s/o Early Marriage - How important do you think it is to not have sex until marriage?

[GracieJane]

I think most people are unaware how vast the chasm between male and female sexuality is in teenagers. „Waiting for marriage“ is a precept of which execution lies almost entirely with young women. Most parents are terrible at preparing their daughters for the inevitable experience of having a loving and kind boyfriend who is hormonally driven to really, really want to have sex and her experience of wanting to wait but “not wanting to seem a prude”. 

[Terabith]

47 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

I don't think it's important at all, and I think that the "used chewing gum" analogy or anything similar is actively damaging to young people.

As for birth control failing specifically, birth control fails when people who normally use a certain form of birth control forget or choose not to use it in one particular instance. That's why the lab use of condoms is like 98% and the real world use is something like 75% - because that low number counts everybody who plans to use condoms but then decides not to one time.

Which means that when abstinence only advocates claim that abstinence is the only form of contraceptive with a 100% success rate, they are lying, because they cheat. Either we only look at the lab rates, in which case condoms etc. come in at 98% and abstinence comes in at pretty close to 100% (because rape exists too) or we look at the real world rates in which case abstinence has a failure rate like everything else, because some people plan to be abstinent, change their minds, and don't have any form of backup because their backup was "don't have sex".

Sorry, pet peeve here.

I don't disagree, but as someone with a friend whose husband had had a vasectomy (with the testing afterwards), was taking birth control pills to regulate her period, AND was using condoms (don't know reason for that one) and still got pregnant with twins, I feel like it's safer to use multiple forms of birth control.  

[Frances]

2 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I don't disagree, but as someone with a friend whose husband had had a vasectomy (with the testing afterwards), was taking birth control pills to regulate her period, AND was using condoms (don't know reason for that one) and still got pregnant with twins, I feel like it's safer to use multiple forms of birth control.  

Wow! The odds of that have to be astronomical. I really feel like the majority of parents, s*x educators, and even healthcare providers do not stress two forms of contraception, unless you are fine with a pregnancy, nearly enough. When I went in to get my third (or fourth?) IUD, the OBGYN questioned me about the necessity given my husband’s V. I told her I wanted the odds to be in my favor as much as possible. Not to mention that never having a period is so awesome.

[Terabith]

1 minute ago, Frances said:

Wow! The odds of that have to be astronomical. I really feel like the majority of parents, s*x educators, and even healthcare providers do not stress two forms of contraception, unless you are fine with a pregnancy, nearly enough. When I went in to get my third (or fourth?) IUD, the OBGYN questioned me about the necessity given my husband’s V. I told her I wanted the odds to be in my favor as much as possible. Not to mention that never having a period is so awesome.

Yeah, I do not think their situation is typical.  I think it was definitely in a "those babies were definitely meant to be" situation.  

But two forms of birth control is a good rule.  In our marriage, we just rigorously, 100% of the time, no exceptions ever used one mostly (except for a period of time when finances made pregnancy a super duper bad idea).  But yeah.  Astronomical.  

[Tanaqui]

Wow, Terabith, your friends should've bought a lottery ticket!

I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen that birth control fails in absence of user error but... that's definitely the most likely reason for it to fail, y'know?

Note: Please be clear to your kids that when you say double up birth control you mean two different methods, not two different condoms at the same time. This is why sex ed is important - otherwise, they might think that "double bagging" is safer when, in fact, it's less safe. You increase the risk of breakage.

[Tanaqui]

GracieJane, this idea that XY folks are more sexually interested at all ages and less inclined to wait is cultural, not scientific. Different cultures throughout history have conceptualized it differently, often presuming that XX folks are more likely to be ready to go at the drop of a hat.

Of course, the long term effect of all this cultural messaging might indeed make people feel and act in accordance with perceived gender norms, but don't presume that it's biology talking.

[Terabith]

2 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Wow, Terabith, your friends should've bought a lottery ticket!

I'm not saying it doesn't ever happen that birth control fails in absence of user error but... that's definitely the most likely reason for it to fail, y'know?

Note: Please be clear to your kids that when you say double up birth control you mean two different methods, not two different condoms at the same time. This is why sex ed is important - otherwise, they might think that "double bagging" is safer when, in fact, it's less safe. You increase the risk of breakage.

Oh yeah.  We've been clear about that.  And honestly, I do not think either of my kids are heterosexual.  But still.  Knowledge is important for self protection.  

[Scarlett]

9 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

GracieJane, this idea that XY folks are more sexually interested at all ages and less inclined to wait is cultural, not scientific. Different cultures throughout history have conceptualized it differently, often presuming that XX folks are more likely to be ready to go at the drop of a hat.

