Purity Culture is damaging and idolatrous

[Professormom]

You know I find this so interesting. I don't understand the, "I must define myself by being part of a movement." Christians need to just put out there what biblical teaching is, let God teach it, and not stack layers upon layers of STUFF up on it. Did I and do I teach my girls that the proper place for sex is within marriage? Absolutely. I don't see how it's relevant in Elizabeth Smart's case. I really don't understand EXCEPT that people stacked layers on actual teaching. Why? Because Elizabeth Smart was never sleeping around. She never made any choices in her abduction or treatment.

 

People take a fine idea - that sex is good and healthiest when confined to the loving union of marriage - and then they pick it up, hoist it on their shoulders, and make that THE goal.

 

We gave our oldest daughter a ring when she was 15. It was a ruby. It was when purity rings were incredibly popular and we were careful to explain that it wasn't a purity ring. It was because "her worth was far above rubies." If a woman knows she is valued, she treats herself as though she is valued, and that includes not letting men use her and treat her badly. If she knows her value in Christ comes from who she IS then she values herself and makes choices accordingly.

 

It's the cart before the horse. People think it's easier to control choices and actions (by limiting those choices, or education, etc.) instead of grounding their kids in biblical principles and a heart for God and then walking away and letting their child have the fullness of the relationship with God. They don't recognize their child as a fully formed person instead of an extension or reflection of themselves.

You said this beautifully.

[Professormom]

Marriage is no guarantee against unplanned pregnancies and broken hearts.

 

I would agree with you insofar that sex should belong into a committed relationship, but I don't share this idyllic view that marriage magically makes all problems go away, nor that non-married relationships are not equipped to handle the problems that arise.

 

I am not sure I hear anyone hear saying or implying either one of those things. I am hearing more about what people are aiming for in their relationships, with an eye for helping their kids navigate the muddy waters of dating and relationships. Just like having expectations for our performance in our careers, having a certain vision - one that is worthwhile and somewhat lofty:-) - is important in keeping us moving forward. But, the vision and reality don't always match up. That's where grace becomes very important. And that is where I see the purity messages we have been talking about fall apart.

 

I know first hand that marriage certainly doesn't solve all problems (although, if you mean the way it is often couched in the "purity" culture we have been talking about, then I can see where you are coming from.) I had many relationships (some I look back on fondly, some I wish I could go back and wipe away), living together, and an ugly marriage and divorce. These have colored the way I see things. Have they given me some experience? Yes. Waking up to my own poor choices has allowed me to be very grateful for the marriage I have now. And those experiences have made me a better wife to dh. And he, having had a similar history, is a better husband to me. But, we often talk about how MUCH better they made us. What if we had had the guidance to strive for something better to begin with? What is the point of diminishing returns? How much is too much experience? How much is not enough?

 

I also think it is hard to for people who have not dated much or been very wild (for lack of a better word) to understand the dynamics that drive those behaviors. I have a few friends who were always very upright, and they just can't step into the failings of others. They really can't process how someone didn't "just say no." They are lovely people in many other ways, but their ability to identify with being drawn to danger, so to speak, is muted. A young woman with a crummy family life VERY often turns to the attention of men to fill a void. And sometimes, it has nothing to do with the family. Some people really have to go to God the hard way, if that makes sense. I have had to struggle through much to get to where I am with my faith, and I get very frustrated with the add-ons to the Christian religion, like those we have been discussing.

 

I don't have any terrific answers, but I think being open to the hearts of the young people we are trying to reach is a good first step.

[KungFuPanda]

Well I'll go way out on a limb and most likely get slaughtered here, but am I the only one who thinks that, um, physical relations before marriage is actually a good thing? DH was not my first and I'm glad for it. I'm also glad I didn't marry my first because we weren't compatible that way. As long as all parties are responsible, mature enough, emotionally ready, etc. I feel like physical compatibility is just as important as emotional and practical compatibility in a relationship. And that's not something you can necessarily tell, um, before any "special friend time" occurs.

 

*cringing because I have a feeling this is not a popular opinion here*

It's very heathen of you to imply that the quality of your sex life matters in a marriage. Where do you get this stuff???

[fraidycat]

It's very heathen of you to imply that the quality of your sex life matters in a marriage. Where do you get this stuff???

:lol:

[JustEm]

Can I just say how jealous I am of all you people who have TeA and are tired afterwards. Having TeA always wakes me up no matter how tired I am. There are nights I want to enjoy it but know I can't because I need to be up at 6am and don't want it to keep me awake for another hour or more. On the flip side, it does make for a nice start to the morning frequently.

[Murphy101]

Can I just say how jealous I am of all you people who have TeA and are tired afterwards. Having TeA always wakes me up no matter how tired I am. There are nights I want to enjoy it but know I can't because I need to be up at 6am and don't want it to keep me awake for another hour or more. On the flip side, it does make for a nice start to the morning frequently.

So glad I'm not the only one. Though I'll still partake and still get up at 6am. I've been known to even jokingly state up front, "only if you're also willing to recharge me in 4 hours". I find it makes having insomnia easier to cope with. At least after that I don't feel like a zombie for a few hours.

[AnnE-girl]

I thought it was pretty well established that women tend to have a harder time falling asleep after while it makes men fall asleep right away. I've at times been a little resentful of DH's snoring while I watch more TV hoping to finally fall asleep. Resentful in the most loving way, of course :-)

[Guest]

Well I'll go way out on a limb and most likely get slaughtered here, but am I the only one who thinks that, um, physical relations before marriage is actually a good thing? DH was not my first and I'm glad for it. I'm also glad I didn't marry my first because we weren't compatible that way. As long as all parties are responsible, mature enough, emotionally ready, etc. I feel like physical compatibility is just as important as emotional and practical compatibility in a relationship. And that's not something you can necessarily tell, um, before any "special friend time" occurs.

