Interesting Piece about Abstinence and the Purity Movement

[Veritaserum]

Exactly the same here. What everyone is describing in this thread is completely foreign to me. We were taught a very healthy view of sex from our parents and our church. We were taught (rightly so) that sex outside of marriage is sin and sex within marriage is part of a covenant and special enough to protect.

 

Women were not objectified. Victims were not vilified. Men were not let off the hook.

 

We were also treated like young adults. Our parents and youth leaders didn't assume we were all doing it and they didn't assume we'd never be tempted. They put into place standards, expectations, supervision, and a strong biblical education.

 

And regardless of how many people are having sex outside of marriage it doesn't make it morally right. If anything it just proves our standards and morals have been in the gutter long enough to impact multiple generations. I'm all for teaching and modeling a Biblical standard of purity, while also recognizing that gimmicks rarely work. It can't be about adhering to a rule or attending a party. It has to be a genuine heart-felt commitment to the standards found in the Word of God.

 

This is a much healthier and more practical approach. It's what I'm trying to follow with my kids. :)

[Veritaserum]

However there are negative consequences to sex outside of marriage. I suppose if we want to use the amusement park analogy. It would be a bit like getting on the ride (sex) but never putting on your seat belt (marriage). Damage is likely to occur. That's all that was ever taught in our church. That there are spiritual, emotional, and physical consequences to sex outside of the covenant of marriage.

 

But you can't safely or enjoyably fall off a cliff. You're just dead. ;) So, sure, sex outside of marriage certainly has negative consequences (STDs, unplanned pregnancy, heartache, sin), but I'd much rather compare those things to not wearing your seatbelt on a roller coaster or being too small to ride than compare the act of sex itself to something bad. :)

[twoforjoy]

Well, if the parents do their job, this isn't a one-time conversation ending in a "pledge." It's a mindset, and yes, it can endure for many years. I'm 45 and I still believe that it's best to wait until marriage to have sex, and failing that, at least until the individual has reached a point of maturity where they can handle the emotional, social, and physical results in a healthy manner - which few can (in our society) before they are 20.

 

I think it's important to realize, though, that these are modern constructs. This whole idea that you should wait until marriage AND not get married until you are emotional mature and/or financially stable is a modern idea. When the biblical mandates to reserve sex for marriage were written, you could expect to get married not long after you hit puberty. Today, many people have a 10-20 year lag between hitting puberty and getting married (which is just growing as people are simultaneously going through puberty earlier and waiting longer and longer to marry). There is a huge difference between waiting until marriage when you will maybe have a couple of years between puberty and marriage (if that long) and waiting when you might have a decade and a half between puberty and marriage.

 

It's not a matter of what you believe; it's a matter of what you can do. It's very easy, at 45 and married (or 33 and married) to believe that people should just wait until they are married for sex. But, when you went through puberty at 12 and are now 27 years old and STILL don't see marriage in your near future, that's a whole different thing. Even if you believe that you should wait until marriage, the reality is that many people will not be able to do that in that situation.

 

I just think it's hard to reconcile our society's contempt for early marriage with our society's belief that women should remain "pure" until marriage. If we want a successful abstinence movement, the message should be that people should, at 15 and 16, be looking for marriage partners, so that at 18 or 19 they'll be getting married. That's really the only possible way it could work on a large scale. And if we really, truly think that it's a terrible idea for people to get married before their mid- to late-20s, then we need to accept that premarital sex is going to be the norm.

 

Again, is there any society anybody can point to, in all of human history, where people routinely waited 15-20 years between puberty and becoming sexually active? I'm not aware of any, and I have no idea why we think we'd be the first.

[Daisy]

But you can't safely or enjoyably fall off a cliff. You're just dead. ;) So, sure, sex outside of marriage certainly has negative consequences (STDs, unplanned pregnancy, heartache, sin), but I'd much rather compare those things to not wearing your seatbelt on a roller coaster or being too small to ride than compare the act of sex itself to something bad. :)

 

LOL. I guess you could get really lucky with the cliff. :lol: Yeah, I like the amusement park analogy. I think it's a keeper. ;)

[twoforjoy]

And regardless of how many people are having sex outside of marriage it doesn't make it morally right. If anything it just proves our standards and morals have been in the gutter long enough to impact multiple generations.

 

This is the mindset I'm having trouble with.

 

Is it that our morals have been "in the gutter" or that our societal pressure to delay marriage has made sex before marriage more common?

 

The average female today begins having sex at 17.5. AFAIK, that number has not varied much in the 40 or so years they've been tracking it; it's actually gone up a bit in recent years. It also seems pretty consistent across culture, regardless of their sexual mores. Most people, it seems, begin having sex somewhere around 17 or 18.

 

If anything, that's older than many people started in biblical times. The issue doesn't seem to be that people are commencing sexual activity earlier, but that they are marrying much, much later. If we don't want people people having sex before marriage, we can do two things: we can encourage them to marry earlier, closer to the age at which most people historically have married, or we can encourage them to wait until our current-socially-approved age to marry, which in many cases will mean their mid-to-late 20s, something that no society in history has managed to do on a large scale. It seems to me that we're choosing the route that puts an enormously difficult burden on young people and that dooms most of them to failure. We're talking, after all, about people who are not called to celibacy, but people who want to marry and have sex. The idea that they should just resist sexual temptation for the 15 or so years when their desire is most intense is a recipe for failure and guilt.

Edited September 29, 2011 by twoforjoy

[SKL]

I think it's important to realize, though, that these are modern constructs. This whole idea that you should wait until marriage AND not get married until you are emotional mature and/or financially stable is a modern idea. When the biblical mandates to reserve sex for marriage were written, you could expect to get married not long after you hit puberty. Today, many people have a 10-20 year lag between hitting puberty and getting married (which is just growing as people are simultaneously going through puberty earlier and waiting longer and longer to marry). There is a huge difference between waiting until marriage when you will maybe have a couple of years between puberty and marriage (if that long) and waiting when you might have a decade and a half between puberty and marriage.

 

It's not a matter of what you believe; it's a matter of what you can do. It's very easy, at 45 and married (or 33 and married) to believe that people should just wait until they are married for sex. But, when you went through puberty at 12 and are now 27 years old and STILL don't see marriage in your near future, that's a whole different thing. Even if you believe that you should wait until marriage, the reality is that many people will not be able to do that in that situation.

 

I just think it's hard to reconcile our society's contempt for early marriage with our society's belief that women should remain "pure" until marriage. If we want a successful abstinence movement, the message should be that people should, at 15 and 16, be looking for marriage partners, so that at 18 or 19 they'll be getting married. That's really the only possible way it could work on a large scale. And if we really, truly think that it's a terrible idea for people to get married before their mid- to late-20s, then we need to accept that premarital sex is going to be the norm.

 

Again, is there any society anybody can point to, in all of human history, where people routinely waited 15-20 years between puberty and becoming sexually active? I'm not aware of any, and I have no idea why we think we'd be the first.

 

Actually I'm 45 and NOT married, if that makes any difference. I never did consider myself an unthinking animal, though. Not to say I always followed every word of the Bible, but I did manage to go many years between puberty and any kind of sexual contact with another person. And I am not a rarity. Not by a long shot.

