Interesting Piece about Abstinence and the Purity Movement

[justamouse]

Ok, another question....if you knew he was the one.....and you were evenly yoked...what kept you from getting married, say in the summer (before you got pregnant!). I am asking serious questions....there is no snark here at all.

 

(I met my dh last August 15 and we were married almost 11 weeks later. :tongue_smilie:)

 

Our families thinking we were insane. And My Dh is THE epitome of prudence, so they thought he was off his rocker.

 

I mean, at the end of the first date-on the way TO dinner, we both knew. We just knew. It was scary as anything. But beyond my fear, I had such a knowing.

 

His family was highly disappointed in his choice. I didn't have much of a relationship with my parents at the time, and us wanting to marry sent my parents in a loop de loo. I have promised myself that I would never, ever, do the same to my children.

 

At this point, I'm not worried about my kids. They have the most incredible father ever. He is an example of how to be a man and treat a woman. I do my best to be a good example. We have high expectations of them. They love God, love church and hopefully, as they get old, will have a love of the sacraments that will help them walk through any rough patches. At this point, they ASK to go to mass every day, which is not saying that they love 'religion' but that they are forming their OWN relationship with God. They are surrounded with passionate people of chastity who are examples to them, also (priests, nuns and novitiates, who they are in contact with all the time.)

 

It's not about ME, it's about their relationship with God-which excludes ME.

Edited September 29, 2011 by justamouse

[Veritaserum]

The imagery of the cliff? What MY youth pastor did with us that was VERY effective, at least in my own case. I did not find it scary or something to make SEX a terrible thing. Rather, it was a warning of how easy it was to fall when one was not careful and how you needed to-pre-consider what you would do to have a chance to be successful because decisions made "in the moment" are not the best. All of such examples can be torn apart if you take them further than what they are intended to teach. This imagery worked for me, at this point in my life. "Loading zone at an amusement park" would not. I WANTED to go to amusement parks and ride the rides! There is no reason to avoid that loading zone. There are many reasons to avoid sex outside of the will of God. No one ever said it would cause us to DIE. (well, no more than any other sin. Though note that some sexually transmitted diseases ARE deadly)

 

But then I'm not a risk-taker either.

 

The apology is to God. Not to me. But if they came to me, I'd treat it just as if they came to me asking about other sins. I was actually thinking of younger though -- premarital sex at 15 or 16, when they are still under my roof and may even be coming to me in fear they are pregnant/etc.

 

Nm. Stepping out of this thread now. I think I've reached the end of what I can contribute.

 

Well, when I was in high school I wanted to have sex, so the ride analogy makes far more sense to me than the cliff one. I have no interest in ever falling off a cliff :) I didn't have sex before marriage even though I had many opportunities to do so because I knew that God wanted me not to. I was able to resist my hormonal urges because of my faith that I had good reasons to wait.

 

Talking about a cliff feels hyperbolic and most kids seem to discount everything an adult says if they detect exaggerated warnings. They also won't come and talk about problems to the adult who gave the hyperbolic warnings since they discount what that adult has to say. It's why I never talked to my mom about anything important.

[YLVD]

:iagree: I think it does young people a great disservice to be given selective information about sex.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm also probably a freak on the boards but I don't want my DD to wait for marriage. IME, when people do that, they tend to marry earlier, along with other things. I'm not totally against young marriage but I think that kids that wait are more likely to rush in.

 

I want her to wait until she is an adult, if possible, and with someone that she loves and that respects her. But, I think that sexuality is too important not to explore, even if it is just with the person that she will marry.

 

I'm also not religious, if that wasn't evident, lol

[mytwomonkeys]

i'm teaching my kids to wait. ...(warning TMI)... i wasn't a virgin when i got married. i became a christian in my early 20's & i decided to wait to have sex again until marriage (i was 28 when i got married). most of my friends and sisters thought i was totally insane - as i practiced total abstinence before marriage. it was amazing though, and that commitment has been a blessing to my marriage (of 11 years now).

 

we have a very open dialogue about sex with our kids, at least my daughter & i do (my son has no clue about it really as of yet). sex isn't bad by any means, but i believe it is meant for the context of marriage & i plan to teach my children that.

[Scarlett]

Our families thinking we were insane. And My Dh is THE epitome of prudence, so they thought he was off his rocker.

 

I mean, at the end of the first date-on the way TO dinner, we both knew. We just knew. It was scary as anything. But beyond my fear, I had such a knowing.

 

His family was highly disappointed in his choice. I didn't have much of a relationship with my parents at the time, and us wanting to marry sent my parents in a loop de loo. I have promised myself that I would never, ever, do the same to my children.

 

At this point, I'm not worried about my kids. They have the most incredible father ever. He is an example of how to be a man and treat a woman. I do my best to be a good example. We have high expectations of them. They love God, love church and hopefully, as they get old, will have a love of the sacraments that will help them walk through any rough patches. At this point, they ASK to go to mass every day, which is not saying that they love 'religion' but that they are forming their OWN relationship with God. They are surrounded with passionate people of chastity who are examples to them, also (priests, nuns and novitiates, who they are in contact with all the time.)

 

It's not about ME, it's about their relationship with God-which excludes ME.

 

Thank you. I think your story (anecdotal though it may be) highlights the importance of having family support in our lives.

 

It would seem you and your dh to be would have been better served had you beth been encouraged to marry after dating 6 months---especially with no troubling warning signs and both of you being so sure.

[Rosie_0801]

There's a Christian speaker named Mark Gungor who [allegedly] recommends young marriages. In fairness, my sister was telling me about this and I haven't heard the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of young couples should marry young and explore sexuality together instead of coming into a relationship experienced.

 

 

Dh and I watched one of his seminars. Funny how my ex-Christian hubby didn't believe him and I did.

 

:iagree:

 

I'm also probably a freak on the boards but I don't want my DD to wait for marriage. IME, when people do that, they tend to marry earlier, along with other things. I'm not totally against young marriage but I think that kids that wait are more likely to rush in.