 

*cringing because I have a feeling this is not a popular opinion here*

It's a taboo subject in general, but I tend to agree. Also, I'm not exactly rooting for my kids to be 30-yo Virg!ns. I don't want them rushing in, and I'm not a big believer in playing a very wide field, if you know what I mean, but I also don't want them married at 17 because they are so wound up they can't think straight, or pg because they were trying to deny what they were doing. One friend who got pg young, when I asked why she didn't go on B/C, said, "well, then you're really having s@x!" I said, "But, you really were!" She said, "Well, yeah...I wanted to wait, though...I don't know, I kept telling myself we wouldn't do it any more, but it kept happening!"

 

I really don't want my kids to think this way.

[6packofun]

Well I'll go way out on a limb and most likely get slaughtered here, but am I the only one who thinks that, um, physical relations before marriage is actually a good thing? DH was not my first and I'm glad for it. I'm also glad I didn't marry my first because we weren't compatible that way. As long as all parties are responsible, mature enough, emotionally ready, etc. I feel like physical compatibility is just as important as emotional and practical compatibility in a relationship. And that's not something you can necessarily tell, um, before any "special friend time" occurs.

 

*cringing because I have a feeling this is not a popular opinion here*

 

LOL  You don't have to cry. I truly understand the strong desire to be physically/sexually compatible. I guess my quibble with it, aside from my Christian beliefs, is that the sexual relationship grows and changes JUST LIKE the emotional and practical compatibility you mention.  We marry one person and end up with someone at least a little different 10, 20 years down the road.  Sometimes it's richer and better in some areas and sometimes it's less so.  But then we get to work on it.  The assumption that if we get the perfect, awesome combination of compatibilities it will stay that way is naive; life carries NO guarantee that it will last.  Sometimes it does, I'm sure.  But when it doesn't, it doesn't mean it was a mistake.  (You are not saying that, I don't think, but I feel the implication is that we NEED to be perfectly meshed when I disagree and think that we BECOME meshed in some areas.)

 

I had more than half a dozen partners before I became a Christian and met my husband within a 2-week period right at the beginning of my freshman year in college.  I can honestly say that I never learned or experienced or worked at *anything* in those sexual "relationships" (if they can be called that even though, yes, I loved 1 or 2 of those guys) that prepared me to be the best wife and lover for the man I CHOSE.  And even if I had, why couldn't I have learned that with him anyway?

 

*edited--oops, I thought you said "crying" not "cringing"!  LOL  Sorry!

[DesertBlossom]

LOL You don't have to cry. I truly understand the strong desire to be physically/sexually compatible. I guess my quibble with it, aside from my Christian beliefs, is that the sexual relationship grows and changes JUST LIKE the emotional and practical compatibility you mention. We marry one person and end up with someone at least a little different 10, 20 years down the road. Sometimes it's richer and better in some areas and sometimes it's less so. But then we get to work on it. The assumption that if we get the perfect, awesome combination of compatibilities it will stay that way is naive; life carries NO guarantee that it will last. Sometimes it does, I'm sure. But when it doesn't, it doesn't mean it was a mistake. (You are not saying that, I don't think, but I feel the implication is that we NEED to be perfectly meshed when I disagree and think that we BECOME meshed in some areas.)

 

I had more than half a dozen partners before I became a Christian and met my husband within a 2-week period right at the beginning of my freshman year in college. I can honestly say that I never learned or experienced or worked at *anything* in those sexual "relationships" (if they can be called that even though, yes, I loved 1 or 2 of those guys) that prepared me to be the best wife and lover for the man I CHOSE. And even if I had, why couldn't I have learned that with him anyway?

 

*edited--oops, I thought you said "crying" not "cringing"! LOL Sorry!

I think this is very true. I also think that when both partners are sincerely concerned about the satisfaction of the other, that they can work through many issues of "incompatibility."

[Aelwydd]

LOL You don't have to cry. I truly understand the strong desire to be physically/sexually compatible. I guess my quibble with it, aside from my Christian beliefs, is that the sexual relationship grows and changes JUST LIKE the emotional and practical compatibility you mention. We marry one person and end up with someone at least a little different 10, 20 years down the road. Sometimes it's richer and better in some areas and sometimes it's less so. But then we get to work on it. The assumption that if we get the perfect, awesome combination of compatibilities it will stay that way is naive; life carries NO guarantee that it will last. Sometimes it does, I'm sure. But when it doesn't, it doesn't mean it was a mistake. (You are not saying that, I don't think, but I feel the implication is that we NEED to be perfectly meshed when I disagree and think that we BECOME meshed in some areas.)

 

I had more than half a dozen partners before I became a Christian and met my husband within a 2-week period right at the beginning of my freshman year in college. I can honestly say that I never learned or experienced or worked at *anything* in those sexual "relationships" (if they can be called that even though, yes, I loved 1 or 2 of those guys) that prepared me to be the best wife and lover for the man I CHOSE. And even if I had, why couldn't I have learned that with him anyway?

 

*edited--oops, I thought you said "crying" not "cringing"! LOL Sorry!

Yeah, but the problem is some people will never be sexually compatible, no matter how much time passes. Testing the waters first can also help avoid such scenarios as 21 year old divorcees who got married at 19 years old to just to get to have sex.

[Katy]

I have such mixed feelings about this...

 

I can see why in the days before reliable birth control premarital sex would be wrong...  but these days?   Consequences, yes, but I'm not sure I would have waited if I had it to do all over again.

[Guest]

I have such mixed feelings about this...

 

I can see why in the days before reliable birth control premarital sex would be wrong... but these days? Consequences, yes, but I'm not sure I would have waited if I had it to do all over again.

In my eyes the bigger factor is that procreation and pairing up is delayed for a very long time in our modern culture. It made sense to not engage in premarital sex when marriage soon followed biological adulthood. But now it is normal to be a biological adult for ten to fifteen years or more before choosing a permanent mate and having children.