 

I do not agree with "contempt" for early marriage. (Well, assuming you aren't talking about 14 and already sexually active.) What I believe in is mature soul-searching. When it comes to social maturity, there is quite a wide range. My mom got married at 17 (not pregnant) and my parents are about to celebrate 50 years. My mom's childhood was a lot different from today's norm, though, and she also has the genetic gift of insight. My niece at 18 is definitely not ready to decide with whom she's going to spend the rest of her life. It's an individual matter, and that's why it's the parents' job to address it with the child (over the course of years). But it would be nice if society wasn't by and large working against us.

 

I honestly find it disheartening to read arguments that we're foolish to think our kids are able to abstain. Will some of them choose not to? Yes. But that is a conscious choice. It's our job to prepare our kids to understand the pros and cons when they are presented with choices. That includes not only the choice to give into primal urges, but to get themselves into situations where those temptations may become strong.

[Lady Florida.]

There are negative consequences to sex outside of marriage. I suppose if we want to use the amusement park analogy. It would be a bit like getting on the ride (sex) but never putting on your seat belt (marriage). Damage is likely to occur. That's all that was ever taught in our church. That there are spiritual, emotional, and physical consequences to sex outside of the covenant of marriage.

 

 

There are negative consequence to many of the choices we make daily. You wear your seatbelt on the amusement park ride, and you use protection during sex. I don't see the seat belt as marriage, but as a prophylactic. Marriages, like amusement park rides, can fail, no matter how protected you (general you) think you are. Emotional and physical consequences can happen inside a marriage as well as outside. Spiritual consequences are only meaningful if one believes there are such things.

 

I think an adult (and that's who the article is focused on) can make a mature, rational decision whether or not having sex outside of marriage is worth it - physically, emotionally, and for those who believe in it, spiritually.

[FaithManor]

I find the movement quite short-sighted and very bent towards emotionalism. Teens have enough emotionalism without adding that. What they need is cold, hard facts. Beyond that, parents needs to teach their worldview with love and respect.

 

Of course, one way to get the point across, the seriousness of choosing to become s*xually active, is to have a paramedic in the house.

 

DD, so far, has taken care of several Aids patients, a couple of syphillis patients, and a myriad of other STD victims, as well as one guy who was discharged from the military for his STD which is causing his "yee-ha" to become nectrotic (ie. it looks like it is rotting off according to her!). This is in addition to a patient she has transported from the abortion clinic for a botched abortion that nearly killed the girl. Oh, and teen girls home alone that have gone into labor or are having braxton-hicks and have no one to take them to the hospital. It's a reality that suddenly make the romance of s*x seem rather unimportant.

 

A couple of months ago she walked into the house, walked up to her 14 year old brother, put her hands on her hips, bent over, got close to his face, looked him in the eye, and said, "Dude. You want to know the kind of day I've had? I've had the kind of day that makes me come home and tell you to be very afraid of where you put your p*nis unless of course you want it to rot off your body! Don't think 'Oh, I'll use a condom' because you can't protect yourself from this one. It's so viral, that if you come in contact in any way with her skin, which you absolutely will if you have s*x, you have a strong chance of contracting this disease and the pain for my patient was beyond anything you can imagine...physical pain, emotional pain. This is going to kill him. What a way to go! So, keep your pants zipped until you are ready to settle down and then make her have a full physical and an STD panel run and make sure she knows you must get copies of the test results. KEEP YOUR FLY ZIPPED!"

 

Dh and I stood there with our mouths hanging open before we shook ourselves back to normal and smiled at her. The look on ds's face was priceless. :D

 

As for dd, it's going to take one very special man who is willing to prove his bloodstream is clean before he gets beyond a peck on the cheek or an occasional hug. She once told me if "he", whoever he turns out to be, is unwilling to drop his drawers for an exam while forking over a certificate of health from a full physical including bloodwork, he'll be out the door.

 

"Honestly mom. Forget romance. This about life. My life, his life, and frankly, the life of any children we would bring into the world. The consequences of wonton s&x are devastating."

 

This is the kind of information young people need. Not to scare them into the monastery (though I think that ds might have considered it at that time), but instead of "pledging themselves to their fathers like property that must be kept pristine", they become cautious with their health and well-being. As a Christian, I think a lot of kids have been kept from having an honest, loving, postive, relationship with God because rules without relationship are many times emphasized."Sin" is the focus of everything and they live their teen and young adult lives feeling defeated because of every "feeling" they have, every temptation, every.....too much ****ation and not enough love and information. The purity movement, at least what I've seen of it and how it's been handled at some area churches - ours as not been directly involved - is woefully deficient in discussing the health implications that should cause one to be very careful and deliberate about choosing when and with whom one becomes s&xually active. Frankly, there are a lot of married men and women who waited and thought their future spouse had waited too, and then come home from the honeymoon with STD's. It's nuts. Inform.these.kids. Don't lull them into a false sense of security. Empower them to make wise choices.

 

For Christians, Love the Lord your God, so that kids see Him as a integral part of their daily lives. Beyond that, model Jesus who spent time with a prostitute and showed love, not condemnation, who said to the woman "caught in adultery" - I've always wondered - where was the guy she was caught with....hmmmm....., "Let He who is without sin cast the first stone." Personally, I think this goes a lot farther for our kids than the purity movement ever will.

 

Faith

[SKL]

The average female today begins having sex at 17.5. AFAIK, that number has not varied much in the 40 or so years they've been tracking it; it's actually gone up a bit in recent years. It also seems pretty consistent across culture, regardless of their sexual mores. Most people, it seems, begin having sex somewhere around 17 or 18.

 

If anything, that's older than many people started in biblical times. The issue doesn't seem to be that people are commencing sexual activity earlier, but that they are marrying much, much later. If we don't want people people having sex before marriage, we can do two things: we can encourage them to marry earlier, closer to the age at which most people historically have married, or we can encourage them to wait until our current-socially-approved age to marry, which in many cases will mean their mid-to-late 20s, something that no society in history has managed to do on a large scale. It seems to me that we're choosing the route that puts an enormously difficult burden on young people and that dooms most of them to failure. We're talking, after all, about people who are not called to celibacy, but people who want to marry and have sex. The idea that they should just resist sexual temptation for the 15 or so years when their desire is most intense is a recipe for failure and guilt.

 

 

Two things.

 

One, a disturbingly high percentage of girls (and boys, though fewer) are sexually molested, most often by trusted adults such as older family members. Once violated, it's a whole different matter to get them to see abstinence as something that matters. (I still think it does, but obviously the "purity" / innocence argument is out.) I would venture a guess that the percentage of kids who have NOT been sexually molested AND chose to have early sex is a lot lower. I am sure there is some research out there proving that early sexual victimization is highly correlated with early sexual experimentation, etc.

 

Two, I fail to see the logic that since lots of people do it, we should stop advising youngsters against it. Two-thirds of Americans are overweight or obese, so should we stop teaching our kids to eat healthy? Most people watch too much TV, so should we just adjust our standards and be done with it? Why bother to teach our kids anything at all, if it's OK for them to just follow the crowd?

