body, and there is a large group which considers someone "pure" if they simply remain technical virgins, without true purity of thought and spirit and even body being involved. A couple can refrain from actually "making tea" without staying truly pure in mind and spirit. Remember the old "base" metaphor? Some of them get all the way to third base, but don't get to the "homerun" part and consider themselves virgins. I would go to far as saying personally, I consider anything past "first base" to be impugning the purity of the people involved. Handholding and (light) kissing I don't have issue with. Anything more than that is not okay.

 

I think the emphasis on sex (or no sex) elevates the topic to an unhealthy status in the whole of human and character development.

 

As a conservative Christian, I don't think the Lord wants us to view His gift as dirty.

 

Exactly.

[elizabeth]

Note pertinent to discussion; I believe in sex and a certain threshold of intimacy without intercourse is Biblically, practically and maturly best enjoyed in committed, healthy, life long relationships. I teach my kids it's best to wait physically and emotionally. I also teach them about sex, intimacy, specific acts I am reasonably certain peers know, sti and birth control.

 

I do not believe in parent imposed or ultra conservative models of courtship although I respect the love and care behind them.

 

The use of the word "pure" with regard to young adults who have not had sex makes me...cringe. IMO, much of the rhetoric and emphasis on sex (even and especially no sex) could easily be counter productive.

 

Sex and the desire for it are natural, God given, wonderful. The desire to mate, to couple, to be in intimate relationship is good! The desire to feel that way in teen years and early adulthood are biologically scripted.

 

I think restricting affection, kissing are....icky. I intellectually understand the "logic" behind it, i just disgree with the restriction.

 

The levels of supervision imposed by parents adopting a conservative model go against what I believe is deveopmentally appropriate for older teens and young adults. It's not a match for the relationship dynamic I believe is best for parent and near adults or early adults.

 

Watching the Very Duggar Wedding, I was not impressed, I was stongly opposed.

 

Sex and sexuality is not a switch you can turn off and on: it's a part of our being, our core, our very selves.compartmentalizing it tends to emphasize it rather than make it part of a whole, full, terrific life.

 

I'd rahter see words such as "kind" "polite" "chivalric" "generous" "helpful". At least they relate to behavior that speaks to character.

 

Not having had sex does not equal pure. It means not having sex and does not confer any additional information about that child or adult.

 

My mom discouraged sex (and even tampon use!) In a way that made me ultimately feel dirty even before I "went there".

 

I don't expect my post to change minds. As I said in another post, believing as I do does not mean I encourage promiscuity.

You have stated what I believe far more beautifully than I ever could. Thanks you for sharing your thoughts here .

[Tami]

I'm not sure that I know any Christian women who feel bad about sex. Purity and holiness are inward characteristics, manifest in the way we go about making daily decisions not only about about sexuality, but about treating one another with kindness, and fulfulling our requirements to God. Obedience to God in the sexual arena is an act of worship. One does not need to scratch every itch because we are wired as sexual beings. Studies and polls show over and over again just how active and satisfying Christians find sexual intimacy within our marriages. (Woo hoo and A-men!) The Christian life demands purity and devotion to God, rather than fulfilling the lusts of the flesh.

 

Self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, and is a life-long pursuit that blesses those who acquire it! We could all use a little more of this, especially in this day and age of "I want it NOW!" Parents using Biblical language are not promoting the idea that sex is dirty or that it is bad to be a sexual being. We are teaching stewardship of a very good and precious gift, and the greater lesson is obedience to God, respect for self and others, and delayed gratification.

 

Some scriptures:

 

Matthew 15:18-20

18But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean.'

 

Romans 13:12-14 (New International Version)

12The night is nearly over; the day is almost here. So let us put aside the deeds of darkness and put on the armor of light. 13Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. 14Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

 

1 Corinthians 6:12-14

12"Everything is permissible for me"—but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food"—but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body.

 

# 2 Corinthians 11:2

I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him.

 

Galatians 5:18-20

19The acts of the sinful nature are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions

 

1 Timothy 5:22

Do not be hasty in the laying on of hands, and do not share in the sins of others. Keep yourself pure.