Of course, the long term effect of all this cultural messaging might indeed make people feel and act in accordance with perceived gender norms, but don't presume that it's biology talking.

My experience is definitely more in line with what @GracieJanesaid.  That doesn’t mean it is the girls responsibility all by herself.

[prairiewindmomma]

29 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

 Most parents are terrible at preparing their daughters for the inevitable experience of having a loving and kind boyfriend who is hormonally driven to really, really want to have sex and her experience of wanting to wait but “not wanting to seem a prude”. 

This, IMO, is why it is so important to teach explicit, repeated consensuality to both our daughters and our sons. One should be asking for and receiving explicit permission for each level of progression of intimacy. I don’t care if that seems awkward to our old ancient and maybe married ears. 

We should be teaching very clear communication. Just because a partner says yes to x doesn’t mean they agreed to y. Just because they said yes initially doesn’t mean it’s completely ok to say no mid-process. If they cannot give consent freely because their judgment impaired, that is a no…for all parties. If a partner touches you without consent, that partner is not respecting you and there is a thin line before that crosses to assault. Just because you are married does not mean you have to consent. No means no and should be respected. Not feeling like it and then being pestered about it still is coercion, not consent.

 

[GracieJane]

8 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

This, IMO, is why it is so important to teach explicit, repeated consensuality to both our daughters and our sons. One should be asking for and receiving explicit permission for each level of progression of intimacy. I don’t care if that seems awkward to our old ancient and maybe married ears. 

We should be teaching very clear communication. Just because a partner says yes to x doesn’t mean they agreed to y. Just because they said yes initially doesn’t mean it’s completely ok to say no mid-process. If they cannot give consent freely because their judgment impaired, that is a no…for all parties. If a partner touches you without consent, that partner is not respecting you and there is a thin line before that crosses to assault. Just because you are married does not mean you have to consent. No means no and should be respected. Not feeling like it and then being pestered about it still is coercion, not consent.

 

The problem with consent-focused talks is that they don’t address the issue of “wanting to make my partner happy”. There are a great many sexual activities teenage girls engage in that are completely consensual but not necessarily “wanted” (I will only address girls in this as experience warrants, anyone else is free to extrapolate to boys). Girls are very aware of what their boyfriends want and want to make them happy. Telling girls to “say exactly what you want and don’t want” sexually is a responsibility that even mature women struggle with. There is a serious weight on young women that parents rarely address, but is imperative to establishing the agency necessary to make sexual decisions.

[Drama Llama]

2 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

The problem with consent-focused talks is that they don’t address the issue of “wanting to make my partner happy”. There are a great many sexual activities teenage girls engage in that are completely consensual but not necessarily “wanted” (I will only address girls in this as experience warrants, anyone else is free to extrapolate to boys). Girls are very aware of what their boyfriends want and want to make them happy. Telling girls to “say exactly what you want and don’t want” sexually is a responsibility that even mature women struggle with. There is a serious weight on young women that parents rarely address, but is imperative to establishing the agency necessary to make sexual decisions.

That might be the way consent-focused talks go in your house, and I'm sure it's how they go in many houses.  But it's not the way they go in either my house, or my sex ed classroom.   The issue of "wanting to make my partner happy" is absolutely addressed.

[Pam in CT]

re fine line between "making your partner happy" vs "ensuring your right to say no when no is what you're feeling" vs "ensuring your right to your own pleasure when yes is what you're feeling"

45 minutes ago, GracieJane said:

The problem with consent-focused talks is that they don’t address the issue of “wanting to make my partner happy”. There are a great many sexual activities teenage girls engage in that are completely consensual but not necessarily “wanted” (I will only address girls in this as experience warrants, anyone else is free to extrapolate to boys). Girls are very aware of what their boyfriends want and want to make them happy. Telling girls to “say exactly what you want and don’t want” sexually is a responsibility that even mature women struggle with. There is a serious weight on young women that parents rarely address, but is imperative to establishing the agency necessary to make sexual decisions.

In my conversations with my own kids -- and we talk a great deal more than I ever did with my own parents, which isn't to say the conversations are easy -- I try really hard to convey that agency includes both the right to say no (even within a relationship, even to This Action even if you've already done This Other Action, even mid-stream after activities have started, even within marriage) and also the right to expect that pleasure is reciprocal.

 

[Katy]

2 hours ago, Tanaqui said:

I don't think it's important at all, and I think that the "used chewing gum" analogy or anything similar is actively damaging to young people.