 

I want her to wait until she is an adult, if possible, and with someone that she loves and that respects her. But, I think that sexuality is too important not to explore, even if it is just with the person that she will marry.

 

I'm also not religious, if that wasn't evident, lol

 

I'm neither religious nor married, but I've come to the conclusion that marrying fairly early is not a bad idea and that my mother was right about the sex before marriage thing. :lol: Her reasons were incomplete, but the conclusion was right.

 

Rosie

[PeacefulChaos]

I am one of the people that a PP mentioned in that, to me, four partners sounds like a lot. I can't even imagine it.

I'm 100% for abstinence until marriage. I don't believe that people should try things out ahead of time for any reason, but that it is an important part of ourselves that we need not be sharing with just anyone with whom the passion may arise. I'm not opposed to young marriages (when DH and I married, we were 21 and 18, respectively), though I do believe that it is possible to remain pure until marriage at whatever age. I don't believe it is easy. I don't think that current culture makes correct assumptions at all when they say that teenagers and young adults literally can't not have s*x. I think that's baloney. Nothing is impossible.

As far as getting married younger in Biblical times, that is true. At the same time, we aren't really doing our children/teenagers in America any favors by letting them remain children until they are 22, either - paying their way for everything under the sun until they graduate college, etc. I'm not saying the two things are related. But it is interesting to consider that this one thing - age - is something that some people will try to fall back on as 'why' teenagers and young adults can't live up to expectations on purity until marriage. Well, in Bible times, they got married earlier, so the temptation wasn't there for as long, etc. But they were also adults at that time. When a girl got married, she became the woman of the house. Things were a lot different in a LOT of ways, so I doubt there is much comparison to be made between a 14 year old girl in Bible times and today, regarding maturity in all aspects, most likely. (NOT saying 14 year olds need to get married. 18 is quite young enough, thank you! :lol: )

One thing that I'm also questioning is the group of 'young adults' that they surveyed for this article... have all of them been Christians for a long time? Or are they new converts? Was their s*xual experience(s) before or after coming to Christ? I'm not saying anything bad either way, but it is something to consider, imo.

I do believe that someone who makes a mistake and loses their virginity before marriage can STILL be pure when they have asked God's forgiveness. Then, the only forgiveness they have left to wrestle with is their own. But I'm not one of those who looks at girls who have been m*l*sted, etc, and consider them impure. Not at all. It breaks my heart when they say they feel like they are ruined. :(

Anyway, that's my opinion...

[Joanne]

:iagree:

 

I'm also probably a freak on the boards but I don't want my DD to wait for marriage. IME, when people do that, they tend to marry earlier, along with other things. I'm not totally against young marriage but I think that kids that wait are more likely to rush in.

 

I want her to wait until she is an adult, if possible, and with someone that she loves and that respects her. But, I think that sexuality is too important not to explore, even if it is just with the person that she will marry.

 

I'm also not religious, if that wasn't evident, lol

 

:iagree: This except that every bone in my body is spiritual, I am spiritual minded and consider myself a Christian.

 

I find the "purity movement" and related products, ceremonies, accoutraments, and rhetoric to be silly (at best) and sick (at worst). I think it elevates SEX to obscene levels and downplays *intimacy*. I think in many cases, it's a symptom of church-sanctioned misogyny.

 

I don't believe young marriage for Western culture is prudent, and I don't believe God expects "us" to wait until marriage given our current cultural context.

 

I hate the assumption that not waiting = promiscuity as if the extremes are the only choices.

 

*My* God doesn't set people up for a decade long physical test in which their bodies and soul wish to connect, but God expects you to wait.

 

I've told my kids that I did not wait until marriage, but I wish I had waited *longer*. That's the truth. I've told them I know what they will hear in the church we/they attend, and how I feel about it. I've told them I'd prefer they all wait (longer) but if they do become active, to be responsible, and I will help them with that. By responsible, I mean much more than birth control.

[Free]

I know everybody here is approaching this from a Christian and a Western cultural perspective and it is interesting to me to see the push for earlier marriage among some.

 

Coming from India, where we already have early marriages, where most young people already do abstain before marriage and where many do actually end up getting married so that they can finally become active, I have the opposite view.

 

Sexual and emotional abuse of women is rampant here. Most women are married before they become financially or emotionally independent, before they have known a world outside the home. I do not therefore see early marriage as either desirable or healthy because the chance that it will lead to a co-dependent relationship is high.

 

True marriage helps growth and emotional maturity, but so does being in any committed relationship. If and when the two parties realize how incompatible they really are, is there an out from a marriage? What if by this time kids are involved?

 

To me the idea that young people are capable of making a promise that is supposed to last a lifetime before they have even had time to understand themselves is disturbing.

[Rosie_0801]

I don't believe young marriage for Western culture is prudent, and I don't believe God expects "us" to wait until marriage given our current cultural context.

 

I wonder how the two could compromise. I also wonder whether it would be easier to find compromises here than in the US because of our different social security system.

 

My teen years weren't arranged to encourage much in the way of maturation, but my kids won't be spending most of their time in a room with the same twenty kids so their situations will be different. One can move out with a spouse just as well as without. A spouse doesn't prevent a person studying, working or travelling either. The only thing I can think of that a spouse gets in the way of is dating! (Which isn't necessarily much fun anyway.)

 

Just pondering...

 

Rosie

[amey311]

One thing that I'm also questioning is the group of 'young adults' that they surveyed for this article... have all of them been Christians for a long time? Or are they new converts? Was their s*xual experience(s) before or after coming to Christ? I'm not saying anything bad either way, but it is something to consider, imo.

 

 

FWIW, I was a church attending, God-believing Christian when i started having sex (while I was still in high school). I was more of a Sunday Christian, though, I suppose - at least that's how I'm sure many on this board would explain it. I wasn't "on fire for the Lord" or "Born again" or evangelical or anything. I went to church on Sunday, bell choir practice mid-week, youth group (run by our only pastor and his wife) Sunday evenings. I have had multiple partners.