 

2 Timothy 2:22

Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.

 

 

Titus 2:4-6

4Then they can train the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

 

6Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled.

 

Hebrews 13:4

Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.

 

1 John 3:3

Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.

 

 

Revelation 14:4

These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb.

 

 

There are many more, but I have to stop somewhere!:D "Purity" is a Biblical word, and nothing to get wierded out by. A prostitute can be washed white as snow and be "pure." See Hebrews 11 and the story of Rahab, who went on to be included in the geneology of our Lord. If Rahab was not considered "pure," then good Jew would have never married her. Apparently, she WAS "pure" and went on to have children, and even the blessing of being a descendant of the Lord. Also, remember Mary, a sinful woman (prostitute?) who annointed Jesus' feet with her tears. Her repentance made her "pure," and Jesus commended her. There is also Gomer, the Samaritan woman, and on and on.

 

This is not a choice between "pure" or "damaged goods" - that is man's POV. I believe God sees "pure" as devotion and repentance and "defilement" as pride and resistance to Him. It (the word "purity") is not something to get real hung up on, and sexual sin is not the unforgivable sin, after all.

Edited July 18, 2009 by Tami

[OnTheBrink]

As a conservative Christian, I don't think the Lord wants us to view His gift as dirty.

 

 

I completely agree with that. However, His gift has an appropriate context and that's marriage. I don't agree with shaming a child, but I do believe in raising my kids within the parameters of my beliefs, and included in those beliefs is that sexual intimacy is for the marriage bed only.

[lionfamily1999]

I think, and again, she may well disagree, is that purity is as much a status of the mind as a status of the body, and there is a large group which considers someone "pure" if they simply remain technical virgins, without true purity of thought and spirit and even body being involved. A couple can refrain from actually "making tea" without staying truly pure in mind and spirit. Remember the old "base" metaphor? Some of them get all the way to third base, but don't get to the "homerun" part and consider themselves virgins. I would go to far as saying personally, I consider anything past "first base" to be impugning the purity of the people involved. Handholding and (light) kissing I don't have issue with. Anything more than that is not okay.

 

 

I'm sure, most of the purity talk does include a purity of the spirit. When they say sex, they mean more than the bare bones definition. Part of the Christian ideal is a purity of thought and behavior for everyone. Remaining pure for marraige doesn't mean just keeping your hymen, it means refraining from all activities that would call your character into question. IOW, you don't put yourself into a position where people can even THINK you're doing something 'wrong.' So, maybe hand holding and things are okay, possibly even a kiss goodnight, but the purity parents (if you will) that I've read on here, are not giving their kids any chances to make-out, let alone sexual activities that would call their purity of body or mind into question.

[Pamela H in Texas]

I think the emphasis on sex (or no sex) elevates the topic to an unhealthy status in the whole of human and character development.

 

I don't think that IS the emphasis for most of us. I think that "sex within marriage" is a nice side effect to living with a healthy respect for God, his principles and his guidance.

 

I think most of it is discussed just as clothing and food choices, alcohol consumption, tv show choice, hair styles, and color of bedspreads.

 

Everything doesn't have to be a big deal all along the way. It just is natural and easy going for the most part.

 

I'm not sure that there is a way to discuss it, including strong viewpoints based on scripture, that can make it seem as little stressed out as it really is though. It's kinda like discipline topics, vaccination topics, halloween/santa claus topics, etc. Most of it is barely a blip on our radars, if that, on a day to day basis assuming we're pretty comfy with our stand. But if we discuss it, we can write 6 book-long posts with several scriptural and other writing citings as necessary challenging various positions, strongly stating our own, etc.

 

BTW, I'm sure there ARE people that take this all to an extreme that is unhealthy. I'm more than positive there are those that stress something awful, make sex to be dirty, etc. It's sad when people twist scripture to make their own lives (and those of their children) miserable. I think it's equally as sad when people decide to be misled to the opposite direction in order not to fall into that mistake though. We get undisciplined kids because people are afraid of being abusive like the Pearls. We get parents that won't joke with their kids because it requires being less than perfectly honest or correct in speech (so wouldn't say they forgot to buy a gift for a certain occasion or use sarcasm to tease). And then we have some people who won't encourage upholding God's standard for sex to their children because some people miss the boat making sex "bad."