[twoforjoy]

I honestly find it disheartening to read arguments that we're foolish to think our kids are able to abstain. Will some of them choose not to? Yes. But that is a conscious choice. It's our job to prepare our kids to understand the pros and cons when they are presented with choices. That includes not only the choice to give into primal urges, but to get themselves into situations where those temptations may become strong.

 

"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?

[Parrothead]

Yep.

Big issue there.

Much is made of the girls' side of this. What of the boys?

Yes, boys are encouraged to wait, but there's no, "boy purity!" There's no, "how will you get the magic color on your wedding day if you're not a virgin?"

 

If girls are pledging their virginities to their father, why aren't boys pledging theirs to their mother?

 

Because girls are ruled by their fathers. . .boys too, but it just counts more for girls because one day she will be ruled by her husband. (No, not in all Christian circles, but that's part of the underlying mentality of this ritual. A woman's body is less her own that a man's is his. That's the only way for this to make sense.)

 

Gross, gross, gross.

 

Ipsey (who was a Christian virgin on her wedding night)

It isn't only because girls are ruled by their fathers.

 

The push for virginity was to help ensure any children born belong to the husband. Back then there was no way to identify which children belong to which man if there was more than one.

 

Hang the bloody sheets out of the window so all can see that the heir born in 9 or 10 months is truly a child of the husband.

 

The emphasis on a woman's virginity is nothing more than a patriarchal way of ensuring the family line isn't contaminated.

[SKL]

What would Paul tell an 18 year old who was full of lust? Marry!

 

Paul lived in a much different time, where people got married and made it work no matter what (often meaning the woman was a slave to whatever her husband chose in every aspect of life).

 

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean the above the way it comes across. "Full of lust" does not predict a healthy long-term relationship.

 

What I'd tell an 18yo who was "full of lust" is that he needs to control himself and think about the long term well-being of both parties. If he is "full of love" and she is too, then I would be more supportive of the proposal to marry.

 

Again, I'm not opposed to marriage when the couple is ready. But lust is not readiness by a long shot. Not in our society where women (rightly) expect to be respected as people after marriage.

[mommaduck]

Yep.

Big issue there.

Much is made of the girls' side of this. What of the boys?

Yes, boys are encouraged to wait, but there's no, "boy purity!" There's no, "how will you get the magic color on your wedding day if you're not a virgin?"

 

If girls are pledging their virginities to their father, why aren't boys pledging theirs to their mother?

 

Because girls are ruled by their fathers. . .boys too, but it just counts more for girls because one day she will be ruled by her husband. (No, not in all Christian circles, but that's part of the underlying mentality of this ritual. A woman's body is less her own that a man's is his. That's the only way for this to make sense.)

 

Gross, gross, gross.

 

Ipsey (who was a Christian virgin on her wedding night)

I agree with most of what you wrote, however, I have to say that there are boys making pledges, wearing purity rings, etc. The groups that have boys doing this, usually aren't the ones having purity balls...they are usually a little more mainstream.

 

I do have to say that I think there is a side that has taken all of this to an unhealthy extreme. We nearly got caught up in it. I want my children to have a healthy view of s3x and relationship. Yes, I would hope they would wait to only have that kind of intimacy with their spouse. I also know that we humans are flawed and shouldn't create some hierarchy of who is better than others based on it.

[twoforjoy]

One, a disturbingly high percentage of girls (and boys, though fewer) are sexually molested, most often by trusted adults such as older family members. Once violated, it's a whole different matter to get them to see abstinence as something that matters. (I still think it does, but obviously the "purity" / innocence argument is out.) I would venture a guess that the percentage of kids who have NOT been sexually molested AND chose to have early sex is a lot lower. I am sure there is some research out there proving that early sexual victimization is highly correlated with early sexual experimentation, etc.

 

The point, though, is that having sex at, say, 16-18 is NOT early. It's not pathological. It's not a sign that something has gone wrong in a person's life. It's not any of those things because, historically, most people have been sexually active at that age.

 

You seem to be saying that the problem is that people are, by having sex at 17/18/19, having sex "too early." I think you would be hard-pressed to support that historically. What I'm saying is that 17/18/19 is NOT "too early" to have sex; it's actually a completely and entirely normal, healthy, and natural age to begin having sex, and historically most people have begun sexual activity at that age or earlier. I'm saying that we're getting married too late. What's changed isn't that people are having sex earlier--because they just aren't, at all, if anything they are having sex later--but that they are marrying much, much later.

 

I'm not a huge proponent of abstinence until marriage; I believe in the level of physical intimacy in a relationship balancing with the level of emotional intimacy and commitment, but I'm not putting any hard and fast rules on my kids. I'll leave it to them to decide where to draw those lines.

 

At the same time, I AM a big proponent of people marrying earlier. If our children come home at 18 and tell us they are planning to marry, we've decided that we will welcome it and be happy to give them any support we can, including living with us (with their spouse, obviously) for a time until they are more financially secure, and continuing to put them through college if that's the path they are on.

 

We bemoan the immaturity of today's young people, then use that as evidence for why they aren't ready to marry. But aren't we putting the cart before the horse? We don't mature first then have experiences that require maturity later; our experiences mature us. Marriage matures us. If we want young people to be more mature, I see few things that would get them there faster than marrying! Most people I know didn't mature, and then once they were mature, marry and have kids. They got married, had kids, and matured during that process. I know that nothing grew me up and gave me a sense of responsibility and matured me faster than marriage and motherhood. I honestly don't think people in the past were somehow abstractly more mature, but that they took on responsibilities like marriage and parenthood earlier, and that matured them.

[vonfirmath]

But, when you went through puberty at 12 and are now 27 years old and STILL don't see marriage in your near future, that's a whole different thing. Even if you believe that you should wait until marriage, the reality is that many people will not be able to do that in that situation.

 

 

I wasn't married until I was 30. My husband was 25.

God does not ask of us just what is easy.

Edited September 29, 2011 by vonfirmath

[twoforjoy]

I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't mean the above the way it comes across. "Full of lust" does not predict a healthy long-term relationship.

 

What I'd tell an 18yo who was "full of lust" is that he needs to control himself and think about the long term well-being of both parties. If he is "full of love" and she is too, then I would be more supportive of the proposal to marry.

 

18yo girls can be and are burning with desire, too. It's not just boys.

 

It's this "control yourself" attitude that I think we need to recognize as historically unique. Historically, nobody would have told an 18yo burning with sexual desire to control themselves (certainly not in the sense of abstaining for another 10 years or so while they become financially stable and somehow emotionally mature); they'd have told them to marry!

 

We can't just say, "Well, the Bible tells people to wait for marriage for sex. Sure, in biblical times people got married shortly after puberty, and today they are getting married 15-20 years after puberty, but that doesn't matter. People today should just remain virgins until they marry at 27 the same way that people in biblical times remained virgins until they married at 14." That is just not viable. And, if we think it's that simple, then we haven't given it much thought.

 

I also think we need to realize that our "mature first, then marry" attitude is historically unique. Marriage and parenthood has been what impels people to maturity in most cases (including ours). Putting off marriage and parenthood is NOT leading to people being more mature; if anything, it's leading to prolonged periods of immaturity. Most people I know stay immature and irresponsible as long as they possibly can, until they have a pressing reason to grow up. And, for most people, marriage and parenthood IS that reason. You can't mature by force of will; you mature because your life experiences mature you. We can't withhold those life experiences from young people and then fault them for not being mature.