 

I don't think 4 seems like a lot if you're looking at someone who's unmarried and 25. You could have 1-2 long term relationships in college, and another 2 after college. Maybe it takes a year or 18 months to realize that even if you think He's fantastic, maybe he doesn't think you are. Who knows. I don't think 4 seems that excessive.

[WishboneDawn]

I know everybody here is approaching this from a Christian and a Western cultural perspective and it is interesting to me to see the push for earlier marriage among some.

 

Coming from India, where we already have early marriages, where most young people already do abstain before marriage and where many do actually end up getting married so that they can finally become active, I have the opposite view.

 

Sexual and emotional abuse of women is rampant here. Most women are married before they become financially or emotionally independent, before they have known a world outside the home. I do not therefore see early marriage as either desirable or healthy because the chance that it will lead to a co-dependent relationship is high.

 

True marriage helps growth and emotional maturity, but so does being in any committed relationship. If and when the two parties realize how incompatible they really are, is there an out from a marriage? What if by this time kids are involved?

 

To me the idea that young people are capable of making a promise that is supposed to last a lifetime before they have even had time to understand themselves is disturbing.

 

Excellent post.

[Mama Geek]

I know everybody here is approaching this from a Christian and a Western cultural perspective and it is interesting to me to see the push for earlier marriage among some.

 

Coming from India, where we already have early marriages, where most young people already do abstain before marriage and where many do actually end up getting married so that they can finally become active, I have the opposite view.

 

I don't think that most young people here get married just to become sexually active.

 

Sexual and emotional abuse of women is rampant here. Most women are married before they become financially or emotionally independent, before they have known a world outside the home. I do not therefore see early marriage as either desirable or healthy because the chance that it will lead to a co-dependent relationship is high.

 

Sexual and emotional abuse is rampant in this country and occurs whether a couple is married or not. Those abused as children are more significantly more likely to be abusers or abused as adults. This is in no way a result of early marriage. If you want to be emotionally independent, you should probably not get married. I depend on my dh for so much and he depends on me to the point that neither of us can begin to conceive of life without each other. We each make the other better. He is the one providing for our family now. I trust that he will not leave the marriage and that he will stay committed to my dd and me.

 

True marriage helps growth and emotional maturity, but so does being in any committed relationship. If and when the two parties realize how incompatible they really are, is there an out from a marriage? What if by this time kids are involved?

 

Marriage is supposed to be forever. Incompatibility is not a good reason for a divorce. Abuse is, but not incompatibility. I think it is a parents job to teach kids the skills necessary to pick a good spouse and how to be a good spouse and parent.

 

Kids can and do happen outside of marriage all the time. Do you really think they have it better from than kids with their mom and dad being married and doing all they can to make the marriage work?

 

To me the idea that young people are capable of making a promise that is supposed to last a lifetime before they have even had time to understand themselves is disturbing.

 

If they are old enough to deal with the consequences of having sex then yes they are old enough to make a promise to last a lifetime. Having kids is a lifetime commitment.

 

Having multiple partners doesn't make you a stronger, more independent person. Every time you change partners there is damage done to your emotional health. If you are either a Christian or a Jew there are also major spiritual issues to deal with as well.

 

I realize that different cultures treat women differently and that we have it pretty good here in the good old US of A. I really don't think that getting married at a young age is the cause for women being treated poorly in India.

[catz]

:iagree:

 

I'm also probably a freak on the boards but I don't want my DD to wait for marriage. IME, when people do that, they tend to marry earlier, along with other things. I'm not totally against young marriage but I think that kids that wait are more likely to rush in.

 

I want her to wait until she is an adult, if possible, and with someone that she loves and that respects her. But, I think that sexuality is too important not to explore, even if it is just with the person that she will marry.

 

I'm also not religious, if that wasn't evident, lol

 

:iagree: Right there with you. I guess I'd rather have my kids comfortable and responsibly exploring their sexuality as young adults and wait for marriage until they are really ready. I think early marriage *can* be fine for some, but statistically, your odds of success when marrying under age 25 are just lower. And coincidentally, I went to a seminar on gender based learning and brain development recently and there are studies out that show the male brain doesn't completely mature until age 25.

 

Not to out myself, but I fall pretty close to average for partners. Every man I was with, I thought could be the one and dated over a year. I married at age 29. I have ZERO regrets about my path.

[Heather in Neverland]

If they are old enough to deal with the consequences of having sex then yes they are old enough to make a promise to last a lifetime. Having kids is a lifetime commitment.

 

Having multiple partners doesn't make you a stronger, more independent person. Every time you change partners there is damage done to your emotional health. If you are either a Christian or a Jew there are also major spiritual issues to deal with as well.

 

I realize that different cultures treat women differently and that we have it pretty good here in the good old US of A. I really don't think that getting married at a young age is the cause for women being treated poorly in India.

 

:iagree::iagree:

[Ipsey]

If they are old enough to deal with the consequences of having sex then yes they are old enough to make a promise to last a lifetime. Having kids is a lifetime commitment.

 

 

Disagree.

One does not have to equate sex with children. There are all sort of sex acts that end in the same result (org*sm) which don't typically end in pregnancy.

 

Claiming that sex must come with the consequence of potentially having children excludes all other forms of hetero (and homosexual) sex. I can safely assume, I think, that you are against all forms of sexual expression between unmarrieds, so that quickly undermines your no-sex-until-you're-ready for-children rationale.

[Free]

I don't think that most young people here get married just to become sexually active.

 

No perhaps not exclusively to become sexually active. But this does unconsciously weigh in their minds. You will not find people claiming that they got married so that they could have s@x. Nobody really thinks that. But with an abstinence before marriage culture that we have at least in India, it is not uncommon for early marriages to take place precisely because parents want to avoid any "sexual misconduct". (Many marriages are arranged by parents here.) Even with the greater freedom that people have in the west of choosing when they want to get married and to whom, expecting abstinence would I imagine exert an influence in the marriage decision.

