Not that I’m adding anything to the topic of sex, but in defining marriage, I’d say that I hope that being loving and faithful includes commitment to each other’s best benefit, and that aspiring to lifetime commitment, while definitely superhuman, is not necessarily dishonest.

And thanks, Luke, for the beautiful (as always) reflections. I think there’s something powerfully more honest about a commitment to each other’s best benefit - along the lines of the Quaker commitment to marriage as long as it is God’s will (or something along those lines, does anyone know more about the Quaker approach?).

I’m not hands-off. I believe in accountability and community. If I think someone is getting hurt, I’ll say what I see. But the focus is on caring about people where they are, commenting from my experience and observations of them, not on the theoretical “rightness” or “wrongness” of “sex” in or out of “marriage.”

Well said. This is an important distinction. The difference is illustrated perfectly in the threads on homosexuality right here on YAR. Luke has repeatedly asked the proponents of religious homophobia to explain to him, personally, how his relationship with his partner is harmful to him or anyone around him, yet no takers so far.

I think the attitude of self-denial, shaming, blaming, and guilt is wrong. I think life should be lived and loved. I think Jesus says that. So I don’t care if you can fix your sex life in a marriage or screw it up outside of one - it can always go either way and will with different people. Just treat it with the awe and power it deserves as a beautiful part of creation wherever you are.

Then do what you want.

I’m not hands-off. I believe in accountability and community. If I think someone is getting hurt, I’ll say what I see. But the focus is on caring about people where they are, commenting from my experience and observations of them, not on the theoretical “rightness” or “wrongness” of “sex” in or out of “marriage.”

(And so, Brian from way back: Wink separates the love ethic from sexual mores past and present alike not because they are outdated, but because they are (even now) unreflective, secular, regularly-changing cultural mores and not the love ethic of Jesus; A love ethic which stands in contrast at every point to any condemnatory and legalistic understanding of either love or ethics.)

I definitely think people who have unsatisfactory or bad (or couples who don’t have sex for one reason or another!) sex can improve. My experience is limited, I acknowledge that, but I’m thinking of one couple in particular who improved their practically non-existent sex life after years of marriage. Also, I think sex is one component (like many others) of a relationship that takes communication, experimentation, time and an ability to laugh and not expect fireworks each time. I don’t think the quality of sex with some one can be set in stone.

Also, your question about whether “virgins” are less likely to discuss their sex life is a good question. I think it may depend more on personality and dynamics, but I’m not really sure. My husband and I were both virgins, and we definitely discuss what’s working and what needs improvement.

And regarding number 4: abstinence-only education in schools. I teach high school and because of what I teach (child development, parenting, nutrition), it is not uncommon to discuss sex, abstinence, birth control (shhh-don’t tell the administrators we talk about that!).

In my opinion, only based on my experience: I think abstinence ONLY education is unrealistic. Even as a person who was always given the message top abstain until marriage(in church, at home, in school) I was so glad to learn about contraceptives and options in my high school child development class (at a Mennonite school!). It was important for me, as a female, to be informed about what choices were available. The underlying message was still - don’t have sex, and here’s why… - but at least we were informed about how to prevent a pregnancy or STD transmission.

I carry that opinion still as my students and discuss issues surrounding sexuality and sex and making wise decisions. The reality is, high school students want to discuss sex and all the complications - not just be told “don’t do it”. I think they need to know how to play it safe if they choose to have sex and they need to know it’s okay to not have sex if they don’t want to.

I honestly don’t know what the curriculum for abstinence-only education looks like. I’d be interested in seeing it. Anyone know of any links?

I read over the Executive Summary portion of the abstinence report, and a few things jump out to me:
1. This was one year of instruction, which is not the same as a lifetime of hearing the church say “Sex outside of marriage is a sin.”
2. This was based on students at four schools. Shouldn’t the sample size be larger so you know you don’t just have schools with really crappy teachers?
3. The differences between the students taught to be abstinant and the “control group” (I didn’t see where they defined their control group) were negligible. When I hear “Oh, the program failed,” my first thought is, “Oh, the kids are worse off now than they were before,” which doesn’t seem to be supported by the data.
4. Is abstinence perhaps something that is just hard to teach in a school setting? Are kids more likely to refrain from sex if their parents and/or church are backing it up?

And now for your statements about good/bad sex is not determined by being married. Do you think a couple who has unsatisfactory sex or bad sex can improve and eventually have good sex? Aren’t the skills you’d need to address that before you’re married the same skills you’d need to address it afterwards? Or are people who are virgins (whatever that means) when they get married (whatever that means) less likely to be inclined to openly address problems in their sex lives (whatever that means)? How would you know what they’re willing to discuss? How would you know what they’ve tried, or even what they both like?