As for birth control failing specifically, birth control fails when people who normally use a certain form of birth control forget or choose not to use it in one particular instance. That's why the lab use of condoms is like 98% and the real world use is something like 75% - because that low number counts everybody who plans to use condoms but then decides not to one time.

Which means that when abstinence only advocates claim that abstinence is the only form of contraceptive with a 100% success rate, they are lying, because they cheat. Either we only look at the lab rates, in which case condoms etc. come in at 98% and abstinence comes in at pretty close to 100% (because rape exists too) or we look at the real world rates in which case abstinence has a failure rate like everything else, because some people plan to be abstinent, change their minds, and don't have any form of backup because their backup was "don't have sex".

Sorry, pet peeve here.

Ahem.  I think on this one point you are factually incorrect.  I've never, in my pre-marriage days, forgotten to use a condom.  But I have had them break (even when used properly), many times.  So much so that when I had a similar conversation with a group of girlfriends in college the conclusion was that the person who had never had a condom break was with a partner who was unusually small. Breaks happen, even with proper usage and correct forms of lube.

And I know of at least 3 pregnancies that happened when a couple was using 2 forms of birth control.  I agree it's rare. But if you have the parts to get pregnant and you're with a partner that has the parts to get you pregnant, it can happen even with perfect use.

[MercyA]

On 8/17/2021 at 2:46 PM, Terabith said:

How important do you guys think waiting on sex for marriage is?  

For Christians? Very important. It's a commandment. 

For every one else? I'd say it's very beneficial. It prevents a lot of pain, hurt, regret, and jealousy.

Edited August 18, 2021 by MercyA

[J-rap]

As a Christian I absolutely think it's important, a big deal.  I think it's God's ideal for us, and that He created sex to be part of a long-term committed relationship.  For many good and lovely and practical reasons that benefit us -- not just because it's some random order.

That said, I don't think pre-marital sex is the end of the world either.  So much of what we do is less-than ideal.  So although I don't think pre-marital sex is ideal, this is the world we live in.   I mean, if a couple is kind and loving and cares about their community around them and engages in pre-marital sex, they certainly have the most important things right!

I was not raised in a conservative church.  I was raised a happy Lutheran.  (Apparently the Danish Lutherans were called the "happy Lutherans" ☺️.)  But my church also taught this view, and in fact, my pretty wild and crazy California public high school taught this as well.  🤷‍♀️  Of course they left out the Christian part, but came to the same conclusion.

We raised our kids to think of it as sacred and special and to wait for marriage.  But they also knew and know that we will love them and accept them either way.

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Katy said:

So much so that when I had a similar conversation with a group of girlfriends in college the conclusion was that the person who had never had a condom break was with a partner who was unusually small. Breaks happen, even with proper usage and correct forms of lube.

Uhm, perhaps I shouldn't admit this given this statement, but we've never had a condom break, basically 😛 . As far as I know, we're pretty average around here. 

[Not_a_Number]

And as for the topic of the thread... it's not important to me at all. 

I didn't wait until marriage, but I did wait a good long time -- I'd been with my HS boyfriend quite a few years before we did it (although there were certainly things that went past kissing before then.) And honestly, I don't think it made things better or worse to wait. We had a deeply dysfunctional relationship, but we were VERY committed -- if we'd come from cultures than valued early marriage, I'm sure we'd have gotten hitched. We were always planning to and we'd been together for 6 years when I broke up with him. 

However, all the commitment didn't help much. Our sexual relationship never felt all that right -- partially we simply had too much baggage from all the other stuff (we both came from unhappy families), partially we both had too much shame about it due to the way we were brought up, partially we probably simply weren't that compatible. 

I've only had two other partners, and I didn't wait anywhere near as long with either of them. And both those were experiences were much better and felt more fun. One of them turned into my current marriage and one of them turned out to be a rebound, as it turns out, but really, the sex has never been the big issue. 

Anyway, I know firsthand that being committed doesn't necessarily make things good or fix anything. I'd want my kids to have sex in respectful relationships in which they felt safe expressing preferences. To me, that's kind of orthogonal to waiting until marriage. 

[Dmmetler]

17 hours ago, Terabith said:

I didn't grow up exactly in the bosom of classical evangelicalism, but I certainly grew up AROUND it, attending a very conservative United Methodist church in the South at the height of the purity movement.  My public school's sex education involved cheerleaders doing cheers about just saying no to sex and lots of analogies that sex before marriage turned you into used chewing gum that nobody would want and that you'd be gross.  So I was personally pretty committed to the whole no sex before marriage.  And honestly, I think that was way less than ideal and that there are things that would have been good to know about myself before I got married, though it's possible if I had known them that I might not have gotten married, and that would have been sad.  