 

There is no reason, imo, to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can choose to not beat your kids but still discipline appropriately. You can tease your kid or joke about forgetting to buy their favorite breakfast cereal without being a liar. You can uphold God's standards without being stuffy.

Edited July 19, 2009 by 2J5M9K

[skaterbabs]

I'm sure, most of the purity talk does include a purity of the spirit. When they say sex, they mean more than the bare bones definition. Part of the Christian ideal is a purity of thought and behavior for everyone. Remaining pure for marraige doesn't mean just keeping your hymen, it means refraining from all activities that would call your character into question. IOW, you don't put yourself into a position where people can even THINK you're doing something 'wrong.' So, maybe hand holding and things are okay, possibly even a kiss goodnight, but the purity parents (if you will) that I've read on here, are not giving their kids any chances to make-out, let alone sexual activities that would call their purity of body or mind into question.

 

 

I think you're correct on what the INTENTION is, but I also think the practice tends to fall short, partly because children are often not taught that sex is physically more than ONLY that final act.

[lionfamily1999]

I think you're correct on what the INTENTION is, but I also think the practice tends to fall short, partly because children are often not taught that sex is physically more than ONLY that final act.

The girls I knew who did that, knew very well what they were doing and the hypocrasy of it. That being said, just because some may follow the letter of the law and ignore the spirit of it doesn't mean other people are wrong to use that word to describe it.

[Karenciavo]

If it is about "being bothered" in a world of relative truth ("whatever works for you") then no one on this thread is wrong. Relative truth submits to the individual.

 

But if there is absolute truth--that is, truth not defined by one's own perceptions and feelings--then there's room for discussion because words mean things and it's not just a personal definition so that it all works for me. If there is absolute truth, then I must submit myself to it, not the other way around.

 

And there's the rub.

 

My point is this: if it's all relative, the words don't mean anything anyway, and there's not much room for discussion, and it's not going to make anyone change. It's serial opinion posting.

 

:thumbup1:

[Jackie in AR]

If it is about "being bothered" in a world of relative truth ("whatever works for you") then no one on this thread is wrong. Relative truth submits to the individual.

 

But if there is absolute truth--that is, truth not defined by one's own perceptions and feelings--then there's room for discussion because words mean things and it's not just a personal definition so that it all works for me. If there is absolute truth, then I must submit myself to it, not the other way around.

 

My point is this: if it's all relative, the words don't mean anything anyway, and there's not much room for discussion, and it's not going to make anyone change. It's serial opinion posting.

 

Great post, Patty.

[sassenach]

If it is about "being bothered" in a world of relative truth ("whatever works for you") then no one on this thread is wrong. Relative truth submits to the individual.

 

But if there is absolute truth--that is, truth not defined by one's own perceptions and feelings--then there's room for discussion because words mean things and it's not just a personal definition so that it all works for me. If there is absolute truth, then I must submit myself to it, not the other way around.

 

My point is this: if it's all relative, the words don't mean anything anyway, and there's not much room for discussion, and it's not going to make anyone change. It's serial opinion posting.

 

Fantastically said. Thanks for this post.

[Perry]

 

My point is this: if it's all relative, the words don't mean anything anyway, and there's not much room for discussion, and it's not going to make anyone change. It's serial opinion posting.

 

Then why bother discussing anything?

 

I actually get a great deal out of hearing other opinions. It doesn't necessarily change my mind, but I've definitely adjusted my thinking many times from hearing other perspectives.

[skaterbabs]

The girls I knew who did that, knew very well what they were doing and the hypocrasy of it. That being said, just because some may follow the letter of the law and ignore the spirit of it doesn't mean other people are wrong to use that word to describe it.

 

 

I don't disagree, I just think we need to be careful to be very specific with our meaning.