Do you think people shouldn’t abstain, or do you think people should quit telling others they have to abstain?

Though, as Katie pointed out to me today, sex after marriage includes sex in marriage. Which I think is important. And why aren’t we talking more about when that sex is a sin? (Maybe because it’s off topic?)

While I’m quoting things without taking the time to look them up - wasn’t there a case recently where it was determined that marital rape is (at least legally) an oxy-moron? Marriage as universal consent. I’ll link to it later if I can find it.

The (on topic) point being: sex is good or bad depending on factors much more important than a marriage ceremony. The marriage ceremony actually has very little effect on the quality of the sex, and often can act as a cover for really bad sex (or rape) in ways that make it much more difficult to address.

As for abstinence-only “education” - this linked blog has a run-down and links to the federal report. And Here is another blog reporting on the same report.

Ask and ye shall receive.

(I love the dice idea, j.)

>>And I’ve known senior citizens who have lost their spouses to disease or old age, and they meet someone while living in a retirement community or nursing home. As one person told me about his sexual experiences with his neighbor down the hall, “I’ve had the love of my life. I’ve had the till-death-do-us-part. Nothing can compare with that. Now I just want a little companionship, and neither of us wants the complications of marriage.” At that point in life, pregnancy and STDs are probably non-issues.<<

Care to cite the studies you say discredit abstinence-only education? I’ve read a few—and rebuttals to their “discrediting”— so I’m curious which studies you’re using.

• I agree with your general observations about a focus on virginity, but I think people do talk about post-marital sex. This post is titled “Sex outside of marriage” not “Premarital sex.” So I think we’re discussing extra-marital sexual activity in general (at least I am) — you’re right that premarital sex is just one part of that. I know you like to write in hyperboles, but it’s simply not true that “No one ever talks about post-marital sex.”
• Brian, I had a similar response to your comments about Christians being romantics. In my opinion, the good news of Jesus includes a call to become the “new human” (I love Ephesians), and “living life to the fullest” is an integral part of that calling. While this needs to be nuanced in order to not become a simple defense of all impulsive expressions of human desire, I hold that perhaps it is a good place for Christians to start. But others (Dahlia, Eric, Luke) have already expanded on this idea, so I’ll stop here.

• “sex” can get a bit difficult to define. And what if you aren’t dealing with simple peg/hole combinations? I suppose for many, that’s out for other reasons. The problem is, it all comes down to a continuum. Sexuality doesn’t have clear lines and boundaries. Talking as though it does is more useful in condemnations than in decision making. (Maybe someone should design a self test with questions rating percentage potential for procreation and percentage potential for STD transmittal and whatever other factors people care about. Then you could find your sex score per encounter. Never score higher than a 6.3 outside of marriage - that’s my advice.)
• Marriage is also a bit arbitrary as a boundary in relational commitment. No ceremony is required for public statements of commitment, and certainly not for commitment in the first place. Maybe it’s required for God or your parents? And what is long-term, anyway? I’ve been dating the same person now for longer than my marriage lasted. Guess we can call this one long-term? It sure is a better, happier, more fulfilling relationship.
• No one ever talks about post-marital sex. The discussion seems culturally more rooted in a worship of virginity (whatever that is) than an actual concern for healthy relationships. You won’t be surprised to hear me say that burdens women more than men. (It’s pretty blatant on right-wing chastity sites, which are entirely devoted to keeping little girls “pure” because us men can’t help ourselves)
• I’m loaded with scars - but the sexual ones come mainly from church mis-teachings (and non-teachings) and being molested by an ex-pat new-age guru in Guatemala because I had no context for understanding what was going on, or how to say no to anything. Sexual relationships have been better and worse, but always depending on the strength of connection and respect in the relationship, never on the number of previous relationships of either partner. The curve actually seems to tend the other way (which is not evidence of anything, scientifically. just circumstantial observations).
• Sex doesn’t ruin you - but the condemnation and social-shunning of being involved with the wrong person might. The church is a much more powerful force for ruining your second attempt at a relationship than any amount of sex you had the first time around. Here is the crux of the issue for me. As with “abstinence only education” (which studies now discredit entirely) the church’s don’t-even-think-about-it stance is entirely unhelpful in developing strong relationships, and only gets cited in condemnation and shunning. The church should focus on helping people do better, not yelling at everyone who makes mistakes.
• I find it funny that anyone in a marriage for which they “saved themselves” could possibly have anything to say about the personal pros and cons of multiple relationships or sex while engaged. I’m glad you’re happy with your choice - but you have no frame of reference to be condemning from. I “saved myself” for marriage, and that was fine, and the relationship wasn’t and it really didn’t matter one way or the other and now I’m moving on. Get over it.
• I love Dahlia’s comment, and would further ask Brian - why aren’t Christians romantics? Shouldn’t we be infatuated with this life that God has created, full of Joy and pleasure and love and beauty (and butter and sex and art)? Shouldn’t we continue to create and love beauty and pleasure (and butter and sex and art)? I always thought romanticism was one of the highest forms of worship. Joy in creation.
• And thanks, Luke, for the beautiful (as always) reflections. I think there’s something powerfully more honest about a commitment to each other’s best benefit - along the lines of the Quaker commitment to marriage as long as it is God’s will (or something along those lines, does anyone know more about the Quaker approach?).
• Skylark, what is self-denial and why is it good? I see situations in which I would love to stay up all night talking, but need some sleep. Is one choice self-denial, or are they both just choices? I’ve never really seen an ethic of self-denial work out for anyone - though I have seen many who are happy to refrain from certain activities.