My kids are 16 and 17, and I've never been really comfortable with what to tell them about sex before marriage.  I've always said that contraception fails and that our family is REALLY fertile, and you want at least two methods if you're having heterosexual sex.  I've always said that I think there is real value in chastity before marriage but that it's not an unambiguous good and that it's very easy to turn virginity into an idol.  And that I think that there are so many other things that are so much more important in a relationship than virginity, like being ready and having the skills to forge a good marriage.  

But when we're talking about early marriage, your stance on sex before marriage obviously makes a big difference.  It's one thing to ask kids to wait to have sex till they are 22.  It's another thing to ask them to wait until they are 28.  

How important do you guys think waiting on sex for marriage is?  

 

I don't. Like you, I was raised in a "you must be pure or else" mentality. I will also say that,while in my case it didn't feel early (I was out of college, and by that point DH and I had known each other 5 years), I got married at 21. What I found was that it was completely impossible to go from "if you have sex, or even if you think about it too much, you are impure and are making baby Jesus cry" to "it's OK now, you're married, enjoy it!!".  It left a lot to overcome emotionally, and I'm still not there in some ways, even after 27 years. 

As it turned out, in my case I also waited too long to have children. Neither DH nor I wanted to start terribly soon. We were in grad school, and then I wanted to get tenure in the school district. But, the result was that by the time we were in a position to have kids, my body was a lot less able, and the result was pregnancy complications, miscarriages, and ultimately secondary infertility. If L wants to have biological children, statistically, it probably should be before about age 25. 

 

I do stress that intimacy is an emotional bond, and hard to break once it is made, even when it not a healthy situation for those involved, particularly given my kid's personality. And, of course, be safe, this is what you do, this is where you go to get supplies, here are people you can trust, etc. 

 

 

[Faith-manor]

9 hours ago, MercyA said:

For Christians? Very important. It's a commandment. 

For every one else? I'd say it's very beneficial. It prevents a lot of pain, hurt, and jealousy.

Can I ask which commandment? In the O.T., virginity at marriage was required of females, but not males, and male infidelity was sanctioned so long as it was not with another man's wife. Apart from Paul saying something about marrying for the sake of passion while not expounding really on the topic and how god's view might have changed since the O.T., I am not sure what commandment you are referring to.

That said, there are a host of actual commandments Christians do not adhere to so I am not sure why what is being referenced. It is confusing. In the Song of Soloman, there is no indication that the sexually active couple was engaged much less married. 

[PaxEtLux]

7 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

Can I ask which commandment? In the O.T., virginity at marriage was required of females, but not males, and male infidelity was sanctioned so long as it was not with another man's wife. Apart from Paul saying something about marrying for the sake of passion while not expounding really on the topic and how god's view might have changed since the O.T., I am not sure what commandment you are referring to.

That said, there are a host of actual commandments Christians do not adhere to so I am not sure why what is being referenced. It is confusing. In the Song of Soloman, there is no indication that the sexually active couple was engaged much less married. 

There's a commandment against *adultery*, which is a bit different case.  The NT has several warnings against what is often translated as "sexual immorality", and that stems from a greek word which is difficult to translate, as it isn't used much elsewhere, but may possibly mean "prostitution".

[BlsdMama]

12 hours ago, Frances said:

That is so interesting to me that abstinence was not taught at your Catholic high school. I was raised Catholic in a very Catholic rural area, but never went to Catholic school. The Catholic high school closed when I was in elementary school and became the public middle school.

 

You know how you look back to childhood and say, "Did it happen the way I remember it or  did I gloss over parts?"  I wonder that.  We *did* have a Pro Life group come and give a presentation on it. (I didn't watch but walked out, I was adamantly pro choice at that point in my life.) We had health, but methods of birth control were taught.  I had a scenario of reporting sexual harassment by an ex and was told didn't I think previous permission played a role here so I really couldn't call it "harassment" by both the principal and  the volleyball/gym coach (who was married and ABSOLUTELY having an affair with a senior.  He was married.)  Our class  size was 58.  Small school and I grew up believing this is what catholic was- in name only.  I'm very grateful for meeting a beloved friend who was Catholic.  It healed a lot of my hatred for the Catholic church after I converted to Protestantism.  But the sex culture there was tolerated and in some ways encouraged although I will say they also encouraged moralistic values.  But definitely, abstinent girls  were in the grand minority.

[Wheres Toto]

 

15 hours ago, regentrude said:

I don't see the connection what being physical has to do with it. I was friends with my exes just fine.

The fact that divorce is rarely amicable has to do with all kinds of stuff like money and custody; I think the physical aspect is the least contributor.