 

Extended lifespans add to this as well. If one can reasonably expect to live for eighty years, then there is no big hurry to start procreating. Also, we can place a decent bet on our children surviving infancy and toddlerhood, as well as being reasonably confident we will survive childbearing. This is another reason why there's no great hurry to get started on childbearing, because there's not usually a need to assume at least several children will not grow up, us, no need to intend to have ten of them.

[PeterPan]

In my eyes the bigger factor is that procreation and pairing up is delayed for a very long time in our modern culture. It made sense to not engage in premarital sex when marriage soon followed biological adulthood...

 

Not to wax all historical, but that wasn't the case even when you go back in time (that people waited because they knew they'd get married young).  In our own colonial american history the trend was try the girl out, see if she got pregnant, and if she did (proving she could bear you children), THEN marry her.

 

At least that's what I've read.  :)

[Guest]

Not to wax all historical, but that wasn't the case even when you go back in time (that people waited because they knew they'd get married young). In our own colonial american history the trend was try the girl out, see if she got pregnant, and if she did (proving she could bear you children), THEN marry her.

 

At least that's what I've read. :)

This is news to me. Where did you read this?

[Bluegoat]

Again though, all this emphasis on following God's commands still makes it the fault of the victim and a personal flaw if the choice of abstinence is taken from them. You do not need to ask forgiveness for not being abstinent through no fault of your own but elevating abstinence still makes the lack of virginity a shameful condition. There is no way, given some of the 'biblical' teaching examples above, to get around that. I think Elizabeth Smart does an excellent job of explaining that.

 

In a way this is true, but I think that within the context of a healthy attitude to life in general, that shouldn't be a problem.

 

Poor choices we make are our own responsibility, and they often do mark us, emotionally and intellectually and sometimes physically.  That goes for every kind of poor choice, be it a practical matter or a moral one.  Our level of responsibility will be tempered by all kinds of things - what we knew, our level of maturity, our own particular challenges and gifts.  Even when our responsibility is minimal, the choice may mark us significantly.

 

So having made a bad choice about sex might well be, or have been, a personal flaw.  But more than making a bad choice about our relation to food or money or parenting.  We might be right to look back on a bad parenting moment or a bad financial decision as having been a kind of shameful thing.  But I think the thing to realize is that it doesn't make us a less worthy person, that it is something that we can let go of the shame of (though not necessarily other consequences,) and that everyone has done things that are shameful at some point in their lives.

[Veritaserum]

no - it does not. there are some groups (e.g. ATI/gothard/ who seem to be very prurient.) who engage in victim blaming, BUT they are not the majority.

Elizabeth Smart had a public school teacher who was an idiot. the message she was taught by her parents was she had worth just because she was who she was, and it did give her strength.

that age can also be very impacted by something an outsider says, even if it's contrary to what they've been taught at home. it just sticks as you try to figure it out. she never got to figure it out so she could throw it out - she was kidnapped first.

 

LDS doctrine does not engage in victim blaming (indeed considers victims to have done nothing wrong) - and she is still a very active member.

LDS teachings on this subject is one of the things that helped me to understand *I* had worth *for myself*. I sure as hades didn't get it in my *liberal* (and atheist) home growing up!

(I won't go into detail - but there was an expectation teen girls would have meaningless s3x because they either have no self-control or value. - btw: my father died when I was 12. that message was coming from *liberal* WOMEN.)

LDS doctrine changes over time. President Kimball (leader of the LDS church in the 70s and early 80s) wrote this in The Miracle of Forgiveness, which has been a widely-read church book for decades:

 

"Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle."

 

This quote puts blame on victims to "not cooperate" or else they're culpable to their own abuse/rape. I'd MUCH rather my child be alive after a rape even if that meant "cooperating" than I'd rather my child be dead. I believe it's harmful to teach that one's virtue can even be "stolen." A woman who is raped hundreds of times is just as valuable as a woman who is a virgin, but teachings like this quote above make it seem like virginity is more valuable than life itself. Christ defended and forgave the woman taken in adultery, so even consensual extramarital sex isn't the end of the world according to Him.

 

While most members of the church now would not view victims of assault as culpable to their own abuse, there are some who still agree with teachings like the quote above. Some bishops now will still discipline rape victims as being somehow guilty in their own rapes. Bad object lessons such as chewed gum and licked cupcakes still show up in lessons on chastity for young women. Because bishops and teachers within the church are just regular people called to serve in a position for a few years at a time, there is a wide variety in how topics like chastity and sexual assault are handled. If you've never encountered someone who blames rape victims and views non-virgins as less worthy, you are luckier than most.

[Greta]

(You are not saying that, I don't think, but I feel the implication is that we NEED to be perfectly meshed when I disagree and think that we BECOME meshed in some areas.)

I just wanted to say that I agree with this, and I think it speaks to a larger problem regarding marriage in our culture: the fact that we've all been raised with this romanticized notion that once you find the right person, sparks will fly, the orchestra will play, and you'll live happily ever after. I've actually heard people say that when you find the right person, things will be easy, because relationships aren't supposed to be work. Well, I think that's one huge, stinking pile of b.s. right there.

 

And I do want to be clear that I'm not arguing the opposite end of this spectrum either; I am not trying to say that any two people can have a happy marriage if they work hard enough. No. Some people are just plain incompatible.

 

But I am saying, finding the right person is only part of the equation, and I think our culture over-emphasizes this part. Becoming the right person is part of it too (and that's a life-long process). Having the right attitude and approach to marriage is part of it too (and once I've got that figured out I'll be sure to let you guys know :lol: ) Compatibility is something that can be worked toward, and it is something worth working toward. It is not, in my opinion, something you should just expect to have magically handed to you by the right person.

 

Well, I know I'm getting off-topic, so please forgive me, and carry on. :)

[Bluegoat]

I think that in terms of pregnancy, the thing to realize is that something like half of all pregnancies are unplanned.  Even being careful, barring (usually) sterilization, birth control is not a sure thing.  There are potentially quite serious results of any sexual encounter, and if you are not prepared to deal with them, it is probably not a good idea to do it.  Lots of kids do get taught this, but many don't, and I think the tendency for teens to think that they will just be lucky can get in the way of a realistic appraisal on their end, even if they know it intellectually.  Plenty of adults who should know better make poor decisions about sex and find themselves tied to people they come to wish they had never met.