[twoforjoy]

I wasn't married until I was 30.

God does not ask of us just what is easy.

 

:banghead:

 

Do we think it's God who decided that, in the 21st century, people shouldn't marry until they are in their late 20s? Yes, some people can and will do it. Some people also remain celibate their entire lives. But the simple fact is that remaining celibate until 30 is an aberration. It has never been the norm, it never will be the norm, and we simply cannot expect it to be the norm.

 

I don't see why people don't want to admit what is obvious: the biblical mandates to wait for sex until marriage come from a time when people married much, much earlier. They married very close to puberty.

 

We are now insisting that people live by the mandate to not have sex before marriage while pushing marriage further and further back.

 

And we see nothing wrong with this! We just say, "Well, God didn't say it would be easy."

 

Actually, he did! Jesus said that his yoke was easy and his burden was light. Paul said to marry rather than burn with lust. But, rather than taking that advice and encouraging young people seeking to wait until marriage to marry early, we are putting an extremely heavy, difficult burden on them; we are saying that it's better to burn with lust for, oh, 15 years and just suck it up and resist, rather than to marry.

 

If a young person doesn't have a problem with sex before marriage, then by all means encourage them to wait to marry if you want. But if a young person expresses a sincere desire to reserve sex for marriage, and we really want to help them, then we should be encouraging them to begin thinking seriously about and entering into marriage much younger than is the norm, or else we are indeed placing a difficult yoke on them.

Edited September 29, 2011 by twoforjoy

[justamouse]

:banghead:

 

Do we think it's God who decided that, in the 21st century, people shouldn't marry until they are in their late 20s?

 

I don't see why people don't want to admit what is obvious: the biblical mandates to wait for sex until marriage come from a time when people married much, much earlier. They married very close to puberty.

 

We are now insisting that people live by the mandate to not have sex before marriage while pushing marriage further and further back.

 

And we see nothing wrong with this! We just say, "Well, God didn't say it would be easy."

 

Actually, he did! Jesus said that his yoke was easy and his burden was light. Paul said to marry rather than burn with lust. But, rather than taking that advice and encouraging young people seeking to wait until marriage to marry early, we are putting an extremely heavy, difficult burden on them; we are saying that it's better to burn with lust for, oh, 15 years and just suck it up and resist, rather than to marry.

 

If a young person doesn't have a problem with sex before marriage, then by all means encourage them to wait to marry if you want. But if a young person expresses a sincere desire to reserve sex for marriage, and we really want to help them, then we should be encouraging them to begin thinking seriously about and entering into marriage much younger than is the norm, or else we are indeed placing a difficult yoke on them.

 

I really agree with you.

[J-rap]

It's been interesting to follow this thread, and to read the different thoughts regarding it. I feel sad that once again Christians seems to be blowing it, and causing non-Christians to think we're foolish! Rightly so! I've never gone onboard with the different movements and fads -- such as the Purity movement, Promise Keepers, etc. To be honest, I don't even know much about either of those. I do believe it can be dangerous to be part of a movement, even within your particular religion. In a way, it simply means not figuring it out yourself, but leaving it to someone else to figure it out for you; as a result, living up to the expectations of that movement are difficult, because they're not really your own.

Given that, I do believe there are some people who are helped by these movements, so I don't want to completely bash them.

It irks me to no end that girls are the focus, and not boys and girls. If anything, it should be both boys and girls promising to both mom and dad. But the fact that a movement is required in order to get this message across is strange.

However, I certainly don't believe that all Christians who care about this issue are naive and foolish. I guess our family is fortunate. In our community, we are surrounded by many, many Christian people who do care a lot about this issue, but who have a very healthy attitude on it. Boys are included just as much as girls, sex is talked about quite openly as a very healthy, beautiful gift, and abstinence is encouraged.

The thing is, the whole abstinence issue cannot and should be singled out. It is part of a much bigger picture and way of living, and if the whole picture isn't "lived" and taught within the family life, then of course this one aspect of it cannot stand on its own.

I don't believe it is "unfair" to expect young adults to wait for sex before marriage, even as they get older. We are people, not animals. But also, I don't believe couples who have a young but mature love should have to wait until they are finished with their education. My husband and I were married when he still had 5 years of university training left... We kind of feel like we grew up together! I am so grateful for that.

We are teaching our children that it is in their best interest to wait for sex until they are married, and we have and continue to discuss this openly and positively. Two of our children married/will marry quite young! :) (21 and 22). What if our others don't marry until they are 29? Our views will remain the same (although it will be their decision and we won't judge them for it). Some people suggested that in the Bible, waiting for sex was not such a big issue, since children were married so young! On the other hand, Paul talks about being unmarried and celibate. He doesn't say if you don't marry, no problem! Sleep around!

Another thing, of course, is that my husband and I have made a point of giving our children the message that marriage isn't for everyone. This is something that really irks me about many conservative Christian movements, too. It really puts the family on a pedestal, and assumes that all girls growing up will and should become moms.

I don't believe that the family is the ultimate goal of Christianity, or that the ultimate goal of girls -- or boys of course -- should be to get married.

But again, that's a whole different subject.:001_unsure:

[vonfirmath]

:banghead:

 

I think God expects us to obey His laws. I have said nothing about what age a person ought to marry. I know only that FOR ME, that age was 30. He did not send me my husband until I was 28, much to my heartache. I can remember clearly desperately wanting a husband/kids. But it wasn't God's timing and he just kept telling me wait. At the time I feared it was No. On this side of things, I know it was wait.

[SKL]

The point, though, is that having sex at, say, 16-18 is NOT early. It's not pathological. It's not a sign that something has gone wrong in a person's life. It's not any of those things because, historically, most people have been sexually active at that age.

 

You seem to be saying that the problem is that people are, by having sex at 17/18/19, having sex "too early." I think you would be hard-pressed to support that historically. What I'm saying is that 17/18/19 is NOT "too early" to have sex; it's actually a completely and entirely normal, healthy, and natural age to begin having sex, and historically most people have begun sexual activity at that age or earlier. I'm saying that we're getting married too late. What's changed isn't that people are having sex earlier--because they just aren't, at all, if anything they are having sex later--but that they are marrying much, much later.

 

I'm not a huge proponent of abstinence until marriage; I believe in the level of physical intimacy in a relationship balancing with the level of emotional intimacy and commitment, but I'm not putting any hard and fast rules on my kids. I'll leave it to them to decide where to draw those lines.

 

At the same time, I AM a big proponent of people marrying earlier. If our children come home at 18 and tell us they are planning to marry, we've decided that we will welcome it and be happy to give them any support we can, including living with us (with their spouse, obviously) for a time until they are more financially secure, and continuing to put them through college if that's the path they are on.