 

Sexual and emotional abuse is rampant in this country and occurs whether a couple is married or not. Those abused as children are more significantly more likely to be abusers or abused as adults. This is in no way a result of early marriage.

 

My point was not that abuse is the result of early marriage. What I was trying to say was that when a young woman who is not capable of taking care of herself emotionally, finds herself in an abusive marriage, very often she is incapable of even recognizing the abuse leave alone dealing with it. Early marriage in this case can be devastating.

 

If you want to be emotionally independent, you should probably not get married. I depend on my dh for so much and he depends on me to the point that neither of us can begin to conceive of life without each other. We each make the other better. He is the one providing for our family now. I trust that he will not leave the marriage and that he will stay committed to my dd and me.

 

Yours sounds like a wonderful marriage. Emotionally independent is when you derive your sense of worth from within and codependent is when a person with low self esteem needs to find validation from outside. I do not think you and I are talking of the same thing here.

 

Marriage is supposed to be forever. Incompatibility is not a good reason for a divorce. Abuse is, but not incompatibility.

 

I generally agree that if people make a promise, they should keep it. However I also strongly believe that marriage should be based on strong compatibility. I am not talking about shared taste in food or movies or music but instead of shared values and common purpose. And this is the reason I feel young people are not ready to make a lifelong commitment based on mutual compatibility.

 

I think it is a parents job to teach kids the skills necessary to pick a good spouse and how to be a good spouse and parent.

 

In an ideal world all parents would raise perfect kids so that by the time they are 18 they would be mature, emotionally secure and with a high sense of self worth. They would be capable of choosing their mate based on true friendship and unconditional love. That would be wonderful indeed, but who are we kidding?

 

Kids can and do happen outside of marriage all the time. Do you really think they have it better from than kids with their mom and dad being married and doing all they can to make the marriage work?

 

No you are right. I agree with this.

 

If they are old enough to deal with the consequences of having sex then yes they are old enough to make a promise to last a lifetime. Having kids is a lifetime commitment.

 

The age of sexual consent is 16 in some places. Sexual maturity has nothing to do with emotional maturity. I know there are several cultures where people especially girls marry pretty early. I suppose this helps in "avoiding temptation". But such thinking has nothing to do with a healthy marriage (or indeed even a healthy society).

 

Having multiple partners doesn't make you a stronger, more independent person. Every time you change partners there is damage done to your emotional health. If you are either a Christian or a Jew there are also major spiritual issues to deal with as well.

 

I do not advocate indiscriminate sleeping around either.

 

I realize that different cultures treat women differently and that we have it pretty good here in the good old US of A. I really don't think that getting married at a young age is the cause for women being treated poorly in India.

 

I have seen myself in several instances, the ill effects of early marriages especially on women. But you are right - the real cause is that the dice is already heavily loaded against women in our society here, which makes marriage seem a burden to many women. Perhaps the pendulum has swung the opposite end in the US and now people are trying to reach somewhere in the middle.

 

.

[Joanne]

If they are old enough to deal with the consequences of having sex then yes they are old enough to make a promise to last a lifetime. Having kids is a lifetime commitment.

 

Having multiple partners doesn't make you a stronger, more independent person. Every time you change partners there is damage done to your emotional health. If you are either a Christian or a Jew there are also major spiritual issues to deal with as well.

 

I realize that different cultures treat women differently and that we have it pretty good here in the good old US of A. I really don't think that getting married at a young age is the cause for women being treated poorly in India.

 

I don't concur with your assertions or conclusions. I don't agree that changing sexual partners = damage. I don't agree that sex outside of marriage = major spiritual issues. I get that you do, but they are certainly not *fact*.

 

I agree that sex does not equal maturity; but neither does waiting.

 

The assertion that minors should wait for sex, dating, or intimacy until they were ready for marriage and family has always been a fail for me. Developmentally, teens and young adults are clearly made to participate in courting/mating behavior.

 

Look, I respect your opinion. I totally get the love and care behind it. I get the reverence for your understanding of Christianity. But you are operating out of your passionate opinion; not fact.

[Veritaserum]

I don't concur with your assertions or conclusions. I don't agree that changing sexual partners = damage. I don't agree that sex outside of marriage = major spiritual issues. I get that you do, but they are certainly not *fact*.

 

I agree that sex does not equal maturity; but neither does waiting.

 

The assertion that minors should wait for sex, dating, or intimacy until they were ready for marriage and family has always been a fail for me. Developmentally, teens and young adults are clearly made to participate in courting/mating behavior.

 

Look, I respect your opinion. I totally get the love and care behind it. I get the reverence for your understanding of Christianity. But you are operating out of your passionate opinion; not fact.

 

While I know that some Christian subgroups advocating abstinence before marriage ALSO advocate courtship/no dating, no college, and living at home, not all do. My church advocates delaying dating until 16 and keeping it more casual and fun until you feel ready to find a marriage partner. My church also strongly encourages all youth, male and female, to pursue higher education.

 

I moved out of my parents' house when I was 17 and moved nearly 1,000 miles away to go to college. I met my husband on my third day of class. We became friends. We both dated other people (and not each other) until I was 18.5. At that point we realized that we wanted to date each other. After six months of dating and three months of engagement, we got married when I was 19. We continued going to school. Dh got a great job. I had our first baby and graduated when she was a year old. I have pursued my own interests and career with dh's full support and encouragement.

 

Dh and I have been married for 12.5 years. Our long friendship before dating taught us that we share common values and beliefs, which we both knew were important for a successful marriage. I don't feel unusual for realizing this at 17. It was why I broke up with my high school boyfriend. I knew it couldn't work longterm with him because our beliefs and goals were too different. My church's philosophy and teachings on dating/marriage include counsel to look for fundamental compatibility of beliefs, values, and life goals. My parents were not at all involved in my decision to marry at 19 (my mom was 24 when she got married), but they supported me.

 

Early marriage can be the right choice sometimes and can have nothing to do with patriarchy or oppression of women. :)

[Scarlett]

If they are old enough to deal with the consequences of having sex then yes they are old enough to make a promise to last a lifetime. Having kids is a lifetime commitment.