 

I think that the whole elevation of virginity thing, as practiced among some religious cultures, is negative.  I think the drive to young marriage just for sex, the implication that marriage is all about sex, etc, is a bad thing.

 

On the other hand - purposefully giving up something as an ascetic practice can be not only valuable but inspiring. I am not convinced that the way we delay marriage and childbearing is a very positive thing emotionally or physically and I think it is driven by an unbalanced and exploitative economic structure.  I think that our idea that there is a "right person" for you to marry is very destructive and that there is practically speaking a lot to be said even for some kinds of arranged marriages.  I think that a lot of what lies behind our approach to dating is that marriage is a kind of amped up friendship with sex, and I think that tends to give unrealistic expectations for marital sex, how we relate to our spouses, and even for friendships.

 

I tend to think that the "marriage as sexual friendship/dating" model is almost a mirror image of the "courtship/purity" model, and that both have some serious underlying problems.

[CaffeineDiary]

Just checking in to reply to @AmandaVT to say that I'm in the camp that responsible sex before marriage is a positive good and should be encouraged, at least among young adults.

[Greta]

I think that a lot of what lies behind our approach to dating is that marriage is a kind of amped up friendship with sex, and I think that tends to give unrealistic expectations for marital sex, how we relate to our spouses, and even for friendships.

 

I tend to think that the "marriage as sexual friendship/dating" model is almost a mirror image of the "courtship/purity" model, and that both have some serious underlying problems.

Your entire post was very good, very insightful. But this part especially struck me. I had never thought about it in these terms before, but I find this very interesting. Good food for thought.

 

I had a friend and roommate in college who was from a culture where arranged marriages were the norm. At first the notion was shocking, even revolting, to me. But she really opened my eyes and made me think, for the first time in my life, about the ways in which my culture had shaped my expectations regarding what marriage should be, and that there were other approaches that were just as healthy, just as positive, just as fulfilling (possibly more so?) though profoundly different.

 

I wonder how long this expectation of friendship has been a big part of marriages in our culture. I hadn't really thought about it before, but now that I am thinking about it, I think this was much less of a factor in my grandparents' marriages than it is in my own.

 

I'm also thinking about all the times I've seen someone post on FaceBook "Married to my best friend for x years!" and wondered if I am the weird one because I never describe my husband in those terms ("best friend"). That just somehow doesn't feel right to me, for reasons I can't articulate.

 

Well, that was a mess of discombobulated thoughts. :) But your post really got my mind spinning! :D

[albeto.]

I tend to think that the "marriage as sexual friendship/dating" model is almost a mirror image of the "courtship/purity" model, and that both have some serious underlying problems.

 

I wouldn't consider them mirror opposites if for no other reason than there is a marked lack of control in one and not the other. Being married, like being a parent, being a co-worker, being a member of community, being in any social relationship really, works best when people have effective, appropriate social skills. Learning which social skills are appropriate for any give social group is key. Being able to apply them with consistency is key. Doing so in the context of courtship/purity will likely provide a more satisfactory experience, as will doing so in the "friendship/dating" context. There is a profound difference between having the option to continue or pursue other relationships that make the two completely incomparable, imo. 

[DesertBlossom]

Yeah, but the problem is some people will never be sexually compatible, no matter how much time passes. Testing the waters first can also help avoid such scenarios as 21 year old divorcees who got married at 19 years old to just to get to have sex.

So assuming that 2 people were otherwise wonderfully compatible and were likely to have an excellent marriage, how long should they "try out" their sexual relationship before marriage? Sexual relationships tend to evolve over time, even years. After a couple months of trying it out, should they abandon the relationship because they are compatible in every way except the bedroom? Should they wait a year before they decide they just can't work it out? Two?

 

The other problem I see is that people don't usually tend to enter a sexual relationship only AFTER they've decided the person is otherwise marriable (is that a word?). Our culture tends to be rather liberal with sex even in early stages of a relationship. So I think it might be easy to blame a failed relaionship on sexual incompatibility than to recognize or admit certain character flaws or other areas that the couple isn't really compatible. I also think that some issues in the bedroom are a symptom of underlying problems in the relationship.

[JumpyTheFrog]

The other problem I see is that people don't usually tend to enter a sexual relationship only AFTER they've decided the person is otherwise marriable (is that a word?). Our culture tends to be rather liberal with sex even in early stages of a relationship.

I believe the quickness to jump in the sack leads many, if not most, people to hang on to relationships that are doomed. The euphoria of the physical aspects cloud people's vision. I know this happened with me. I wasted time on several losers that I never would've hung on to for more than a couple dates had I never kissed them.

[DesertBlossom]

I am also genuinely curious about other people's definition of "incompatibility." Perhaps that's an indication of my own naivety, having only had one sexual partner in my life. But besides a physical issue, I am assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) that incompatibility refers to a clash of personal preferences. Am I right?

[Bluegoat]

I am also genuinely curious about other people's definition of "incompatibility." Perhaps that's an indication of my own naivety, having only had one sexual partner in my life. But besides a physical issue, I am assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) that incompatibility refers to a clash of personal preferences. Am I right?

 

I think it could probably mean a few things.  But I don't think most of them are really very realistic arbiters of compatibility within the context of a marriage.

 

I know of two cases where the people involved seemed to be at a basic level sexually incompatible, and I can see why it would ruin a marriage.  But:

 

In every case of this I have known, a lot of the problem would have been avoided if they had just talked about expectations around sex ahead of time.  The fact that they didn't was to a large degree the root of the real problem.