[Peek a Boo]

I think the emphasis on sex (or no sex) elevates the topic to an unhealthy status in the whole of human and character development.

I think the UNHEALTHY emphasis on sex (or no sex) elevates the topic to an unhealthy status in the whole of human and character development.

 

emphasis itself is not the problem.

 

I have noticed that when it comes to words like theory, design, submit, and pure we tend to assume our own definitions and apply them across the spectrum.

 

and we'd probably disagree on what constitutes "unhealthy." ;)

I take great comfort in knowing that. :D

 

 

but i think Pamela, Tami, and others have already nailed my own views, so I'll save myself a buncha typing, lol.....

[Jill- OK]

I'm not sure that I know any Christian women who feel bad about sex..

 

Me, either. (Grin)

 

"Purity" is a Biblical word, and nothing to get wierded out by.

 

This is not a choice between "pure" or "damaged goods" - that is man's POV. I believe God sees "pure" as devotion and repentance and "defilement" as pride and resistance to Him. It (the word "purity") is not something to get real hung up on, and sexual sin is not the unforgivable sin, after all.

 

I agree.

[Peek a Boo]

Then why bother discussing anything?

 

I actually get a great deal out of hearing other opinions. It doesn't necessarily change my mind, but I've definitely adjusted my thinking many times from hearing other perspectives.

 

me too.

But I think the discussion is more fruitful when we define our terms first and understand that our definition doesn't necessarily apply to how another poster is using it. When we assume our own definitions and perceptions of a word on another poster's opinions, we make our statements wrong and misrepresent what other posters are actually saying.

[Jill- OK]

I think the reason you see the word "pure" is because it is a Biblical word. Titus 2:5 admonishes the older women to teach the younger women "to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored." It is also translated "chaste" in the KJ & NKJ. If you check a definition of these words, chaste & pure, you will see that both have references to being "innocent of unlawful sexual intercourse", (this, as the M-W dictionary defines "chaste", a listed synonym of "pure").

 

I know you are in the camp that chooses not to read the Word of God as literal, but there are many of us who do. Since, then, "pure" is an agreed-upon translation for the original Greek word in the text, it makes sense to use it in this context.

 

Biblically-speaking, not having sex outside of marriage does equal pure. It does give additional information about the person: that they have not given into lust. Of course, for those who consider the Bible to be full of nothing but words (not you, specifically) there will be no impetus to follow them. But for those of us who consider them the very breathed words of the God of the Universe, we will, with the Spirit's help, strive to uphold them, live them out, and teach them diligently to our children.

 

:iagree:

 

I'll just add that it means pure with regards to this subject. It doesn't make the person a Super Christian...it just means they've stayed "pure" in this area.

[Audrey]

Note pertinent to discussion; I believe in sex and a certain threshold of intimacy without intercourse is Biblically, practically and maturly best enjoyed in committed, healthy, life long relationships. I teach my kids it's best to wait physically and emotionally. I also teach them about sex, intimacy, specific acts I am reasonably certain peers know, sti and birth control.

 

I do not believe in parent imposed or ultra conservative models of courtship although I respect the love and care behind them.

 

The use of the word "pure" with regard to young adults who have not had sex makes me...cringe. IMO, much of the rhetoric and emphasis on sex (even and especially no sex) could easily be counter productive.

 

Sex and the desire for it are natural, God given, wonderful. The desire to mate, to couple, to be in intimate relationship is good! The desire to feel that way in teen years and early adulthood are biologically scripted.

 

I think restricting affection, kissing are....icky. I intellectually understand the "logic" behind it, i just disgree with the restriction.

 

The levels of supervision imposed by parents adopting a conservative model go against what I believe is deveopmentally appropriate for older teens and young adults. It's not a match for the relationship dynamic I believe is best for parent and near adults or early adults.

 

Watching the Very Duggar Wedding, I was not impressed, I was stongly opposed.

 

Sex and sexuality is not a switch you can turn off and on: it's a part of our being, our core, our very selves.compartmentalizing it tends to emphasize it rather than make it part of a whole, full, terrific life.