  Recognizing larger issues of self-interest can be helpful. Sometimes I get a bit co-dependent, or I will eat or stay up late to avoid pain in my life. I don’t consider it self-denial to choose against my neurosis - which are dangerous exactly because they are denial of my healthy self. Conscious, honest, thoughtful decision-making is good. Understanding your neurotic impulses is good. But why self-denial?

I’ve known people who pushed the definition of “marriage ceremony.” One couple opted to have a non-legally-binding ceremony in Ukraine, after which they considered themselves married. However, upon their return to the U.S., they did not tell their families about the ceremony. (The woman told me, her coworker, but I was sworn to secrecy.) They did not move into their own home until they had a wedding ceremony in the U.S., which was legally binding. At which point were they married? There probably should be something in our definition of “marriage” that includes “public statement” or “publically known.” Can you be in a secret and non-legally-binding marriage? I’m thinking “no.”

Luke, thank you for sharing your experience. I have a clearer picture of how the relationship went down than I did before. Still… it was a little bit off-topic. (Not that I mind.) I’d like to know more about where you stand on the question of boundaries on healthy sexual expression in a committed relationship. Is there value in waiting and/or self-denial? Do you think it’s good to reserve sexual intimacy for one partner? Is it better for the relationship to wait on sex until you’re making a long-term commitment to the other person? Do you think there are emotional and/or relational consequences for sleeping with someone before that point?

Kara, thank you for coming back again. While you may feel as if you are in front of the firing squad, I hope it’s clear nobody’s hating on you here. I second Dave’s request for citing where in the Bible and its culture(s) you get your support.

I am not sure where you get this from. I really think that if you are going to make assertions about sin, you need to support these assertions. And don’t just give Bible verses, but give a full understanding of these verses in their cultural context.

You go on to address some of the issues that you see involving sex before marriage. But not one of them is based on a Biblical principle. They are all based on your opinion about how sex before marriage is a social problem.

As a married person, I think your explanation of ironing-out sexual differences is basically the view point my husband and I had/have. I couldn’t explain it better. We did the whole pre-marital counseling thing, and sex was one of the issues we discussed along with finances, in-laws, etc. It’s an area that takes communication and compromise and an understanding that each time might not be the best it could be for either person, for a variety of reasons, but we try to make it great for each other, and meet the desires we have.(sorry for the run-on sentence)
I definitely believe couples need to talk about their expectations, desires, etc.

Moving on…j alan wrote that “fornication” refers to intercourse and not necessarily other sexual acts. I have always wanted some one to specifically define that. Thank you!

I propose some definitions, because it’s helpful to have a common understanding of what we’re discussing, and I thought I might as well get the defining started. Please, suggest changes.

sex = intercourse
marriage = life time commitment marked by a ceremony (legal or otherwise)

I don’t know that I want to be heard as arguing one distinct “position” on this issue since it’s quite complex and has so much to do with individuals’ upbringing, beliefs, expectations, age, experience, etc. But it might be clear that I don’t hold any sort of absolutes about where sexuality is good, bad, right, wrong, sinful, blessed, (maybe even somewhere in between all that?), etc. I do believe that those attributes do exist and are crucial to think about and apply to our sexual lives, but I don’t think there are one-size-fits-all cookie cutter categories for where we can/n’t apply them.

This shouldn’t become a thread about LGBT stuff (there one’s over in “Is it a sin?” if anyone wants to discuss that further), but I’ll say a little more about my own life to illustrate my point. My being gay here is not the point - it’s only something that has necessitated me finding a creative path outside the “system” that most of us who grew up in the church were taught.