 

Having multiple partners doesn't make you a stronger, more independent person. Every time you change partners there is damage done to your emotional health. If you are either a Christian or a Jew there are also major spiritual issues to deal with as well.

 

I realize that different cultures treat women differently and that we have it pretty good here in the good old US of A. I really don't think that getting married at a young age is the cause for women being treated poorly in India.

 

 

As usual MamaGeek, :iagree: with you completely. Great post.

[Scarlett]

Developmentally, teens and young adults are clearly made to participate in courting/mating behavior.

 

Look, I respect your opinion. I totally get the love and care behind it. I get the reverence for your understanding of Christianity. But you are operating out of your passionate opinion; not fact.

 

In red, not fact.

 

If one does not believe the Bible to have the standards by which we should operate then it is very easy to create an alternate set of morals.

[Bluegoat]

I thought people might find this article, by Fredrica Matthews-Green, interesting: Let's have more teen pregnancy.

 

I tend to agree with her. It isn't that people can't, if they find themselves in that position, wait a long time to have sex. But sex within marriage is a Christian value, and late marriages based on financial independance are a 20th century capitalist western value. It rests on a lot of assumptions that are questionable, and ties in with a lot of rractices that are probably disordered, such as:

 

Delaying adulthood and people in their 20's and even 30's who are essentially children;

 

People who are age-wise adults but are essentially living for themselves, no voting, not living in civic society, not seeing the future as a place their kids need to live;

 

The inflation of university degrees and qualifications, so people get more degrees to compete with others rather than to do their jobs;

 

The change of the university from a place where we primarily have scholars studying what it means to be human and live in the world to a place to prepare the masses for a career;

 

The idea that there is "the one" that we are somehow intended for and we have to search far and wide for this person;

 

The rise of very small families and some rather wonky ideas about family life and what it includes;

 

The idea that we really are somehow meant to be totally independent as individuals within the larger community;

 

And it just seems really odd if we think our bodies are constructed in a way that is according to God's law that we would delay marriage and childbearing, for everyone, past the time when our bodies are probably in the best shape for those things.

 

Of course I am not saying people have to marry young. But strikes me on the face of it that there is something wrong with a culture that actively discourages people in their prime childbearing years from marrying, and then even more so to say that is a Christian value.

[Joanne]

In red, not fact.

 

If one does not believe the Bible to have the standards by which we should operate then it is very easy to create an alternate set of morals.

 

That's fairly provocative. It would be more accurate to say that if one does not believe the same way you do about the Bible.

 

And, yes, researched biology demonstrates the onset of procreational ability, and sexual interest to be in the teens.

[SKL]

I really don't think that getting married at a young age is the cause for women being treated poorly in India.

 

Perhaps not. But my Indian friends tell me that early marriage is encouraged partly to prevent women from developing a mind of their own before they get married. So they are easier to subjugate under ("fit in with") the spouse and inlaws that they will be serving for the majority of their years. Perhaps this reasoning has applied in other early-marriage cultures, too. I would also note that where early marriage is part of the culture, it's usually only the woman who is really young.

[mommaduck]

I will keep most of my opinions to myself. I will say though, that I do NOT believe in long engagements...particularly if one is trying to "hold out". Take it from someone that had a two year engagement after two years of courtship.

[Bluegoat]

In red, not fact.

 

If one does not believe the Bible to have the standards by which we should operate then it is very easy to create an alternate set of morals.

 

Biblical standards don't suggest delaying marriage until well after adulthood is entered as a matter of policy. That is a cultural phenomena.

[PeacefulChaos]

If they are old enough to deal with the consequences of having sex then yes they are old enough to make a promise to last a lifetime. Having kids is a lifetime commitment.

 

Having multiple partners doesn't make you a stronger, more independent person. Every time you change partners there is damage done to your emotional health. If you are either a Christian or a Jew there are also major spiritual issues to deal with as well.

 

I realize that different cultures treat women differently and that we have it pretty good here in the good old US of A. I really don't think that getting married at a young age is the cause for women being treated poorly in India.

 

:iagree:

The red part, especially.

If people aren't prepared for everything that could come as a result of s*x - stds, pregnancy, etc - they shouldn't be having it. And the maturity to make such a decision should equal the maturity to decide to get married.

I don't understand the draw of intercourse with more than one person. It just doesn't make a bit of sense to me...why, when you aren't married to the person, therefore there is no long term commitment? I just don't understand.

And I don't think it's a patriarchal thing at all, either.

[Bluegoat]

Perhaps not. But my Indian friends tell me that early marriage is encouraged partly to prevent women from developing a mind of their own before they get married. So they are easier to subjugate under ("fit in with") the spouse and inlaws that they will be serving for the majority of their years. Perhaps this reasoning has applied in other early-marriage cultures, too. I would also note that where early marriage is part of the culture, it's usually only the woman who is really young.

 

I think you can look at this in a few. One is that just because a culture has younger marriages doesn't mean they have the whole institution right. There needs to be respect for both people in the marriage, that is a pretty no-compromise principle.

 

However, the idea that a couple or even extended family develop to some extent together may have some merit. It can be much harder for older people who are used to living in the way they want to compromise in the way that is required for a family to flourish. Fifteen adult years of essentially making all important decisions alone can be hard to give up.

[Joanne]

If people aren't prepared for everything that could come as a result of s*x - stds, pregnancy, etc - they shouldn't be having it. And the maturity to make such a decision should equal the maturity to decide to get married.

I don't understand the draw of intercourse with more than one person. It just doesn't make a bit of sense to me...why, when you aren't married to the person, therefore there is no long term commitment? I just don't understand.

And I don't think it's a patriarchal thing at all, either.

 

On the first, lots of married people, of any age, are not prepared in the moment to handle pregnancy. Should they also abstain? Your logic is faulty.

 

I'm not sure on what actual basis you assert that the maturity to marry and to be intimate must be equal?