 

15 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Agreed. It isn't the sex, it is all the other stuff that occurred, the fighting, many times betrayal, lack of trust, abuse, etc. that causes the animosity. 

I agree with regentrude and Faith.  I don't think whether a couple was physical or not has much to do with whether they are able to stay friends or not.   I think it has a lot more to do with respect, communication, and how they treat each other.   Two people can get along great but decide that they aren't a good couple.  

We had full sex ed in high school.  They basically presented everything (NJ public school in the 80s).  We did have a pro-life speaker come to speak to our class but she pretty much lost me when she said there was no need for a "health of the mother" exception since those circumstances never happened.  

[Faith-manor]

16 minutes ago, Wheres Toto said:

 

 

We did have a pro-life speaker come to speak to our class but she pretty much lost me when she said there was no need for a "health of the mother" exception since those circumstances never happened.  

😯 Oh good grief! Why are people like that allowed to speak up in a public school? 

[MercyA]

3 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

Can I ask which commandment? In the O.T., virginity at marriage was required of females, but not males, and male infidelity was sanctioned so long as it was not with another man's wife. Apart from Paul saying something about marrying for the sake of passion while not expounding really on the topic and how god's view might have changed since the O.T., I am not sure what commandment you are referring to.

That said, there are a host of actual commandments Christians do not adhere to so I am not sure why what is being referenced. It is confusing. In the Song of Soloman, there is no indication that the sexually active couple was engaged much less married. 

I'm in a super hurry, but I will try to give my perspective quickly. 

I confess that Song of Solomon is one of the books I know least in the Bible, but I can say two things: 1. not everything recorded in the Bible is meant to be emulated (David's adultery, etc.) and 2. many understand that particular book of poetry to be metaphorical. 

Saying, in effect, that "Christians don't adhere to commandment A, so why bother with commandment B?" makes no logical sense. Christians should strive to adhere to all of them. 

It helps tremendously to remember that Christians aren't under the Old Testament law. We aren't Jewish. "Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes." "You are not under law, but under grace." 

I do my best to follow the commandments of Christ and His apostles in the New Testament. "If you love me, you will obey my commandments." "The things that I [Paul] write to you, that they are the commandments of the Lord." 

A few of those commandments and principles:

• Marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed kept undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.
• But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
• But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
• For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality.
• But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.
• Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
• Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry.
• See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

Gotta run. Love to all.

Edited August 18, 2021 by MercyA

[kbutton]

14 hours ago, Katy said:

Ahem.  I think on this one point you are factually incorrect.  I've never, in my pre-marriage days, forgotten to use a condom.  But I have had them break (even when used properly), many times.  So much so that when I had a similar conversation with a group of girlfriends in college the conclusion was that the person who had never had a condom break was with a partner who was unusually small. Breaks happen, even with proper usage and correct forms of lube.

Forget I'm the one saying this, but condoms come in different sizes. 

Edited August 18, 2021 by kbutton

[SquirrellyMama]

At one point in time I would have said it was very important. I have told all of my children to not have sex in high school because a pregnancy at that point in time is not worth the sexual enjoyment. 

After they graduate I would prefer they wait a while or get really really reliable birth control. 

I don't want my kids getting married before they have at least a 4 year degree so I can see not waiting to have sex. 

Part of me wanting them to wait is the fact that I 100% do NOT want grandchildren right now. I have no desire to babysit them, interact with them, or buy things for them. Hopefully, that will change someday. If not, I am going to be the worst grandma ever.

So, kind of important but not so much once they graduate high school. They just need to be really careful because I refuse to raise a grandchild they are not ready for.

Kelly

[J-rap]

12 minutes ago, SquirrellyMama said:

At one point in time I would have said it was very important. I have told all of my children to not have sex in high school because a pregnancy at that point in time is not worth the sexual enjoyment. 

After they graduate I would prefer they wait a while or get really really reliable birth control. 

I don't want my kids getting married before they have at least a 4 year degree so I can see not waiting to have sex. 

Part of me wanting them to wait is the fact that I 100% do NOT want grandchildren right now. I have no desire to babysit them, interact with them, or buy things for them. Hopefully, that will change someday. If not, I am going to be the worst grandma ever.

So, kind of important but not so much once they graduate high school. They just need to be really careful because I refuse to raise a grandchild they are not ready for.

Kelly

I get what you're saying, but this makes me think that we assume people shouldn't have to learn self-control, or that it's somehow bad or unhealthy to try and control natural urges.  Controlling instinctive desires isn't necessarily a bad thing to learn.   I don't mean this as an argument for or against pre-marital sex, just thinking of natural urges in general and how we are to think of them.   I think it's an interesting discussion.