 

We bemoan the immaturity of today's young people, then use that as evidence for why they aren't ready to marry. But aren't we putting the cart before the horse? We don't mature first then have experiences that require maturity later; our experiences mature us. Marriage matures us. If we want young people to be more mature, I see few things that would get them there faster than marrying! Most people I know didn't mature, and then once they were mature, marry and have kids. They got married, had kids, and matured during that process. I know that nothing grew me up and gave me a sense of responsibility and matured me faster than marriage and motherhood. I honestly don't think people in the past were somehow abstractly more mature, but that they took on responsibilities like marriage and parenthood earlier, and that matured them.

 

It may be true that marriage matures us (many women I know got their first white hairs just after marriage, even teen marriage). But I don't think it's true that teen sex matures anyone - at least not in the way we're talking about here.

 

I actually think age 17 or so is not too young for SOME people to begin an intimate life with another person. I do think it's too young for most in our society today. I don't really care whose fault that is. I have my own ideas, actually - the narcissism we encourage in our kids, etc. - but that's beside the point.

 

I don't see how you can argue that teens are mature enough for sex, and at the same time argue that they are incapable of waiting for sex. Mature does not equal incapable, in my book. Either they are responsible, or they are not. If they are not, it seems that marrying them off in today's society is asking for trouble.

 

I assume you know something about what a woman's life was/is like after marriage in early-marrying societies. Most of us today would not want that kind of life for our daughters.

 

An interesting aside. I read Gandhi's autobiography, in which he talked about his "child marriage." I believe they were 13 and 15. It was against the custom to have sex before waiting for years AFTER marriage. He didn't wait as long as was customary. His wife became pregnant and the baby was lost. He felt that was a punishment for his lack of self-control.

[SKL]

:banghead:

 

Do we think it's God who decided that, in the 21st century, people shouldn't marry until they are in their late 20s?

 

No. Why do you assume the PP waited until age 30 on principle? She waited until she met the right person and both were ready for a lifelong commitment. That's what God wants and what's healthy, in my opinion.

 

Sounds like you think it would be better for us to marry ANYBODY early even though some of us have not met our lifelong partner before age 30.

[Kirch]

Exactly the same here. What everyone is describing in this thread is completely foreign to me. We were taught a very healthy view of sex from our parents and our church. We were taught (rightly so) that sex outside of marriage is sin and sex within marriage is part of a covenant and special enough to protect.

 

Women were not objectified. Victims were not vilified. Men were not let off the hook.

 

We were also treated like young adults. Our parents and youth leaders didn't assume we were all doing it and they didn't assume we'd never be tempted. They put into place standards, expectations, supervision, and a strong biblical education.

 

And regardless of how many people are having sex outside of marriage it doesn't make it morally right. If anything it just proves our standards and morals have been in the gutter long enough to impact multiple generations. I'm all for teaching and modeling a Biblical standard of purity, while also recognizing that gimmicks rarely work. It can't be about adhering to a rule or attending a party. It has to be a genuine heart-felt commitment to the standards found in the Word of God.

 

Yes, exactly--this is how it was for me too. And how it is at our church now. They do teach/talk about waiting, but s*x is definitely not portrayed as dirty or dangerous. The boys are held to just as high a standard--maybe higher (our youth pastor expects a lot of them). We do have a ring ceremony for students who want to commit, but it's for both guys and girls and the commitment is to God, not to a parent. They ask someone to stand with them as a mentor (usually a parent, but we've had some kids without involved parents who have asked other relatives or adults in the church), but there's nothing creepy about it. The mentors *and the church* pledge together to encourage, pray for, and support the kids as they walk this road. And we've had some kids who have fallen short--they have been treated with love and grace. We just had a baby shower for a youth group grad who will be an unmarried 19/20 year old mom.

 

I'm sure the creepy, daughter-committing-to-daddy stuff is out there, but I think that's probably more in the patriarchal groups than the more mainstream evangelical churches. And again, I'm sure there are still churches out there that are teaching a negative, skewed view of s*x, but in all the churches I've experienced both as a teen and an adult, I haven't come across that at all.

[twoforjoy]

On the other hand, Paul talks about being unmarried and celibate. He doesn't say if you don't marry, no problem! Sleep around!

 

I think, though, that Paul was operating on the assumption that, unless you were called to celibacy, you'd be married. Being unmarried and celibate wasn't seen as a long-but-temporary state that people would be in, a kind of limbo you were in for a decade or two between puberty and marriage. Paul's view seems to be that, if you are called to celibacy, accept it and do not seek to marry, but if you are not called to celibacy, go get yourself married.

 

The message of today's abstinence movement is extremely different from Paul's message. For him, celibacy was a lifelong calling. Today, we expect people to remain temporarily celibate during the time in their lives when their sexual desire is most intense, and then marry after. Paul says to marry rather than burn; we say, "Just stop burning!" or "Just resist the burn for the next decade-and-a-half, and then once you've finished your education and established yourself in your career and have the start on a nice retirement fund, you can marry."

 

If people think that's desirable or realistic, that's fine. They can. But I do think we need to recognize that it's completely foreign to the message of Jesus or Paul or the OT writers who set up penalties for premarital sex. This idea of going through puberty at 12 or 13, then not engaging in sexual activity until you are fully mature and established in a career and in your mid-to-late 20s is an entirely different message about sex and marriage than what is expressed in the Bible.

 

ETA: I'm not at all disagreeing with your assessment of Paul. He would certainly not have said, "Well, just sleep around since you aren't married." But, I honestly don't think there's any reason to imagine that, if a young person struggling with lust who was not called to celibacy came to him, he'd say, "Spend another 10 years not having sex. Grow up, get mature, then we can talk about you marrying." He'd say, "Go marry!" We can say that we don't like that today, that it's unrealistic, that it just won't work, but then I think we need to consider that, if marrying young won't work and isn't realistic, then maybe waiting until marriage for sex isn't workable or realistic, either.

 

I just don't think we can have it both ways, and urge people to take seriously Paul's call to sexual purity without also taking seriously Paul's proposal of marriage--not willpower, not purity pledges, not abstinence programs--as the right response to sexual temptation for most people (all those not called to lifelong celibacy).

Edited September 29, 2011 by twoforjoy

[Veritaserum]

I think God expects us to obey His laws. I have said nothing about what age a person ought to marry. I know only that FOR ME, that age was 30. He did not send me my husband until I was 28, much to my heartache. I can remember clearly desperately wanting a husband/kids. But it wasn't God's timing and he just kept telling me wait. At the time I feared it was No. On this side of things, I know it was wait.

 

An excellent point. We have a lot of unmarried-but-want-to-be-married, celibate-by-choice 30-somethings in our congregation. Rather than marry whoever when they were younger, they've chosen to wait for the right person.

 

I happened to meet the right person early. I got married at 19, had a baby at 20, and graduated with my BA when I was 21. That's fairly common within my church at large (early married and college-educated), but age at marriage is increasing over time. Our leaders encourage the 18+ to date a lot with an eye toward finding a suitable mate while ALSO remaining chaste. It can be done. :)

[Daisy]

I think God expects us to obey His laws. I have said nothing about what age a person ought to marry. I know only that FOR ME, that age was 30. He did not send me my husband until I was 28, much to my heartache. I can remember clearly desperately wanting a husband/kids. But it wasn't God's timing and he just kept telling me wait. At the time I feared it was No. On this side of things, I know it was wait.