 

It's fine that you don't "get" having had more than one partner. (I assume you mean consecutive rather than concurrent or other sexual situations).

 

Some people don't value lifelong, one partnered monogamy. Some people don't attach the need for long term attachment to having sex.

 

I see a lot of patriarchy in the purity movement (just the name *alone* gives me shivers). But I don't think that waiting and choosing abstinence is automatically patriarchical.

[Scarlett]

Biblical standards don't suggest delaying marriage until well after adulthood is entered as a matter of policy. That is a cultural phenomena.

 

I think I wasn't clear in how I feel about it. I don't believe in delaying marriage far into adulthood.

 

I was disagreeing with Joanne who seems to think it is acceptable from a Christian viewpoint to be sexually active outside of marriage...part of her reasoning on that appears to be that 'we are biologically geared for sex at a young age.' I disagreed that we are 'mean't to do that...and even if bilogically we are meant to then that only means we should perhaps consider earlier (relative) marriage....not just disregard the Bible standards because they don't fit our ideals of how life should work.

Edited September 30, 2011 by Scarlett

[Free]

:iagree:

The red part, especially.

If people aren't prepared for everything that could come as a result of s*x - stds, pregnancy, etc - they shouldn't be having it. And the maturity to make such a decision should equal the maturity to decide to get married.

I don't understand the draw of intercourse with more than one person. It just doesn't make a bit of sense to me...why, when you aren't married to the person, therefore there is no long term commitment? I just don't understand.

And I don't think it's a patriarchal thing at all, either.

 

I don't see anybody advocating on this thread that intercourse should be had with more than one person. Many recognize that sexual desire starts early. The argument as I understand it is between these three positions:

 

a) Should young people get married early so that they don't face temptation?

b) Should they abstain from s@x while they wait to get married until they have settled financially and have matured emotionally?

c) Should they explore their sexuality but wait to get married until they have settled financially and have matured emotionally?

 

Maybe my perspectives are coloured by the society that I live in, but to me of the three options, (a) is the least acceptable. That to me is not the purpose of marriage.

[justamouse]

I thought people might find this article, by Fredrica Matthews-Green, interesting: Let's have more teen pregnancy.

 

 

 

That is an AMAZING article. I mean, I love her, anyway, butt hat is just a fantastic article. I had come to many of those conclusions on my own, but to see her reason it out was excellent.

 

Humans are designed to reproduce in their teens, and they’re potentially very good at it. That’s why they want to so much.

That made me laugh.

 

I think I just met my future daughter in law last night. That is, if he can step up his game and get his act together. They're both 21.

Edited September 30, 2011 by justamouse

[Bluegoat]

I don't see anybody advocating on this thread that intercourse should be had with more than one person. Many recognize that sexual desire starts early. The argument as I understand it is between these three positions:

 

a) Should young people get married early so that they don't face temptation?

b) Should they abstain from s@x while they wait to get married until they have settled financially and have matured emotionally?

c) Should they explore their sexuality but wait to get married until they have settled financially and have matured emotionally?

 

Maybe my perspectives are coloured by the society that I live in, but to me of the three options, (a) is the least acceptable. That to me is not the purpose of marriage.

I don't know - I'm Anglican, and in our prayer book the marriage service lists three purposes for marriage: mutual help and comfort; procreation; and a remedy for temptation. To my mind that is one good reason and, in our fallen state, purpose for marriage, but no one should marry without intending also to have the other reasons. You have to have that mutual and loving relationship and a family life as well. I don't think marrying young means that those things won't happen, and in many cases it may actually be helpful rather than a hindrance. Your list though seems to suggest that young people do not have the maturity and stability to marry? Presumably this is not due to biological changes in human beings though? Perhaps if maturity is the issue, we should change our culture to produce more mature children?

[Scarlett]

That is an AMAZING article. I mean, I love her, anyway, butt hat is just a fantastic article. I had come to many of those conclusions on my own, but to see her reason it out was excellent.

 

Wow, I just read it and agree it is amazing. I realize I have been gravitating toward allowing my ds to linger in childhood.....going to focus more on preparing him to be an adult! He is cleaning his bathroom as we speak! LOL

 

 

I think I just met my future daughter in law last night. That is, if he can step up his game and get his act together. They're both 21.

 

 

Here's hoping. ;)

[Scarlett]

I don't know - I'm Anglican, and in our prayer book the marriage service lists three purposes for marriage: mutual help and comfort; procreation; and a remedy for temptation. To my mind that is one good reason and, in our fallen state, purpose for marriage, but no one should marry without intending also to have the other reasons. You have to have that mutual and loving relationship and a family life as well. I don't think marrying young means that those things won't happen, and in many cases it may actually be helpful rather than a hindrance. Your list though seems to suggest that young people do not have the maturity and stability to marry? Presumably this is not due to biological changes in human beings though? Perhaps if maturity is the issue, we should change our culture to produce more mature children?

 

Yes and that article about 'more teen pregnancy' speaks to that very need...to produce more mature adults at a younger age.

[annandatje]

:iagree:

 

I'm also probably a freak on the boards but I don't want my DD to wait for marriage. IME, when people do that, they tend to marry earlier, along with other things. I'm not totally against young marriage but I think that kids that wait are more likely to rush in.

 

I want her to wait until she is an adult, if possible, and with someone that she loves and that respects her. But, I think that sexuality is too important not to explore, even if it is just with the person that she will marry.

 

I'm also not religious, if that wasn't evident, lol

 

:iagree:

[PeacefulChaos]

On the first, lots of married people, of any age, are not prepared in the moment to handle pregnancy. Should they also abstain? Your logic is faulty. I am of the opinion that if you are getting married, even if you are doing everything you can to NOT get pregnant (aside from abstinence), you have to be aware that the possibility is always there. I think that is the same whether married or not - however, I believe that people in a marriage are going about s*x much more responsibly than people who have multiple partners. No, I don't think married couples should ever abstain from s*x longer than absolutely necessary - if I remember correctly, that is addressed in the Bible.