 

I'd rahter see words such as "kind" "polite" "chivalric" "generous" "helpful". At least they relate to behavior that speaks to character.

 

Not having had sex does not equal pure. It means not having sex and does not confer any additional information about that child or adult.

 

My mom discouraged sex (and even tampon use!) In a way that made me ultimately feel dirty even before I "went there".

 

I don't expect my post to change minds. As I said in another post, believing as I do does not mean I encourage promiscuity.

 

 

I don't disagree with anything you've said here.

 

I find the whole ritualization that has sprung up surrounding virginity in certain circles to be creepy at best.

[Joanne]

I think the UNHEALTHY emphasis on sex (or no sex) elevates the topic to an unhealthy status in the whole of human and character development.

 

emphasis itself is not the problem.

 

.

 

 

 

.

 

This I can wholeheartedly agree with. Good distinction you've made to my words.

 

(1)and we'd probably disagree on what constitutes "unhealthy." ;)

(2)I take great comfort in knowing that. :D

 

1) No necessarily; you might well be surprised.

2) That was not a necessary comment.

[Jill- OK]

I don't think that IS the emphasis for most of us. I think that "sex within marriage" is a nice side effect to living with a healthy respect for God, his principles and his guidance.

 

I think most of it is discussed just as clothing and food choices, alcohol consumption, tv show choice, hair styles, and color of bedspreads.

 

Everything doesn't have to be a big deal all along the way. It just is natural and easy going for the most part.

 

I'm not sure that there is a way to discuss it, including strong viewpoints based on scripture, that can make it seem as little stressed out as it really is though. It's kinda like discipline topics, vaccination topics, halloween/santa claus topics, etc. Most of it is barely a blip on our radars, if that, on a day to day basis assuming we're pretty comfy with our stand. But if we discuss it, we can write 6 book-long posts with several scriptural and other writing citings as necessary challenging various positions, strongly stating our own, etc.

 

BTW, I'm sure there ARE people that take this all to an extreme that is unhealthy. I'm more than positive there are those that stress something awful, make sex to be dirty, etc. It's sad when people twist scripture to make their own lives (and those of their children) miserable. I think it's equally as sad when people decide to be misled to the opposite direction in order not to fall into that mistake though. We get undisciplined kids because people are afraid of being abusive like the Pearls. We get parents that won't joke with their kids because it requires being less than perfectly honest or correct in speech (so wouldn't say they forgot to buy a gift for a certain occasion or use sarcasm to tease). And then we have some people who won't encourage upholding God's standard for sex to their children because some people miss the boat making sex "bad."

 

There is no reason, imo, to throw the baby out with the bathwater. You can choose to not beat your kids but still discipline appropriately. You can tease your kid or joke about forgetting to buy their favorite breakfast cereal without being a liar. You can uphold God's standards without being stuffy.

 

:iagree:

 

I think folks would be surprised at the variety amongst "parents adopting a conservative model".

[Joanne]

I don't disagree with anything you've said here.

 

I find the whole ritualization that has sprung up surrounding virginity in certain circles to be creepy at best.

 

Ding, ding, ding!

 

That's it! It's the *extra*Biblical, ritualization and even cultishness around the purity trend that icks me out.

 

I believe in teaching my children to wait according to God's word. I wouldn't want them, however, over supervised as older teens/young adults. And I'd want them to have *kissed* their groom or bride before the wedding.

[Joanne]

I think folks would be surprised at the variety amongst "parents who adopt a more conservative model".

__________________

 

Possibly. As the OP, however, I am aware of the wide spectrum represented in the conservative model. I don't choose or believe in courtship but I certainly don't believe every manifestation of it is unhealthy, detrimental or of concern.

[Joanne]

To those who have offered the scripture based reasons the word "pure" is used when discussing sexuality, marriage, and young adults, I understand. I think the word and idea has been coopted by extremes in the courtship model; but I do understand the word itself was taken from Holy Scripture.

[Jill- OK]

Possibly. As the OP, however, I am aware of the wide spectrum represented in the conservative model. I don't choose or believe in courtship but I certainly don't believe every manifestation of it is unhealthy, detrimental or of concern.