 

Exactly. Whether you marry at 17yo or 30yo, doesn't change that. The standard doesn't change just because culture has. Our culture now says wait until you are older to marry. I agree that is crazy. I'm all for young adults maturing earlier and marrying earlier. I think society is wrong to encourage delayed start to family and marriage, but sometimes it just works out that way. The standard doesn't change though. We don't get to say, "God didn't really mean for us to remain pure for longer than 10 years so now that you are 25, you can have sex outside of marriage."

 

That's the mentality I'm against.

 

I'm also against the idea that men and women are incapable of abstaining from sex.

[twoforjoy]

Exactly. Whether you marry at 17yo or 30yo, doesn't change that. The standard doesn't change just because culture has. Our culture now says wait until you are older to marry. I agree that is crazy. I'm all for young adults maturing earlier and marrying earlier. I think society is wrong to encourage delayed start to family and marriage, but sometimes it just works out that way. The standard doesn't change though. We don't get to say, "God didn't really mean for us to remain pure for longer than 10 years so now that you are 25, you can have sex outside of marriage."

 

That's the mentality I'm against.

 

I'm also against the idea that men and women are incapable of abstaining from sex.

 

I do understand what you're saying, and I largely agree.

 

I just think that we can't take the command to abstain from sex outside of marriage outside of the command to marry. We can't say that Paul's admonition to marry if you are burning with lust is one we can ignore today because it doesn't fit with our contemporary values while insisting that the command to reserve sex for marriage be followed.

 

Now I absolutely understand that sometimes it doesn't work out that way, and people really want to marry but that's not what life holds for them at the time. I'm not saying that they are doing something wrong, and I'm neither giving them a license to have sex anyway nor condemning them if they do.

 

I'm talking about the attitude I've seen in many Christian parents that their child must both 1) wait until they marry to have sex and 2) be sufficiently "mature" (generally meaning that they want their child to be out of college, secure in a job, financially independent, and at least in their mid-20s) before they marry. That's the attitude I'm objecting to. Is that possible? For some people. Is it reasonable? No, I don't think so. I think it's putting a very unfair burden on young people. I don't think a parent can or should simultaneously expect a child to delay marriage AND to reserve sex for marriage.

 

Can a person abstain from all junk food? Yes. But, is it realistic to expect them to do so if you don't have any healthy food in the house available for them? Probably not. I don't think it's right or fair to tell young people that they can't have sex before marriage and then take marriage off the table as a viable option for them for many years.

 

I also think that the reason we didn't need "abstinence programs" in the past was that people had the best abstinence program: marrying young. It's not that young people today are somehow less moral or more corrupt or more licentious; it's just that we've taken marrying in your teens (and increasingly even in your early 20s) off the table as a culturally-acceptable option.

 

I got married at 22 about 10 years ago, and people thought we were incredibly young and crazy to be marrying. At 22! Honestly, if it had been up to us, we'd have married at 19. But there was so much pressure on us from our families to wait until we finished college to marry. Now, our families really didn't care very much, at that point, about whether or not we waited until we were married for sex; they would have preferred it, but they didn't put pressure on us about it. Could we have abstained from sex from the time we met at 18, through the time we got engaged at 19, all through college, until we married at 22? Probably not. I don't think either one of us has that level of ability to resist temptation. I also think that, if we'd gone to Paul at 19 and said, "Hey, Paul, we're really struggling with temptation right now. How can we continue to resist lust?" he'd have told us to just go get married ASAP, rather than having us sign a pledge that we wouldn't have sex for another 3 years or so, until we married.

Edited September 29, 2011 by twoforjoy

[*Lulu*]

I'm sure the creepy, daughter-committing-to-daddy stuff is out there, but I think that's probably more in the patriarchal groups than the more mainstream evangelical churches. And again, I'm sure there are still churches out there that are teaching a negative, skewed view of s*x, but in all the churches I've experienced both as a teen and an adult, I haven't come across that at all.

 

We are firmly in the Bible-belt here, and the two huge Southern Baptst churches both have father/daughter purity cemonies advertised at the Christian bookstore. I consider Southern Baptist to be mainstream evangelical. Perhaps it is more regional in nature?

[Scarlett]

This is a point I'd like to bring to light. The hype over "True Love Waits" objectifies women as much as porn. The women's worth is still wrapped up in her sexuality...the packaging is just marketed differently.:glare:

 

 

Sexuality is extremely personal. Some of the purity stuff is outright manipulation ime, and even a child can sense when someone is overstepping into their personal space...anything else from that person will be outright rejected. It's no surprise that people make their own decisions about their own bodies.

 

That said, I am a "wait until marriage and stay faithful" kind of gal, and am teaching/will be teaching my dc about sex...the consequences - the reality - early and often. Most people will not touch the stove top if you tell them it's hot...most people make mostly self-preserving kinds of decisions, if they know.

 

Telling a girl that she will be "less than" if she "does it" is just wrong. Give her the information, and then back off of her personal space. .02

 

(....and the implications for victims of molestation/rape just make me boil with righteous anger!!!)

 

I am not finished reading the thread yet, but your entire post is how I feel.

 

My mother was raped at age 13 and she said she felt that she was no longer a virgin and that impacted her self worth to an astonishing degree. She never told anyone of the rape until she was in her 20s.

 

If a person professes to be a Christian who believes premarital sex to be a sin, then it should be avoided. And just because a person has sex doesn't mean they must keep ON having sex. I think that attitude is out there....oh, well, I did it with my boyfriend so no need to try to be chaste in the future. That is like saying, 'oh well, I got drunk one time so now there is no point in moderating alcohol use in the future.'

[happypamama]

Most girls I've seen take the pledge do it around age 14 - young enough to barely have had a first boyfriend and certainly nothing serious. They don't know how love will affect them but they're making promises anyway. It would be like me promising I won't move to a retirement home in Florida before I'm 80, even though there could be compelling reasons to do it when I'm 65. Making a promise that far out without being mature enough to look at the options objectively is stupid.

 

Thank you! I have said that for years. I agree with the premise of the True Love Waits type programs, because I do believe that we should wait until we're married to have s*x. But there's a world of difference between a 14yo who's barely even talked to a boy and an 18yo who is off at college on her own for the first time and a 23yo who is graduated and holding a job and still waiting to find the right person to marry. In my personal opinion, none of them should be having s*x, but the 18 and 23yo's should have much better ideas as to why they're waiting for s*x. A 14yo is largely clueless. While I think it's a good idea to plant the idea in teens' heads that s*x is for marriage, I don't really care for the "sign a pledge" campaigns. Maybe they help a few kids who are feeling pressured to have s*x, though, but largely, I suspect most teens don't really take them into consideration. One year, our school did a pledge drive before prom, encouraging everyone to sign that they promised not to drink on prom night. They made a huge issue out of wanting 100% participation. I refused to sign. Not because I planned to drink, but just the opposite -- I didn't plan to drink then or any other night, and I was pretty sure that didn't apply to most of my classmates. I'm sure many of them drank anyway, pledge or not, and if they didn't on prom night, they likely did other nights in high school. I'm not sure an abstinence pledge would have meant much to them either. And fwiw, I think there ought to be more to abstinence-based education than "don't do it until you're married," like good reasons to wait, how to avoid overly tempting situations, how to enjoy someone's company/get to know someone without having s*x, how to be friends (and not merely lovers) with the person you marry, how to be yourself whether you're in a serious relationship or not, etc., etc.