[SquirrellyMama]

Just now, J-rap said:

I get what you're saying, but this makes me think that we assume people shouldn't have to learn self-control, or that it's somehow bad or unhealthy to try and control natural urges.  Controlling instinctive desires isn't necessarily a bad thing to learn.   I don't mean this as an argument for or against pre-marital sex, just thinking of natural urges in general and how we are to think of them.   I think it's an interesting discussion.

There are so many ways to learn and practice self control. Some might pick abstinence as a way to strengthen self control. Others might pick loving others more than one's self, or some might pick not overeating. And, some of us just never learn it 😁

I have cautioned my kids to not get intimately involved quickly. I'm not just talking about sex, I tell them to hold off on kissing for at least a month (possibly longer) because once physical contact has started, it is almost impossible to put on the brakes.

[hippymamato3]

20 hours ago, Terabith said:

Maybe as a spin off to a spin off....what do you teach your kids about m*sturb*tion?  I feel like it's an important way to get to know yourself, and I have offered to purchase aids for my kids.  Neither has taken me up on it, though.  

My son and I talk openly about it and my daughter read about it in one of her growing up books and asked if it was required. (lol)  I told her no but that most people do like to try it. She hasn't asked anything more about it but we talk about everything else all the time. 

[hippymamato3]

21 hours ago, prairiewindmomma said:

Until last year, we were part of a church that taught no sex before marriage, and would use church discipline if they found out that you had had sex. Teens were interviewed regularly by the bishop and asked if they were keeping the law of chastity. My son graduated from high school last year and already several of his female church friends of the same age have married.

I am absolutely, almost unequivocally against early marriage. We have left that church, and have tried to thoroughly unteach purity culture to our children.

 

What on Earth is that?

[bibiche]

Not even remotely. I find the importance placed on “purity” and “virginity” disturbing. And sexist, patriarchal, and prurient. It’s all a construct and IMO a really messed-up one. 
 

[SquirrellyMama]

5 minutes ago, hippymamato3 said:

What on Earth is that?

Re: Church discipline 

I have only seen this once in a church that we attended. I was horrified by it. 

A couple came up to the front of the church on a Sunday during the service. They admitted to having sex, how sorry they were, and how they intended to get married. And then the congregation clapped. 

There was no reason to have that during the service. I cannot imagine what visitors that day thought.

I was horrified for them. If they wanted to get married, great. If not, they should NOT have been pressured into it. I honestly don't know if they ever got married or not.

Kelly

 

 

 

[hippymamato3]

1 minute ago, SquirrellyMama said:

Re: Church discipline 

I have only seen this once in a church that we attended. I was horrified by it. 

A couple came up to the front of the church on a Sunday during the service. They admitted to having sex, how sorry they were, and how they intended to get married. And then the congregation clapped. 

There was no reason to have that during the service. I cannot imagine what visitors that day thought.

I was horrified for them. If they wanted to get married, great. If not, they should NOT have been pressured into it. I honestly don't know if they ever got married or not.

Kelly

 

 

 

Wow. That's awful. Any "sins" are between an individual and God. This seems crazy to me.

Edited August 18, 2021 by hippymamato3

[Not_a_Number]

51 minutes ago, J-rap said:

I get what you're saying, but this makes me think that we assume people shouldn't have to learn self-control, or that it's somehow bad or unhealthy to try and control natural urges.  Controlling instinctive desires isn't necessarily a bad thing to learn.   I don't mean this as an argument for or against pre-marital sex, just thinking of natural urges in general and how we are to think of them.   I think it's an interesting discussion.

I think we do all control natural urges, but I think controlling urges that are then supposed to be indulged in can leave people feeling pretty confused. 

[hippymamato3]

14 hours ago, MercyA said:

For Christians? Very important. It's a commandment. 

For every one else? I'd say it's very beneficial. It prevents a lot of pain, hurt, and jealousy.

Which commandment?

[SquirrellyMama]

2 hours ago, hippymamato3 said:

Wow. That's awful. Any "sins" are between an individual and God. This seems crazy to me.

In many churches, sin issues are seen as more than just between an individual and God. I get that, but there are other ways to accomplish this. We were in a small group apart from the larger church. These groups were made up of between 6 and 12 people. We did have one of the guys in our group admit to a porn addiction. That was to 7 other people. It didn't get broadcast to the entire church. He was able to get some help with accountability from 7 other people or fewer.

Kelly

Edited August 18, 2021 by SquirrellyMama
Spelling

[TexasProud]

21 minutes ago, hippymamato3 said:

Wow. That's awful. Any "sins" are between an individual and God. This seems crazy to me.