 

(Interestingly, in one of those cases the woman revealed on her deathbed that she and her husband had never had sex, he had never approached her and she hadn't asked why.  Her comment on it at that point though was "oh well, we had a happy life anyway".  I doubt after 50 years that was a throw away comment, and I think that is significant.)

 

Some people do seem to think that sexual incompatibility comes down to things like "I can only be fulfilled if my partner is interested in X, Y, or Z."  I think this is a pretty profoundly diminished understanding of how a person is fulfilled, and within the context of a whole marriage it seems pretty insignificant. 

[Bluegoat]

I wouldn't consider them mirror opposites if for no other reason than there is a marked lack of control in one and not the other. Being married, like being a parent, being a co-worker, being a member of community, being in any social relationship really, works best when people have effective, appropriate social skills. Learning which social skills are appropriate for any give social group is key. Being able to apply them with consistency is key. Doing so in the context of courtship/purity will likely provide a more satisfactory experience, as will doing so in the "friendship/dating" context. There is a profound difference between having the option to continue or pursue other relationships that make the two completely incomparable, imo. 

 

i am not sure what you mean.

 

I meant that both have a distorted understanding of marriage - the relationship between the couple, especially on a sexual level.  the courtship model as it exists today is essentially reactionary against the casual dating model, without really getting to the root of the over-emphasis on marriage as characterized mainly as a sexual relationship.

[albeto.]

i am not sure what you mean.

 

I meant that both have a distorted understanding of marriage - the relationship between the couple, especially on a sexual level.  the courtship model as it exists today is essentially reactionary against the casual dating model, without really getting to the root of the over-emphasis on marriage as characterized mainly as a sexual relationship.

 

I don't agree that both are distorted. I think the purity model is dysfunctional insofar as it puts undue control in the hands of one party and keeps the other party (parties) essentially vulnerable and oppressed. That imo, is what contributes to the damage. I think the friendship model is dysfunctional only insofar as two people are not compatible with each other. That's not a function of the marriage model, though, but a function of the individuals' personal incompatibility. I don't agree they are equal in any sense, much less mirror opposites. Therefore, I think that's a false comparison. 

[DesertBlossom]

I don't agree that both are distorted. I think the purity model is dysfunctional insofar as it puts undue control in the hands of one party and keeps the other party (parties) essentially vulnerable and oppressed.

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Maybe we're talking about 2 different things here, but before marriage DH was just as committed to keeping himself chaste as I was. I was not the gate keeper. I realize that we're talking about the "purity culture" that blames the woman for tempting the man and holds her responsible. I find that abhorrent and IMO we are each accountable for our own actions. But I hope it can be agreed that teaching that sex is sacred and to be used only within marriage is something that can be done well, without the double standard and shaming.

[bibiche]

I am also genuinely curious about other people's definition of "incompatibility." Perhaps that's an indication of my own naivety, having only had one sexual partner in my life. But besides a physical issue, I am assuming (and correct me if I'm wrong) that incompatibility refers to a clash of personal preferences. Am I right?

I read it as euphemistic for lousy in bed.  If I "saved myself" for marriage only to discover that my husband had a micro penis, was a premature ejaculator, had a really low libido, or something else that was incompatible with my desires I would be pretty miserable.  Maybe those things could all be rolled into "personal preferences," I dunno.

 

 I don't even buy an expensive cheese or chocolate without tasting it.  I believe very firmly in "try before you buy."

[DesertBlossom]

I read it as euphemistic for lousy in bed. If I "saved myself" for marriage only to discover that my husband had a micro penis, was a premature ejaculator, had a really low libido, or something else that was incompatible with my desires I would be pretty miserable. Maybe those things could all be rolled into "personal preferences," I dunno.

 

I don't even buy an expensive cheese or chocolate without tasting it. I believe very firmly in "try before you buy."

I'm still conflicted by this though. I mean, maybe I just got really lucky so I've got no room to talk. But even if it turned out my husband had one or all of those "problems" he's also incredibly concerned about *my* satisfaction and well-being. I would hope that there would be a way to get help and overcome, at least to some degree, those issues. As far as libido, thanks to 6 pregnancies and 6+ years of nursing babies it's usually me suffering from low libido. (Except that time I was pg with #4 and my hormones resembled that of a teenage boy) But instead of DH up and deciding maybe we weren't sexually compatiable after all, we communicate and work through things. I realize how important it is to DH even if my own hormones aren't raging and I do my best to make sure we still have time together. It isn't because we're amazingly compatible, but that we genuinely care about each other's needs and we do our best to overlook each others short-comings.

 

I think that a healthy sexual relationship is incredibly important to a marriage, but nothing is ever always unicorns and rainbows. And I think people delude themselves into believing that it is. So when it's not, they jump ship.

[Veritaserum]

As someone who waited for marriage to have sex, I will say I broke off dating someone I was not attracted to. I wanted to marry someone with whom I shared physical chemistry or passion in addition to sharing common goals and interests. It's possible to discover physical attraction without having sex (e.g. kissing). ;)

 

That said, there are also negatives to waiting that stem directly from lack of experience (not knowing what one likes, lack of skills, not feeling comfortable communicating one's needs or preferences, etc.). In my experience, these things can be worked through over time, but if they are not addressed they can have a negative impact on the marriage as a whole. Any damaging messages on chastity and purity need to be unpacked as well.

[Guest]

I think the idea of sexual compatibility is ridiculous - so many other factors make sex excellent, including emotional intimacy, trust, generosity, and overall attraction to the person who you are joined with. It's not as though sexual interactions are static and unchanging. Having married a virgin, with a lot of experience myself (which made my poor husband feel very nervous and inadequate initially), I'm happy to report that he still surprises me ten years later. Even things like low libido and premature ejaculation issues can be worked on, medicated, and practiced away. It's kind of insulting to say otherwise.

 

And like DB, I'm super happy my husband didn't decide to up and leave me when I was having intimacy issues, because a solid relationship is contingent upon way more than sex. It's crucial, but it's very much a flexible, changing, malleable portion of a relationship.