[Liz CA]

Hang the bloody sheets out of the window so all can see that the heir born in 9 or 10 months is truly a child of the husband.

 

The emphasis on a woman's virginity is nothing more than a patriarchal way of ensuring the family line isn't contaminated.

 

Uggghhhh, Ack, is there a new emoticon for "disgusted"?

[SKL]

I got married at 22 about 10 years ago, and people thought we were incredibly young and crazy to be marrying. At 22! Honestly, if it had been up to us, we'd have married at 19. .... Could we have abstained from sex from the time we met at 18, through the time we got engaged at 19, all through college, until we married at 22? Probably not. I don't think either one of us has that level of ability to resist temptation.

 

Well, that's you. Don't assume that's the case for everyone else.

 

And, I don't think most of the people here would have opposed your marrying at 19 if you both were really committed in your hearts for the long haul.

 

PS, just because I'm not married and haven't so much as sat next to a man in over 5 years, that doesn't mean I'm burning with lust. I am decidedly NOT burning with lust.:lol:

[justamouse]

I

 

I got married at 22 about 10 years ago, and people thought we were incredibly young and crazy to be marrying. At 22! Honestly, if it had been up to us, we'd have married at 19. But there was so much pressure on us from our families to wait until we finished college to marry. Now, our families really didn't care very much, at that point, about whether or not we waited until we were married for sex; they would have preferred it, but they didn't put pressure on us about it. Could we have abstained from sex from the time we met at 18, through the time we got engaged at 19, all through college, until we married at 22? Probably not. I don't think either one of us has that level of ability to resist temptation. I also think that, if we'd gone to Paul at 19 and said, "Hey, Paul, we're really struggling with temptation right now. How can we continue to resist lust?" he'd have told us to just go get married ASAP, rather than having us sign a pledge that we wouldn't have sex for another 3 years or so, until we married.

:iagree:

 

I got married at 22-to a man 9 years my senior, and was pregnant. :D That was with us trying so hard to be good. :tongue_smilie:

 

Everyone was sure we would divorce. I still know some that hope so, so they can say they told us so.

 

The answers are not broad, they're highly individual.

 

Marriage is a sacrament of holy orders, as is some forms of chastity. If your calling is to chastity, that is a different row to hoe. You can't look at a biologically ready teenager, ready to procreate, and tell them to hold on for fifteen years while they get their education and financial house in order. Especially since grown and married adults have the same problems-and age hasn't cured them.

 

I, too, believe that lust is grease for the skids, but that the maturing is done within the relationship-the maturity doesn't come first so you then can have a relationship.

 

And, there's a million ways for the equation to go wrong.

[Scarlett]

Exactly the same here. What everyone is describing in this thread is completely foreign to me. We were taught a very healthy view of sex from our parents and our church. We were taught (rightly so) that sex outside of marriage is sin and sex within marriage is part of a covenant and special enough to protect.

 

Women were not objectified. Victims were not vilified. Men were not let off the hook.

 

We were also treated like young adults. Our parents and youth leaders didn't assume we were all doing it and they didn't assume we'd never be tempted. They put into place standards, expectations, supervision, and a strong biblical education.

 

And regardless of how many people are having sex outside of marriage it doesn't make it morally right. If anything it just proves our standards and morals have been in the gutter long enough to impact multiple generations. I'm all for teaching and modeling a Biblical standard of purity, while also recognizing that gimmicks rarely work. It can't be about adhering to a rule or attending a party. It has to be a genuine heart-felt commitment to the standards found in the Word of God.

 

Exactly the way it went in my life. The bolded I so agree with too.

 

Young marriage isn't encouraged in my faith. Those who are waiting to get married are also waiting to start dating. That is where the real temptation comes in to play....having a boy/girlfriend and then attempting to wait on sex for 4 years of college or some such craziness! Those who do begin dating do so for the purpose of finding a mate...if suitable mate is found then they get married in a reasonable time period....time enough to plan a wedding or whatever--not having engagments that last years.

[Kirch]

We are firmly in the Bible-belt here, and the two huge Southern Baptst churches both have father/daughter purity cemonies advertised at the Christian bookstore. I consider Southern Baptist to be mainstream evangelical. Perhaps it is more regional in nature?

 

That may be--I'm Southern Baptist and have been in many different churches and seen different True Love Waits/purity programs, and I've never come across one.

[Scarlett]

I just don't think we can have it both ways, and urge people to take seriously Paul's call to sexual purity without also taking seriously Paul's proposal of marriage--not willpower, not purity pledges, not abstinence programs--as the right response to sexual temptation for most people (all those not called to lifelong celibacy).

 

:iagree:

[Scarlett]

Exactly the way it went in my life. The bolded I so agree with too.

 

Young marriage isn't encouraged in my faith. Those who are waiting to get married are also waiting to start dating. That is where the real temptation comes in to play....having a boy/girlfriend and then attempting to wait on sex for 4 years of college or some such craziness! Those who do begin dating do so for the purpose of finding a mate...if suitable mate is found then they get married in a reasonable time period....time enough to plan a wedding or whatever--not having engagments that last years.

 

Added: When I say young marriage isn't encouraged...I guess 'young' is relative. I don't think of age 22-25 being 'young'.

[Scarlett]

:iagree:

 

I got married at 22-to a man 9 years my senior, and was pregnant. :D That was with us trying so hard to be good. :tongue_smilie:

 

Everyone was sure we would divorce. I still know some that hope so, so they can say they told us so.

 

 

Just curious (and file this under things I would never ask a person IRL! :tongue_smilie:) how long did you 'try to be good'?

[Abigail4476]

Yep.

Big issue there.

Much is made of the girls' side of this. What of the boys?

Yes, boys are encouraged to wait, but there's no, "boy purity!" There's no, "how will you get the magic color on your wedding day if you're not a virgin?"

 

If girls are pledging their virginities to their father, why aren't boys pledging theirs to their mother?

 

Because girls are ruled by their fathers. . .boys too, but it just counts more for girls because one day she will be ruled by her husband. (No, not in all Christian circles, but that's part of the underlying mentality of this ritual. A woman's body is less her own that a man's is his. That's the only way for this to make sense.)

 

Gross, gross, gross.

 

Ipsey (who was a Christian virgin on her wedding night)

 

THIS creeps me out. I would never have pledged my virginity to my father. The whole phrase makes me want to gag. I can see making a commitment to God to remain a virgin till marriage. I can even see making a mental commitment to a future mate. I can see making a commitment to yourself, that you will save your body for that Really Important Person. But to your father??????

 

Blech. And, *shudder.*

[justamouse]

Just curious (and file this under things I would never ask a person IRL! :tongue_smilie:) how long did you 'try to be good'?

 

Not very long.:D He waged a mighty battle, and I knew he was the one, so my walls weren't very strong. :001_smile:

 

We met in January, started seeing each other in Feb, married in the fall.