I agree that the issue described was awful, but there are times when the sin needs church discipline.  In seminary, for my internship, I have to respond to case studies.  One case study was of a married elder who was in charge of a small group.  A new Christian and member of his group was a young single woman. He visited in her home and kissed her.  Later, it was found out he had made inappropriate advances to other women as well.  He tried to blame the woman and refused to tell his wife or do counseling.  In this case, the wife must be told. The elder body must be told and he must be removed from any leadership positions.  I and other classmates had several other recommendations as well.  But in certain cases, church discipline is appropriate.  It harms the whole congregation.

[livetoread]

I grew up in a strongly anti sex before marriage environment that talked a lot about teen girls having lower drives and thus responsible for setting the boundaries. I remember talking with my high school girlfriend about our boyfriends and we both wondered to each other, "But what if we want to, too?" There was just no discussion about a healthy female sex drive. I was a young woman with a healthy curiosity and drive, and it didn't go well for me. Luckily my boyfriends were never shaming and were quite appreciative, but I certainly felt shame from the messages I got from my religious culture. That was almost 40 years ago, and while I think we have come a long way in addressing female sexuality, in some ways there is still kind of mishmash of mixed messages, especially for younger women. 

[ByGrace3]

We are conservative Christians and believe in following the Bible. Therefore, we believe that sex is beautiful within the confines of the marital relationship. That said, premarital sex is a sin, but not the end of the world. I am very aware of purity culture. We keep open conversations with our kids-- that God created a certain plan that involves us remaining pure in all aspects of lives-- of heart, mind and body. Sexual purity is not to become an idol and people who have made mistakes or those who have had that taken from them are not broken or second class. 

 

 

[Danae]

For a different Christian perspective . . . I grew up (and still am) very active in church.  Sunday morning worship, Sunday night youth group, Wednesday night Christian ed and music practice.  Summer church camp and VBS. 

The topic of sex rarely if ever came up.  Virginity, purity, etc never mentioned.  I don't know if any of my contemporaries were having sex as teenagers, but if they were they were keeping it very discreet.  No pregnancies, no teen marriages.  The obsession some Christian groups in the US seem to have with sex and porn is very weird to me. If any of my kids' teachers or leaders start taking things in that direction (although it seems unlikely) we'll be bowing out of that activity.

[prairiewindmomma]

1 hour ago, hippymamato3 said:

What on Earth is that?

You could be barred from the sacrament, from teaching, from offering prayers, or you could be excommunicated. Often if you are disfellowshipped, no one knows. Excommunication severs your “sealings” to your family and in essence says that you will not be with your children or spouse or other family members or with god after you die. It’s essentially a damnation. 
 

The problem with spiritual discipline is that it’s not applied uniformly. You could have a teen disfellowshipped for making out in one congregation and a sexual predator under no discipline in another. 
 

 

[kbutton]

4 minutes ago, prairiewindmomma said:

You could be barred from the sacrament, from teaching, from offering prayers, or you could be excommunicated. Often if you are disfellowshipped, no one knows. Excommunication severs your “sealings” to your family and in essence says that you will not be with your children or spouse or other family members or with god after you die. It’s essentially a damnation. 

The problem with spiritual discipline is that it’s not applied uniformly. You could have a teen disfellowshipped for making out in one congregation and a sexual predator under no discipline in another. 

This varies a LOT by denomination as well. Baptists would not have any concept of sealings, for example, and no one would think someone under discipline was damned (though they may have questions about whether that person is truly regenerate, as our terminology would put it). 

The problem with predators getting away with stuff and other people being condemned for much less is unfortunately common. 

I believe that in many places, church membership has legal connotations (and you couldn't really discipline a non-member). For instance, church covenants, which are a source of controversy, can be legally binding. So to some extent, church discipline can be tied into legal ways of removing someone or even a protection for a church (and sometimes, probably a CYA, sadly). 

[MercyA]

 

1 hour ago, hippymamato3 said:

Which commandment?

I answered the same question from Faith-manor above. 🙂 

[MercyA]

 

2 hours ago, hippymamato3 said:

Wow. That's awful. Any "sins" are between an individual and God. This seems crazy to me.

There is an order for Biblical church discipline that is supposed to be followed. Short version as taught by Jesus:

“If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

The problem, as others have pointed out, is that church discipline is not always applied consistently or Biblically or at all. Every church I've attended, as far as I recall, has handled any church discipline in a very private way. My DH once went to a church in which someone was publicly disciplined for something involving church finances. Sometimes it's necessary. 