 

I'm not sure on what actual basis you assert that the maturity to marry and to be intimate must be equal?

I am in the camp of people (and I know that many disagree :) ) that believe that people who have multiple partners are emotionally damaging themselves. My understanding is that there is, in fact, scientific research on it that has been found to be true. I don't think teenagers or young adults who are jumping into a s*xual relationship out of the passion/feel good aspect of it are demonstrating maturity in any way. If someone is truly committed to someone else, there is no reason NOT to marry, imo, unless they are operating with the knowledge that committed = for now. In which case, is not committed. I don't believe that to have s*xual experiences prior to or outside of marriage does anything to make a person any stronger, healthier, or anything else. I believe it to be nothing short of damaging.

 

It's fine that you don't "get" having had more than one partner. (I assume you mean consecutive rather than concurrent or other sexual situations).

 

Some people don't value lifelong, one partnered monogamy. Some people don't attach the need for long term attachment to having sex.

Yes, I know that is the case. :( That is their choice, and I would never try to impose on someone else my beliefs. (For the sake of this conversation, though, I will reiterate that I believe that - regardless of what each individual may *think* of s*x and whether or not it involves any attachment - it does, whether they believe it or not.)

I see a lot of patriarchy in the purity movement (just the name *alone* gives me shivers). But I don't think that waiting and choosing abstinence is automatically patriarchical.

I'm not a huge fan of the 'purity movement' in and of itself. By choosing to abstain until marriage, DH and I weren't a part of a 'movement' - we had made a commitment to God. That's what is important, not all the big hoopla about it. So I definitely do see where that is odd. While I don't have a problem with patriarchy to an extent (it is what is outlined for us, Biblically), I don't see where the purity of a person relates to it.

 

I don't see anybody advocating on this thread that intercourse should be had with more than one person. Many recognize that sexual desire starts early.

Yes, I can't remember what I was getting at when I said that - I think some of the PPs had commented that, on average, four partners isn't many. Or something like that. I can't remember. Also the thought that just because s*xual desire starts at a young age, s*x doesn't have to.

The argument as I understand it is between these three positions:

a) Should young people get married early so that they don't face temptation?

b) Should they abstain from s@x while they wait to get married until they have settled financially and have matured emotionally?

c) Should they explore their sexuality but wait to get married until they have settled financially and have matured emotionally?

 

Maybe my perspectives are coloured by the society that I live in, but to me of the three options, (a) is the least acceptable. That to me is not the purpose of marriage.

As for the three choices, I don't think any of them are right. I don't think every person needs to get married at a young age. I don't think every person should wait to get married until they have settled financially (gone through college, etc). I definitely don't think they should explore their sexuality - of the 3, that is the worst to me. I think people should remain abstinent until marriage, whenever that may be. Whether they meet the right person at 18 or 80 makes no difference to me, only that they are with the person they plan to spend the rest of their life with and make a marriage commitment to them. Everything else - college, finances, etc - is gravy. None of it matters anyway. :)

ETA: I also believe, as I stated before, that we are hindering young adults by not helping them to mature faster - not by dressing little girls in slutty clothes mature, but by actual work ethic, realization of how the world works type mature. I think that by extending childhoods so far into teenage/young adult years by paving the way for them, so to speak, we are creating a selfish generation who, even if they did enter into marriage at a young age, would not do a good job of it. The attitude of 'needing to accomplish x, y, z for myself first' is baloney to me. We aren't here just to make ourselves important. We have a purpose and we should fulfill that - but no one can do so by being coddled and remaining immature until they are 25.

Edited September 30, 2011 by PeacefulChaos

[twoforjoy]

I don't see anybody advocating on this thread that intercourse should be had with more than one person. Many recognize that sexual desire starts early. The argument as I understand it is between these three positions:

 

a) Should young people get married early so that they don't face temptation?

b) Should they abstain from s@x while they wait to get married until they have settled financially and have matured emotionally?

c) Should they explore their sexuality but wait to get married until they have settled financially and have matured emotionally?

 

Maybe my perspectives are coloured by the society that I live in, but to me of the three options, (a) is the least acceptable. That to me is not the purpose of marriage.

 

I think you're setting up an unfair comparison. I think that one potential benefit of marrying younger, for those who think people should abstain until marriage, is that it will reduce temptation. But, I think there's a host of other benefits, such as being a means of becoming emotionally mature (something that I don't think just happens with age, but with experience, and marriage/parenting are among the most maturing experiences one can have) and an impetus to become financially independent.

 

I tend to think that expecting somebody to become emotionally mature before they marry is like expecting somebody to overcome their fear of public speaking before they give a speech. It doesn't happen that way. You get over your fear of public speaking by giving speeches. You mature emotionally by being in relationships that require emotional maturity. I don't think there's anyway around that, and I don't think we're doing people a service by encouraging them to delay that process.

 

I'm NOT saying that marriage/parenting is the only way to become emotionally mature. Obviously single people and people who marry later aren't emotionally stunted. There are challenges there that also bring about emotional maturity. But, for most people, who plan on marrying and having kids at some point, I just don't see any real virtue in intentionally delaying starting on that path. I'm certainly not talking about marrying at 13 or 14, but more that people who are 18-20 and who intend to marry and have children are being done a disservice when we basically tell them to put everything else--most especially making money and amassing stuff--above marriage and parenting, and insist that they put their desire for family on the backburner for another decade or so. I really don't think much growth or maturity comes from that.

Edited September 30, 2011 by twoforjoy

[PeacefulChaos]

That is an AMAZING article. I mean, I love her, anyway, butt hat is just a fantastic article. I had come to many of those conclusions on my own, but to see her reason it out was excellent.

 

That made me laugh.

 

I think I just met my future daughter in law last night. That is, if he can step up his game and get his act together. They're both 21.

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I just got around to reading the article, and I think it's wonderful!!! That's what I've been trying to say, I think. :)

OH, and I thought of the book Do Hard Things - the word teenager has only begun its existence in the last century. Even through the first part of that, children (as the article states) were in training to be adults.