 

If my husband had demanded to test drive me before we married I'd have smacked him for objectifying me. Why is it somehow okay when a woman demands it, then?

[Guest]

As someone who waited for marriage to have sex, I will say I broke off dating someone I was not attracted to. I wanted to marry someone with whom I shared physical chemistry or passion in addition to sharing common goals and interests. It's possible to discover physical attraction without having sex (e.g. kissing). ;)

 

That said, there are also negatives to waiting that stem directly from lack of experience (not knowing what one likes, lack of skills, not feeling comfortable communicating one's needs or preferences, etc.). In my experience, these things can be worked through over time, but if they are not addressed they can have a negative impact on the marriage as a whole. Any damaging messages on chastity and purity need to be unpacked as well.

Yes, I agree they must be addressed, and that goes for a married or unmarried sexual relationship. Communication is key. Always. And no relationship is going to be healthy and satisfying if the partners aren't talking to each other freely and comfortable enough to try new things, screw up, and have fun with the one they love.

[CaffeineDiary]

Here's my position: sexual fulfillment in a marriage is not a *bonus*. It is a core, essential part of a functioning marriage, and anyone who is getting married has an absolute right to know that there is a fundamental match in sexual compatibility. This doesn't mean a promise that everything will always be perfect, but that there is at least a rough sync up of libidos at marriage time, and that the basic activities one partner enjoys are not on the other partner's "absolutely not" list (or, alternatively, that they ARE on that list, but both parties know that and agree to pay the cost)

 

This is not to say that all marriages must be about tons of kinky sex! There are plenty of people who have companionate marriages. There are people who have marriages where there are agreements to have sexual needs met outside of the marriage. But those cases are exceptions, and in any event work better when both parties know IN ADVANCE what they are signing up for.

 

Life is very long. Emotional and sexual needs change over time. You can't protect against your or your partner's libidos or desires changing over time. But you can refuse to sign a contract whose price term is completely unknown. If my partner's libido is such that he will only be sexually fulfilled if he has sexual contact twice a week, and my libido is such that the thought of sex more than once a year is repulsive to me, that marriage is doomed and should be avoided.. A responsible amount of pre-marriage sex is the best way to discover that.

 

TLDR: marrying without premarital sex is like agreeing to buy a car without a test drive and without even knowing what the price tag is. Maybe it will work out fine, but maybe it will be a disaster. Responsible car buyers know what they are paying for, and what they are paying, before signing the contract.

 

Cultural prohibitions against (responsible, safe) premarital sex make perfect sense in a culture where marriage is primarily about transferring chattel ownership of women and their assets to men. They make no sense at all in a culture of love marriages.

[Veritaserum]

Yes, I agree they must be addressed, and that goes for a married or unmarried sexual relationship. Communication is key. Always. And no relationship is going to be healthy and satisfying if the partners aren't talking to each other freely and comfortable enough to try new things, screw up, and have fun with the one they love.

Right. Obviously, I don't see the negatives as too great to overcome. Everyone starts out inexperienced and clumsy. Those who go through that stage as teens instead of married adults may view those of us who are older to start as behind the curve. There's also the risk that one's untried partner may not be up to the task of learning what it takes to create a mutually satisfying sexual relationship. I figured that my husband and I could together address any issues that cropped up in our intimate life since we were committed to working together resolving all sorts of issues throughout our lives.

 

(I don't place a moral judgment on other people's sex lives, marital or otherwise, so long as everything is consensual.)

[albeto.]

Can you clarify what you mean by that? Maybe we're talking about 2 different things here, but before marriage DH was just as committed to keeping himself chaste as I was. I was not the gate keeper. I realize that we're talking about the "purity culture" that blames the woman for tempting the man and holds her responsible. I find that abhorrent and IMO we are each accountable for our own actions. But I hope it can be agreed that teaching that sex is sacred and to be used only within marriage is something that can be done well, without the double standard and shaming.

 

I don't equate any "purity" ideals with virginity, if that's what you mean. I don't think advocating virginity before marriage is inherently oppressive, and I'm not sure, but I wonder if that's how you read my post. I say this because you asked me to clarify my comment about these purity ideals as oppressive, but then went on to explain how you feel teaching sex is "sacred" and best used only within the parameters of marriage was a positive thing for you. To me, ideals of purity and virginity before marriage are not correlated other than one incorporates the other (purity incorporates abstinence, but abstinence does not inherently incorporate purity ideals). 

 

But you know, now that I think about it, I find it an interesting concept. Does abstinence inherently incorporate even a little bit of purity ideology? The idea that virginity is somehow valuable is interesting to me. I rather dislike the concept of virginity as a thing that has its own label and identity. We don't talk about first haircuts or first time to the dentist or really any other first experiences with the same value. Now I'm curious why virginity is such a big deal, and if we can't help but incorporate some of the purity ideas in there, and that's why it's such a big deal. I understand the practical reasons behind it ("sacredness" isn't practical, but avoiding divorce is), but I suspect those practical reasons are met in other ways as well, making virginity but one variable that has been unreasonably elevated to The Most Important One. Why would virginity take on such epic value if it weren't somehow more "pure" or "virtuous" or valuable than any (every) other variable? 

 

Hmm... interesting. I want to ponder this some. 

[albeto.]

I think the idea of sexual compatibility is ridiculous - so many other factors make sex excellent, including emotional intimacy, trust, generosity, and overall attraction to the person who you are joined with. It's not as though sexual interactions are static and unchanging. Having married a virgin, with a lot of experience myself (which made my poor husband feel very nervous and inadequate initially), I'm happy to report that he still surprises me ten years later. Even things like low libido and premature ejaculation issues can be worked on, medicated, and practiced away. It's kind of insulting to say otherwise.

 

And like DB, I'm super happy my husband didn't decide to up and leave me when I was having intimacy issues, because a solid relationship is contingent upon way more than sex. It's crucial, but it's very much a flexible, changing, malleable portion of a relationship.