A lot depends on the denomination. My formerly Amish MIL once had to get up with her entire family (including her parents) and publicly repent from going to a fair. She says, "It was totally worth it." 😉 Her dear mother was shunned by even family members when she left the Amish church many years ago (even though she still covered her head, wore a cape dress, etc.), but that type of shunning is no longer done in our area. We get together with Amish relatives and there is no problem with it. 

ETA: There is an excellent BBC documentary that explores shunning among the Amish, Trouble in Amish Paradise. Part one of six here: https://youtu.be/Lhoz_nLqMlI 

Edited August 18, 2021 by MercyA

[regentrude]

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

• See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

I don't understand how Esau comes into this discussion (other than marrying foreign wives), but totally off topic: Why is Esau the bad guy? Jacob exploited his brother's hunger and, instead of feeding his brother, demanded his birthright and then he went on to deceive his father. Why is this the condoned and rewarded behavior? I always had trouble with that story.

Edited August 18, 2021 by regentrude

[PaxEtLux]

3 hours ago, MercyA said:

A few of those commandments and principles:

• Marriage should be honored by all and the marriage bed kept undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterers.
• But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband.
• But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
• For you know what instructions we gave you by the authority of the Lord Jesus. It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality.
• But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people.
• Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a man can commit is outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
• Put to death, therefore, the components of your earthly nature: sexual immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires, and greed, which is idolatry.
• See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son.

Gotta run. Love to all.

But these boil down to "No adultery", which is clear, and I hope we all agree with, and "No sexual immorality", which is what, exactly?  Not defining "sexual immorality" is the real problem here -- a moral code which says "don't be immoral" is just circular.  This term, "sexual immorality" is translated from the Greek word πορνεία, which isn't used frequently in other Greek texts, so the meaning is somewhat unknown, but may mean prostitution.

[Scarlett]

10 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I don't understand how Esau comes into this discussion (other than marrying foreign wives), but totally off topic: Why is Esau the bad guy? Jacob exploited his brother's hunger and, instead of feeding his brother, demanded his birthright and then he went on to deceive his father. Why is this the condoned and rewarded behavior? I always had trouble with that story.

Esau did not appreciate his birthright.  He wasn't starving to death.  He was hungry and sold his birthright.  God's promise was that through Abraham would come the Messiah and Esau did not appreciate that spiritual gift.  

[regentrude]

2 minutes ago, Scarlett said:

Esau did not appreciate his birthright.  He wasn't starving to death.  He was hungry and sold his birthright.  God's promise was that through Abraham would come the Messiah and Esau did not appreciate that spiritual gift.  

And lying is fine and the liar is being rewarded? That's messed up. (And another example for how playing favorites with one's kids is dysfunctional and unhealthy)

Edited August 18, 2021 by regentrude

[MercyA]

5 minutes ago, regentrude said:

I don't understand how Esau comes into this discussion (other than marrying foreign wives), but totally off topic: Why is Esau the bad guy? Jacob exploited his brother's hunger and, instead of feeding his brother, demanded his birthright and then he went on to deceive his father. Why is this the condoned and rewarded behavior? I always had trouble with that story.

Looking at the verse in context helps show why the writer chose to include the reference to Esau, I think. Several virtues are mentioned in this passage, including peacefulness, holiness, and sexual purity:

"Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord. See to it that no one falls short of the grace of God and that no bitter root grows up to cause trouble and defile many. See that no one is sexually immoral, or is godless like Esau, who for a single meal sold his inheritance rights as the oldest son. Afterward, as you know, when he wanted to inherit this blessing, he was rejected. Even though he sought the blessing with tears, he could not change what he had done."

Sometimes the bitterness resulting from one decision can alter the course of a life (and others' lives as well).

God prophesied to Rebecca before her twins were born, telling her the older would serve the younger. That prophecy was fulfilled. Beyond that, I think a lot of the Old Testament is just a record of what happened. Not everything that happened is condoned. Rebecca was deceitful in helping Jacob and even acknowledged that a curse would result. Her actions and Jacob's lead to the fulfilling of the prophecy, but that doesn't mean we're supposed to emulate their deceit. 

[Scarlett]

16 minutes ago, PaxEtLux said:

But these boil down to "No adultery", which is clear, and I hope we all agree with, and "No sexual immorality", which is what, exactly?  Not defining "sexual immorality" is the real problem here -- a moral code which says "don't be immoral" is just circular.  This term, "sexual immorality" is translated from the Greek word πορνεία, which isn't used frequently in other Greek texts, so the meaning is somewhat unknown, but may mean prostitution.

Porneia---which is broad and includes all unlawful sexual intercourse.