[fairfarmhand]

:hurray::hurray::hurray: My dh and I have been saying this for years! We've even decided that our financial help for college does not depend on whether or not our kids are married or not.

"Primal urges"? The desire for sex isn't somehow an "animal" desire that is sub-human and we should just transcend; it's a God-given desire.

 

If we want to talk about not getting into situations where the temptation will be strong, then have them marry. It's amazing how many people today just write off what Paul had to say about this, about it being better to marry than to burn. Do you know who burns? People in their teens and twenties? I'd find it much easier to be celibate today, at 33, than I would have had 21. What do we think the early Christian community would have thought of our demand that young people wait until marriage for sex while actively discouraging them from marrying when they are in their late teens and early twenties?

 

It is foolish to believe that young people will wait until they are 25 or 27 or 29 t commence sexuality activity; there's really no other way to think about it. Will some people wait? Sure. A few always have. But, not most. It has NEVER been and never will be the norm in any society, Christian or not, for people to have a decade-and-a-half lag time between puberty and onset of sexual activity. Societies that have highly valued sexual purity have always had marriage close to puberty as the norm.

 

I just don't see why we don't want to admit this. People are going through puberty earlier, and they are marrying later. And somehow we think this will have no real impact on their having sex before marriage? That willpower should be enough to get people through? No way. If we want to value financial independence as highly as we do--because in the past it was much, much more common for newly married couples to live with a family member while they got on their feet, compared to today when people are so eager to kick their kids out at 18 and would NEVER consider supporting a child who chose to marry young and their spouse--then we are going to be making it incredibly difficult for most people to wait for sex until marriage.

 

You can't worship God and money. I do think we need to choose, because we can't have it both ways: either it's more important that people reserve sex for marriage, and so marry closer to puberty, or it's more important that people not marry until they are financially independent, and so marry in their mid-to-late 20s and have sex before marriage. In most cases, those will be the choices, and I think we're being foolish if we think we can have it both ways. Not just foolish, though: we're harming young people, by putting a burden on them that they simply cannot carry.

 

What would Paul tell an 18 year old who was full of lust? Marry! Today, what would we tell them? Go to college, find a job, get established for a few years, then look for a marriage partner. Oh, and don't have sex. Who's offering the easier yoke here?

[Joanne]

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

I just got around to reading the article, and I think it's wonderful!!! That's what I've been trying to say, I think. :)

OH, and I thought of the book Do Hard Things - the word teenager has only begun its existence in the last century. Even through the first part of that, children (as the article states) were in training to be adults.

 

I hear you. But you're not going to convince me with more rhetoric from a paradigm I dismiss. (re: Do Hard Things reference). ;)

[PeacefulChaos]

I hear you. But you're not going to convince me with more rhetoric from a paradigm I dismiss. (re: Do Hard Things reference). ;)

 

:) I don't love the book. But I do think teenagers and young adults (in general in our culture) are spoiled. :)

[Rosie_0801]

I think early marriage *can* be fine for some, but statistically, your odds of success when marrying under age 25 are just lower.

 

What does success mean? I'm sure if a couple got married at 21, then divorced ten years later, there'd be a lot of "I told you so" from friends and relatives. If the same couple got married at 31 and divorced ten years later, it wouldn't be "I told you so" but "oh, that's so sad."

 

I don't concur with your assertions or conclusions. I don't agree that changing sexual partners = damage.

 

You disagree with the theory that we imprint on (from?) our first sexual partner?

 

Perhaps not. But my Indian friends tell me that early marriage is encouraged partly to prevent women from developing a mind of their own before they get married. So they are easier to subjugate under ("fit in with") the spouse and inlaws that they will be serving for the majority of their years.

 

You could look at that another way and see it as a good idea. It is more comfortable if we are trained to our role in life, rather than to roles that can't be ours, yes? I think the real problem, from what you are saying, comes from the groom and his family being shmucks. If they set out to treat the girl as though she's great, the situation you describe could be a positive, reducing the teething problems of the new relationship. I've read stories about brides being treated as disposable and I've read about brides being encouraged to continue their educations and their husbands learning to do household chores so their new wife will like them.

 

Rosie

[Joanne]

You disagree with the theory that we imprint on (from?) our first sexual partner?

 

 

 

 

 

I'd have to say yes, I disagree.

 

I do not believe that everyone is damaged in the same way, to the same degree, and for the same reasons regarding sexual activity.

 

I believe there are people who can have casual sex, without "damage". I believe there are people who can have outside of marriage sex, with partners they care about, and not be damaged.

 

Intimacy can be profound; but I reserve "imprint" to early parenting.

[Rosie_0801]

I'd have to say yes, I disagree.

 

I do not believe that everyone is damaged in the same way, to the same degree, and for the same reasons regarding sexual activity.

 

I believe there are people who can have casual sex, without "damage". I believe there are people who can have outside of marriage sex, with partners they care about, and not be damaged.

 

Intimacy can be profound; but I reserve "imprint" to early parenting.

 

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about emotional damage. I'm talking about the theory where people become sexually tuned to their first partner's style, and it becomes muscle memory and about as easy to modify for the next partner as trying to change our handwriting. I think I'm too tired to be engaging in these kinds of conversations. I just compared sex to handwriting. :confused:

 

:blushing:

Rosie

[Joanne]

I'm not sure if we're talking about the same thing. I'm not talking about emotional damage. I'm talking about the theory where people become sexually tuned to their first partner's style, and it becomes muscle memory and about as easy to modify for the next partner as trying to change our handwriting. I think I'm too tired to be engaging in these kinds of conversations. I just compared sex to handwriting. :confused:

 

:blushing:

Rosie

 

 

LOL about the tired and handwriting.

 

No, I don't agree about sexually tuned, muscle memory, and not being able to change.

[Rosie_0801]

No, I don't agree about sexually tuned, muscle memory, and not being able to change.

 

Do we have an envious smilie?

 

:)