 

If my husband had demanded to test drive me before we married I'd have smacked him for objectifying me. Why is it somehow okay when a woman demands it, then?

 

Perhaps you're reading more into this than was intended. A woman doesn't "demand" to objectify a man. And to suggest that working out issues as a committed couple would be equal to discovering if commitment is even worthwhile is to missunderstand or ignore what's being said. We all judge people according to our experiences and expectations. None of us can get around that. It's part of our pattern recognition and ability to make reasonable predictions. That's part of human intelligence. We judge people and then decide which ones we respect and want to spend more time with, we judge people and then decide which ones we consider dangerous and want to avoid. It's how we make friends and decide who our mentors are. There's nothing inherently wrong with judging people or ideas (we've all done it with regard to education of our children, too). Sexual behavior is but one shared experience two people incorporate into this pattern of experiences. There's nothing wrong with that, morally, ethically, or practically.

[AmandaVT]

I don't want to write too much because I don't want to get too graphic. But incompatibility is definitely a thing - sometimes things just don't fit together like they're supposed to. I had a boyfriend once and when things turned more intimate, I almost recoiled in fear because of how, um, well endowed he was.  There's no way I could marry or have a long term relationship with someone that enormous- no one wants to wince in pain every time TeA time comes. The opposite end of the spectrum can also be an issue. 

 

I wonder if this is partially a regional thing, the waiting until marriage? I don't think I know anyone that waited until marriage. Not even the generation before me - who are in their 60's now. My parents, aunts, uncles, their friends - I've never heard any of them mention waiting and most have mentioned having partners before their spouse. 

 

 

[Catwoman]

But you know, now that I think about it, I find it an interesting concept. Does abstinence inherently incorporate even a little bit of purity ideology? The idea that virginity is somehow valuable is interesting to me. I rather dislike the concept of virginity as a thing that has its own label and identity. We don't talk about first haircuts or first time to the dentist or really any other first experiences with the same value. Now I'm curious why virginity is such a big deal, and if we can't help but incorporate some of the purity ideas in there, and that's why it's such a big deal. I understand the practical reasons behind it ("sacredness" isn't practical, but avoiding divorce is), but I suspect those practical reasons are met in other ways as well, making virginity but one variable that has been unreasonably elevated to The Most Important One. Why would virginity take on such epic value if it weren't somehow more "pure" or "virtuous" or valuable than any (every) other variable?

 

Hmm... interesting. I want to ponder this some.

That is a very interesting question -- I have never really thought about it in those terms, so I can't even debate with you about it! :laugh:

 

I will be interested in hearing others' views on the topic, though, particularly those who consider it from the "sacred" or "virtue and purity" perspectives.

[DesertBlossom]

...making virginity but one variable that has been unreasonably elevated to The Most Important One. Why would virginity take on such epic value if it weren't somehow more "pure" or "virtuous" or valuable than any (every) other variable? 

 

Hmm... interesting. I want to ponder this some. 

 

I suppose that some people believe this way, but that's not how I was taught, nor do I believe it. I do believe that sex is sacred and that sex outside of marriage is a sin. But all sins can be repented of and forgiven. Even before I got married (and was a lot more naive), I had enough sense to know it would not have been a deal breaker to find out a guy had had sex before, assuming he had re-committed himself to waiting until marriage. I mean, there are a whole lot of character flaws that would be much more detrimental to a marriage than having had prior partners-- assuming those sins had been resolved beforehand and there was openness and honesty about it in the relationship. I remember making lengthy detailed lists about what I wanted in my future husband, and 'virgin' was not at the top, let alone on the list at all. It was assumed that in any of *my* relationships we would both be committed to waiting until marriage, but I think a fundamental part of marriage is recognizing that both partners have flaws and prior sins, but the important thing is that each is working towards becoming a better person and a better spouse.

[albeto.]

I'm not sure how in the world you can compare getting your haircut for the first time and sex as having the same value!!!!  To me, sex is the most intimate thing you can do with another human being.  Not only that, but it has consequences in that every single time you do it, there is a chance you can create a life.  So there are consequences to the act.  Sex requires not having clothes on and so they see you as you are.  Sex requires giving up control.  You give someone else the power to give you an orgasm for them to see your body react in a way that you can't control.  That is incredibly intimate.  

 

I didn't say sex and haircuts are equal value, I said we don't put equal value on first time experiences, and sex is one first-time experience that not only has its own word (virgin), but people apparently celebrate it in public and lobby to teach it as an educational, academic skill. To you sex is intimate, that's your experience with it and that's all good and fine, but it's not a universal opinion. Further, you were taught to value it that way. I know this because that's not an inherently human response to this particular experience. It's a cultural one. That's part of what makes me wonder if abstinence until marriage and purity aren't somehow correlated regardless of whether or not one articulates purity values. 

 

When I have sex with someone, I am giving them a piece of myself.  A piece that I can never get back.  The chemicals released helps us to bond to one another.  

 

What does that even mean, to give a piece of yourself to someone? What does that mean that you can't get it back? 

 

Chemicals experienced when drinking with buddies or fighting on the battlefield also helps people bond. 

 

I chose to stay a virgin until I got married for a variety of reasons and NONE of them had to do with the purity movement.  My parents were not church goers and my dad was an atheist at the time.  I knew that there was no 100 percent form of birth control and I didn't want a kid.  ( Of course that is also a reason I had trouble for many years in my marriage as I waited for hubby to get fixed... I did NOT want a 4th kid and we both agreed it would be safer for him to get fixed.)  I also could not imagine ever letting a man get that close to me that could leave on a whim.  For my husband and I divorce is not an option and never has been.  I had to know that before I could give myself to him.  It was a complete manner of control..  

 

Same thing goes for him.  I have the power to make him feel really good in that area or really bad...  There is a matter of trust in that.  He has to give control of his body over to me....