 

We laugh at my attempts to hold off now. Think a notebook and lists of scriptures...:lol: and him just kissing me and laughing at my notebook. (and yes, we're 'evenly yolked') and going to the same church)

Edited September 29, 2011 by justamouse

[Abigail4476]

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.

 

There is something to the idea that we're asking young people to suppress their sexuality for far too long. The Bible addresses this and says that it's better to "marry than to burn [with lust]." In the OT, if a man and woman had sex before marriage, he was required to marry her and wasn't allowed to ever divorce her. I always thought it was interesting that under the Mosaic law, adultery warranted a death punishment but *teenage sex* brought a marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). It tells me that God is pretty pragmatic about this stuff, too. :lol:

[Scarlett]

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.

 

There is something to the idea that we're asking young people to suppress their sexuality for far too long. The Bible addresses this and says that it's better to "marry than to burn [with lust]." In the OT, if a man and woman had sex before marriage, he was required to marry her and wasn't allowed to ever divorce her. I always thought it was interesting that under the Mosaic law, adultery warranted a death punishment but *teenage sex* brought a marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29). It tells me that God is pretty pragmatic about this stuff, too. :lol:

 

I've thought the same thing!

[Scarlett]

Not very long.:D He waged a mighty battle, and I knew he was the one, so my walls weren't very strong. :001_smile:

 

We met in January, started seeing each other in Feb, married in the fall.

 

We laugh at my attempts to hold off now. Think a notebook and lists of scriptures...:lol: and him just kissing me and laughing at my notebook. (and yes, we're 'evenly yolked') and going to the same church)

 

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:)

[amey311]

Well, that's you. Don't assume that's the case for everyone else.

 

 

Well, yeah, but at the same time, there are people here who firmly believe "I waited until I met THE ONE, and even though that meant waiting until 30, and even though it was a hard road I did it. Therefore, you should, too."

 

So, we can't assume that everyone "has that level of ability to resist temptatation" and yet we have to assume that they do?

 

Honestly, this boggles my mind - the kind of double talk that happens. Sometimes it's okay to say "I had this struggle, so I know you can bear the same weight." Other times it's not okay and instead it's "that struggle was awful and no one should have to deal with that, so we're making this change."

[vonfirmath]

amey: Wow you read a lot into what people say! People were saying youngsters CAN'T wait so we should not expect it. I provided a counter example. It's definitely not easy, but it is doable. And it isn't me expecting anything. When someone chooses to have sex before marriage, it is no skin off my back.

 

But I will raise my kids the way I was raised. What if they slip up, repent and come to me? Then its just like what happens when you slip up and tell a lie, or get into a foolish argument. You apologize to God and resolve to live pure from this moment on, with God's help. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God but He has given us an avenue out. There will likely be consequences, as there are consequences to all sin. Even if not apparent at the moment.

 

And one of the consequences is that folk look at the church and think (they are no better than I; I don't need what they have). They look at programs like this and mock when those who participate fall short. And those younger in faith see and wonder "Why should I even try? It is impossible"

[amey311]

amey: Wow you read a lot into what people say! People were saying youngsters CAN'T wait so we should not expect it. I provided a counter example. It's definitely not easy, but it is doable. And it isn't me expecting anything. When someone chooses to have sex before marriage, it is no skin off my back.

 

But I will raise my kids the way I was raised. What if they slip up, repent and come to me? Then its just like what happens when you slip up and tell a lie, or get into a foolish argument. You apologize to God and resolve to live pure from this moment on, with God's help. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God but He has given us an avenue out. There will likely be consequences, as there are consequences to all sin. Even if not apparent at the moment.

 

 

I think what pragmatic people are saying is "lots of people can wait, but not everyone can, so they need accurate information." Versus "I waited, you have to as well" because if not, it's like falling off a cliff. This whole imagery of "premarital sex = DEATH! HORROR!" is what many of us have a problem with.

 

If you have a college graduated, living independently child who has premarital sex, would you expect that they should apologize to you or come and tell you about it? I know that tone might sound rude, especially when read with my first paragraph. I am asking sincerely, though (and calmly). I wouldn't expect to apologize to my parents for something that didn't directly affect them. I can understand seeking forgiveness from your god, and making prayerful repentance if that's what you believe.

 

 

I ask that because of what you said here:

But I will raise my kids the way I was raised. What if they slip up, repent and come to me? Then its just like what happens when you slip up and tell a lie, or get into a foolish argument. You apologize to God and resolve to live pure from this moment on, with God's help.

[vonfirmath]

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.

Edited September 29, 2011 by vonfirmath

[SKL]

Well, yeah, but at the same time, there are people here who firmly believe "I waited until I met THE ONE, and even though that meant waiting until 30, and even though it was a hard road I did it. Therefore, you should, too."

 

I didn't think we were talking about telling each other (as mature, unrelated adults) what they should do. I thought we were talking about what messages we want our kids to receive as they prepare to take on these choices.

 

I take issue with people saying that I should not propose an ideal to my kids, just because somebody else did not personally live up to that ideal.

 

If I were the only person who hadn't had sexual relations by age 20, I could see the point. But there are many people who manage to wait, few of whom were sorry they did.

 

If I let my personal choices limit what everyone else's kids should be taught as an ideal, I'd tell you all to stop telling your kids that fathers are important in children's lives, because my kids don't have a father. In fact, lots of kids aren't growing up with fathers and many historically did not. Perhaps active fatherhood is a ridiculous ideal. In fact, it's probably messing up kids' minds and creating sadness and guilt everywhere. So you all are going to stop talking about it, right?

[twoforjoy]

And one of the consequences is that folk look at the church and think (they are no better than I; I don't need what they have). They look at programs like this and mock when those who participate fall short. And those younger in faith see and wonder "Why should I even try? It is impossible"

 

But why are people failing? It seems like they are failing, largely, because of delayed marriage. If it were a matter of remaining abstinent until 20, more people could do it. But it's a matter of remaining abstinent until 30, most people will fail. That's not mocking, it's just reality.

 

So, why not present an alternative to young people? Rather than only saying--and this is what I see most abstinence programs/proponents saying--"Go along with the prevailing cultural ideas about when you should marry and what you should achieve before marriage, only don't have sex until you do," what about holding up marrying younger (not as a young teen, but at 18-22 or so) as one possibility?

 

If churches are so interested in "defending" and promoting marriage, it seems to me that encouraging young couples to marry and supporting them when they do would be far more effective than abstinence campaigns.

[butterflymommy]

Most people aren't that promiscuous. The average woman has four partners over the course of her entire lifetime. What's funny is how obsessed we are with female promiscuity and female purity when men have significantly more sex partners on average and are far more likely to have many partners.

 

It all depends on perspective. To some people, 4 partners would be considered promiscuous. I was just pointing out that a study saying people in a certain age group "had had sex" really doesn't mean anything. Age at time of sexual encounter, number of partners, duration of relationships, all make a big difference, but based on this article the study doesn't differentiate between any of it.

 

When I used the term promiscuous I was referring to both men and women. Maybe it's where I live, but most people I know have gone through a lot more than 4 sexual partners. My friend went through that many the first year after her divorce! And most of the guys she slept with were involved with multiple partners at the same time.