I’m in a committed, monogamous relationship. My partner and I have been together for close to six years now. From the beginning of our relationship there was an understanding that we were committed to each other in the long term. However, because marriage and all the social convention, support, and structure that go all with it weren’t available to us as a gay couple, this commitment to each other wasn’t really about “we are entering into marriage.” It was about promising to work for the highest good of the other person - to truly love each other selflessly. It didn’t necessarily mean we would always be together as a couple - we were both open at that point to the possibility that working for each other’s highest good might actually mean that we would separate at some point. There were some things that we knew would simply have to be “worked out” over our years together, and we couldn’t determine what would happen - for example, I was younger than my partner (21 at the time) and we both knew I still had a lot of growing up and exploring life paths to do (whereas he had an established life/career.) Now, this might be really hard for a lot of people to understand because who have always grown up with marriage as a such a distinct rigidly defined monolithic social institution with ones of its bedrock principles “til death do us part.” But since we didn’t have all that structure of marriage there to fit into, then this other kind of commitment was actually the most real, honest, and caring way we could enter into our relationship. We were together for five years before we actually had our formal commitment ceremony (about a year ago.) During that time my career/life path has become much clearer (it had better be clear, since I’ll never be able to pay off these med school loans if I decide one day not to be a doctor!) and we’ve both had time to learn that being together really is the right thing to commit to for as long as we can imagine - for life. I did feel the need for some life exploration away from our relationship during the first couple years - I traveled in Latin America for a while and also lived in Europe for several months. This was very good, and critical to my growth and to our understanding of ourselves as a couple.

And we’ve got a pretty amazing partnership going on right now.

I bring all this up just to try to give a bit of a glimpse into what navigating the world of relationships and sexuality might look like outside the realm of all the rigid social structures. I’m not saying ours is necessarily a better way. It was just a way that worked for us, partly because of necessity and partly from choice - but it felt mostly to me like a matter of simply discovery of reality and acceptance of it through truly being honest with each other. The whole conceptual box of “sex” being wrong “before/outside of marriage” just ceased to function for me, in a lot of ways because marriage just isn’t available to gay people now, at least not here in the Midwest (either culturally or legally.)

Thanks for posting, and I look forward to hearing more from you. You ask for feedback, but it’s hard to provide much when even you recognize that you still haven’t really fleshed out your opinions much, but have just restated them. So I understand that you’ll say more on this, but I’ll reply briefly anyway.

I know it’s being a bit nit-picky (apparently that’s a trend on this thread), but “fornication” specifically refers to sexual intercourse, not “all sexual acts,” as you wrote. I say this recognizing that I’m simply reinforcing the need for us to do more work defining what we mean by “sex”. But of course I’ll point out the need for someone to do it, but I won’t do it myself.

Also, I honestly don’t understand your reasoning for saying that “sex on the eve of their marriage is disrespectful to both partners involved, even if each partner wanted to have sex.” Please elaborate on that when you have time. Because while I may go back and forth about the pros and cons of premarital sexual intercourse in general, I can’t say I understand a good reason why engaged couples (who are therefore in a long-term committed relationship) should abstain.

I have not yet donated the proper amount of thought and research to the subject. I will try to do so in the near future.

Look for my post.

I stand by my original statement: “Sex outside of marriage is a sin.” There is no gray area.

Skylark, you posted:

They would (happily?) condemn a couple who had sex on the eve of their wedding/committment ceremony without ever explaining what exactly is bad about that. I heard someone say, “If your fiance is willing to have sex with you before you’re married, that’s a good indication your spouse will sleep with people to whom s/he is not married after you marry.” But by that rationale, we shouldn’t kiss, hold hands with or do anything prior to marriage with our SOs that we wouldn’t want to happen with other people outside of the exclusive relationship. Even long, intimate conversations might be out. Sorry, I refuse to commit to a person I don’t know well. To some, “knowing a person well” means finding out if there’s mutual interests in bed.

Okay, I’m going to break this down piece by piece.

First, while I do firmly believe that sex outside of marriage is a sin,Iwill not condem anybody who practices fornication(because all sexual acts outside of marriage are just that, fornication) because it is not my place to condem them. It is my place to love them, to care for them, but not to judge them.

Secondly, sex on the eve of their marriage is disrespectful to both partners involved, even if each partner wanted to have sex.

Please hear my heart beat on this one:

Sex before marriage causes scars.

Sex before marriage causes hidden, but irreparable damage.

Sex before marriage causes feelings of mistrust.

I’m sorry. That’s all I have time for right now. Look for further comments from me. I’d enjoy feedback, even if you don’t agree with my views.