 

 

I'm curious what these reasons are (not yours, but in general). I suspect the practical reasons are met elsewhere (ie, family planning can be taken care of in a variety of ways), and the generally accepted purity ethics is what elevates the whole thing to such an important virtue. Whether or not you were a xian doesn't change the fact that if you were raised in an American culture, you were raised in a culture in which xian morality was not only the most common explanation of morality, but is celebrated and promoted both in personal behavior and public policy. In other words, your culture is steeped in xian ethics regardless of whether any individual American adopts them or not. One's culture has a tremendous amount of influence on their beliefs, regardless of which ones they eventually embrace. 

 

How that is like getting your hair cut I have no idea...

 

Hopefully now you understand I didn't actually say that.

[albeto.]

I suppose that some people believe this way, but that's not how I was taught, nor do I believe it.

 

Well yeah, that's going to be a problem when we talk about "purity culture" or those ideals promoted by proponents of the purity movement - there is no "one" belief promoted. It's like any religion or political ideology in that way. It's rather subjective even though there are shared values. While you may not believe losing one's virginity is The Most Important First Time Experience one can have, nevertheless, that particular idea has been promoted from Purity Balls to school districts that teach abstinence only sex ed, to the bride's white gown (symbolizing her purity). In our culture, it does take on a value that is grander than many First Time Experiences. 

 

I do believe that sex is sacred and that sex outside of marriage is a sin. But all sins can be repented of and forgiven. Even before I got married (and was a lot more naive), I had enough sense to know it would not have been a deal breaker to find out a guy had had sex before, assuming he had re-committed himself to waiting until marriage. I mean, there are a whole lot of character flaws that would be much more detrimental to a marriage than having had prior partners-- assuming those sins had been resolved beforehand and there was openness and honesty about it in the relationship. I remember making lengthy detailed lists about what I wanted in my future husband, and 'virgin' was not at the top, let alone on the list at all. It was assumed that in any of *my* relationships we would both be committed to waiting until marriage, but I think a fundamental part of marriage is recognizing that both partners have flaws and prior sins, but the important thing is that each is working towards becoming a better person and a better spouse.

 

What I see from your comments is the kind of thing I'm referring to when I suggest virginity is elevated to a Most Important Value. It may not be yours, but it the very words you use to describe sex ("sacred"), and the lack of being a virgin at the time of marriage ("sin," indicative of a character flaw from which one gets "better") suggest this experience is correlated with a virtue set apart from others. 

[albeto.]

My first "experience" with sexual intercourse was when a pedophile raped me. In this context, I see these statements as hurtful. I didn't give him a piece of myself, but I do believe he took a piece of me. He took the piece of me that had faith in humanity. In return, he gave me PTSD. 

 

:(

[Guest]

The elevation of virginity is as old as time. That's how men ensured that the baby he had to protect from lions was probably his own. Adding the "purity" angle is new, I think.

[goldberry]

My first "experience" with sexual intercourse was when a pedophile raped me. In this context, I see these statements as hurtful. I didn't give him a piece of myself, but I do believe he took a piece of me. He took the piece of me that had faith in humanity. In return, he gave me PTSD. 

 

 

I took that as referring to a consensual sexual relationship, where there is both emotional and physical vulnerability there.  I don't see it as "giving a piece of myself away", but it does involve exposing yourself not just physically but also emotionally.  

 

  :grouphug:

[goldberry]

I do wonder how people who believe in purity see this kind of situation, which isn't at all rare. Is having sex outside marriage a sin if it wasn't consensual? I don't mean whether it is a sin to rape, which is clear, but is it also a sin to be raped? Do rape victims also turn into chewed, taste-deficient pieces of gum (an analogy I have heard often)? Or is that just if the sex was consensual? If the latter, why? What's the difference, exactly? Sex happened all the same. Even though rape isn't necessarily about sex at all, intercourse still happens.

 

This is exactly why I don't equate the physical state of virginity with purity.  

[DesertBlossom]

I don't know anyone who thinks a victim of rape is guilty of sin. Sin is willfully choosing to break the commandments of God. A rape victim didn't choose any of that.

 

I think it should be pointed out that Elizabeth Smart is LDS and that while she had been taught at some point this "chewed gum" analogy, that doesn't jive with LDS doctrine as a whole. Smart is still an active member of the LDS church and credits her faith in Jesus Christ for being able to heal from the trauma inflicted upon her. She served an LDS mission and married an LDS man, and still believes that sex is sacred.

 

I never heard the chewed gum analogy growing up, but it doesn't surprise me that someone here or there puts their own spin on things.

[Bluegoat]

I read it as euphemistic for lousy in bed.  If I "saved myself" for marriage only to discover that my husband had a micro penis, was a premature ejaculator, had a really low libido, or something else that was incompatible with my desires I would be pretty miserable.  Maybe those things could all be rolled into "personal preferences," I dunno.

 

 I don't even buy an expensive cheese or chocolate without tasting it.  I believe very firmly in "try before you buy."

 

But aside from maybe the micro-penis, I guess my experience has been that these things can easily come up in a marriage even if you try things out before hand.  I wasn't celibate before I married, but over the period of my marriage my libido has gone through really significant variations.  My husband refers to the period when I was nursing babies as "the seven year drought".  And things like premature ejaculation, or inability to have sex at all due to things like illness, can happen easily enough as well, and at some point I daresay they will happen to every couple that stays married for long.

 

Ultimately, if you marry with the intent to stick with it through normal bodily changes and misfortunes like illness and accident, you are signing a blank check.  The only kind of insurance that I think is realistic is talking frankly beforehand about your expectations and feelings.  I kind of think that the idea that you can take a test drive to check for compatibility tends to obscure that reality for many people.

[Greta]

This is exactly why I don't equate the physical state of virginity with purity.

Yes, this is a very good reason to not equate the two.

 

Another reason is that if the definition of purity is physical virginity, then that means that marriage is impure. And I cannot accept that. I find that to be a pretty unChristian idea, actually.

 

If there is to be a healthy definition of purity, I think it has to be more about a state of mind than a state of body.