 

I don't choose "courtship", either. Your OP seems to group all "conservative models" together, however, regardless of whether they're defined as "courtship" or not.

[Nakia]

I don't disagree with anything you've said here.

 

I find the whole ritualization that has sprung up surrounding virginity in certain circles to be creepy at best.

 

Ding, ding, ding!

 

That's it! It's the *extra*Biblical, ritualization and even cultishness around the purity trend that icks me out.

 

I believe in teaching my children to wait according to God's word. I wouldn't want them, however, over supervised as older teens/young adults. And I'd want them to have *kissed* their groom or bride before the wedding.

 

 

I agree with you both on this!!!

[Marylou]

And I'd want them to have *kissed* their groom or bride before the wedding.

 

 

Why? :bigear:

[Joanne]

I don't choose "courtship", either. Your OP seems to group all "conservative models" together, however, regardless of whether they're defined as "courtship" or not.

 

Thanks for pointing that out; that was not my intention. I've posted previously about the topic, however, making it clear that I do know not all courtship/purity/conservative models are the same.

 

Honestly, I consider my model conservative!

[Joanne]

Why? :bigear:

 

I believe that Brides and Grooms should be passionately in love; wanting each other and have celebrated that reality before the wedding with affection and kisses.

 

I think it's normal, natural and even Biblical to be affectionate and even *alone* before marriage. That is probably also influenced by the fact that I believe people should be adults and independent before marriage. ;)

[amy g.]

I had never heard of the courtship model before I was married, however, I saw enough promiscuous dating and miserable marriages to know what I did NOT want.

 

Dh and I wanted a marriage based on love and respect and common goals rather than physical attraction. We were both 25 and had been friends for 8 years then engaged for 13 months.

 

Our first kiss was at our wedding. 17 years later, I have yet to meet anyone with a marriage as happy and stable and mutually fulfilling as ours has been.

 

I just mention this because I don't think not kissing prior to marriage means that something is weird or awkward.

 

I'm not pushing my own children to follow in our footsteps, but I will not be concerned if they decide on their own to take a similar route to marriage.

[lionfamily1999]

I believe that Brides and Grooms should be passionately in love; wanting each other and have celebrated that reality before the wedding with affection and kisses.

 

I think it's normal, natural and even Biblical to be affectionate and even *alone* before marriage. That is probably also influenced by the fact that I believe people should be adults and independent before marriage. ;)

I'm just curious of where you're coming from with the idea that it's Biblical to be affectionate before marraige.

 

Sex is normal and natural, but whether or not it's healthy, outside of the bonds of marraige is not necessarily true.

[Marylou]

I believe that Brides and Grooms should be passionately in love; wanting each other and have celebrated that reality before the wedding with affection and kisses.

 

I think it's normal, natural and even Biblical to be affectionate and even *alone* before marriage. That is probably also influenced by the fact that I believe people should be adults and independent before marriage. ;)

 

Wow! My fiance and I were passionately in love before we married, still are. And to tell you the truth, if we had spent that kind of "alone" time you're advocating, I most likely would have been shopping for maternity clothes instead of a white wedding gown.

 

Thanks for answering.

[Joanne]

Wow! My fiance and I were passionately in love before we married, still are. And to tell you the truth, if we had spent that kind of "alone" time you're advocating, I most likely would have been shopping for maternity clothes instead of a white wedding gown.

 

Thanks for answering.

 

Um. You've assumed quite a bit about my perspective from my post. It seems inaccurately so.

 

Have you even read my perspective and what I teach my children?

[Joanne]

I'm just curious of where you're coming from with the idea that it's Biblical to be affectionate before marraige.

 

Sex is normal and natural, but whether or not it's healthy, outside of the bonds of marraige is not necessarily true.

__________________

 

1) I'm not advocating for sex outside of marriage. I don't consider kissing "sex", however.

 

2) I do not see restrictions on normal affection before marriage in the Bible. I think this is one area where some courtship models move into ritualism and *extra*Biblical areas.