Blessings,

-karaleigh

AmyKate, thank you for sharing your thoughts. I’m glad you and your husband enjoy each other. Unlike you, I HAVE heard women say they wished they’d had more sex. Obviously no one can ever know “what would have happened if,” and I think it’s simply more common to wish something that happened didn’t. ‘Cause then you know the unpleasant consequences first-hand. Some women I know were raised in fairly strict homes where sex wasn’t ever talked about. They went for the first man who promised to get them out of their parents’ homes, but it turned out to be a bad choice—and now they wish they’d had more experiences before he came along, including having “good sex” so they knew when the man was just in it for himself.

It’s probably also worth noting that just finding the other person attractive doesn’t mean you’re going to want the same things in the sack. I’ve had people ask me, a single, 24-year-old virgin, how I’m planning to iron out sexual differences if I get married someday. My answer has been something like this: “We’ll talk about what we want before we get married to head off what we can. Once we’re wed, we’ll both be making compromises and working to please the other in a variety of ways. I don’t expect there to be anything within the ‘normal’ scope of sexual desires that couldn’t be worked out. One person may not get everything s/he wants as often as s/he wants it, but that’s part of life.” It’d be nice to hear from some sexually experienced (and probably married) folks if that’s a realistic thing to say.

Yes, I was thinking of couples who have made a life committment to each other, too. One-night-stands are the extreme, and plenty of people disapprove of them who don’t hold to the Traditional Christian Sex Ethic. Apart from the person I quoted in an earlier comment, I haven’t gotten much of a reason out of people who condemn those who have sex with their fiances.

What would the ethic of love require, as luke and others suggest? I could definitely see how it’s not loving to have sex with someone before you two have some kind of long-lasting agreement. But what, really, truly, is unloving about having sex with the one you’ve promised to marry? What’s the substantive difference between being married and being engaged? In some cultures, being betrothed (similar to our engagement) meant being married in the legal sense but not coming together physically yet. Why they did it that way I have no idea. It seems fairly arbitrary.

Katie, I had to chuckle when I saw your post. I get nit-picky, too, so I don’t mind at all you correcting me. The nursing homes and retirement communities in which I’ve interacted don’t have enough residents humping each other to talk openly about STD rates. Or maybe it’s still oh-so-private.

I know this is very nit-picky in the context of this discussion but I thought I would just throw this in. Yes, pregnancy probably isn’t much of an issue but STD’s are as much of an issue for a sexually active 70 year old as they would be for a sexually active 20 year old. They might even be more problematic if they have other health issues that may complicate or increase the risks. I’m not sure what kind of sex ed a 70 year old would have gotten through life but who knows if they are practicing safer sex or not?

I’ve actually read somewhere (NY Times?? I think) that STD’s are increasing in the older generations and some nursing homes are starting to offer sex education. I kinda remember a certain blue pill being mentioned as a reason older folks are more sexually active. All sexually active people (gay/straight, young/old, male/female, married/single) should be thinking about sexual safety.

Sorry to get a little preachy there, I’ll get off the soap box for now.

I too have grown up with the teaching that sex should be reserved for marriage, and it’s a belief I held to during my dating/courtship years.

In response to the comment about couples learning if they are sexually compatible: I don’t think it takes as much experimenting as some people may think. I remember dating a few guys who I was not attracted to at all, and the thought of touching them was out of the question. And although my husband and I didn’t kiss for the first number of years we dated, I didn’t have any doubt that once we did, we’d enjoy ourselves immensely. So the argument that people need to see if they’re compatible doesn’t hold water, in my opinion and experience.

I have plenty of friends who hold a different view on sex and have had their fair share of sexual relationships outside of/before marriage. I don’t pass a judgment on them for it, but if some one asks me straight out what I think (especially some one younger trying to determine what they want to do, what is best, wise, right, etc.), I definitely urge them to wait, to save sex for marriage, because I cannot honestly see more benefits in sex outside of a life commitment. I have heard too many stories from women of regret, of being mistreated, of having nothing physically sacred to share with the person they are committing their life to. I haven’t heard a woman say she wishes she’d have had more partners or more sex. Granted, many women I’ve spoken with grew up with the teaching the sex outside of marriage was wrong, so that could be impacting their feelings.

But perhaps sex in general, with boyfriends or girlfriends or random hook ups weren’t your intended focus. Were you thinking more specifically of couples who have made a life commitment to each other? Engaged couples?

Another thought: what is SEX? What constitutes sex? It seems to me that should also be defined. Is it merely intercourse, or does it include petting, oral sex, etc?