Sorry, BonBon, it's taken me so long to respond--I forgot to check this thread!
bonbon wrote:
In that sense I could safely say that any person I intend to have sex with is a person who (at that point) I intend to marry.
That being said, there is such a thing as--what I call--"sexual personality." People have different tastes in bed, just like they do with food. And how much would it blow to be married to someone, and then finding out that you guys aren't compatible in bed! In that case, your sex life would actually deteriorate--instead of strengthen, as you have mentioned--your marriage. Trust me man....I come from a pretty traditional background...and I know some of these couples!
I know that argument, and yes, people do indeed have different sexual personalities. Yes, it would blow to get married and learn that you aren't compatible in bed. But I think that argument is kinda bunk. I have a hard time believing that these couples who got married and all of a sudden discovered that they aren't sexually compatible were fooling themselves on that issue. You don't have to sleep with someone to find out if there's chemistry there. My theory is that if you can dance well with someone, and have fun doing it, you can have awesome sex! The physical/emotional connection is the primary key--everything else can be learned, discovered, and improved. Also, let's assume that these people were both virgins when they got married. I doubt, though, that they never made out. Even if they kept it really clean w/no heavy petting, etc., I think you can get a pretty good sense for someone's sexuality/sensuality by kissing and making out with them. My guess is that these couples weren't fully "compatable" then, but ignored that fact for whatever reason, or just assumed that nature or whatever would take its course. I can't believe that they had awesome make out sessions and yet have a horrible sex life now, assuming everything else in their lives are cherry.
And that's probably it. For women in particular (since sexual "compatibility" usually seems to hinge on the woman, since most guys are ready for it whenever), getting turned on isn't about them just being randomly horny, or by your body or the size of your penis. It is about communication, it is about their stress levels, it is about non-sexual affection and touch, and about lots of foreplay. I am a single virgin and I know this. If these guys aren't getting enough (which I imagine is their problem), my strong guess is that one or probably several of these other, more fundamental issues is the cause. And sure, most chicks don't want to have sex 5 Xs a day, every day. That is just life. Prostitutes do that, but that is because they are desperate for $, not because that fits their libido. If your wife isn't getting frisky enough, and you can't handle feeling any sexual tenion at all (and who said that a little sexual tension/horniness is a bad thing?), have a quickie with Rosy Palm and her 5 Sisters. It's not rocket science. Most marriage counselors will tell you that when a couple is having sexual difficulties, the problem usually isn't sex. Let's say that the wife is super prudish and will only do it in 1 or 2 positions, and the husband wants to do it doggie style or whatever. Now, is the real issue here "sexual compatibilty" in some almost genetic, predetermined sense, or is it bec perhaps the wife doesn't feel safe enough w/her husband. Like, really safe. Maybe there are trust issues there. Maybe she was abused sexually when she was young. Maybe he is too forceful with her or puts her down and shames her when she doesn't want to try something right away new that pushes her comfort level. Maybe the dude needs to try a new approach, and work on some of these other issues first. Maybe he is even being selfish and doesn't take the time to get her off, or even ask her what she would like to try. Unless he is wanting to do something harmful or demeaning, the husband doesn't need to just give up his doggie style fantasies or whatever, he just needs to grab ahold of his nuts again and pursue his wife differently. If he is doing these other things right, and his wife is feeling loved and sexy and trusting him and turned on, he can probably do almost anything, and she would be into it.
I think there is sometimes this foundational error that we have that marriage is supposed to be easy. hahahahahaahaahaahahahah Um... no. Yes, we want to be with someone as compatible as possible. But the flipside to it is that God uses marriage to shape us. We can't learn patience or grow relationally when things are easy-peasy all the time, in marriage or out. These challenges can be good, if we are man enough to learn what to do and then do it, and when that doesn't work, to try something else, then we can grow and become more like Christ. Marriages that are stuck in the "incompatibility" rut are often marriages where people have either just given up, or "settled" for the mediocre (all the while they murmur and complain like the Israelites in the wilderness, of course....) You have to fight to keep a relationship alive and thriving and growing in intimacy.
bonbon wrote:
Combining this with our mastery of contraception and STDs, you can imagine that a re-interpretation of Scripture could actually dramatically improve marriage in the church! Again, I'm not promoting the idea that we should all just f*** each other; there has to be some sort of balance.
Ironically, most of the largest and healthiest churches in the U.S. and abroad aren't those with a "take up your cross
lite" type of doctrine. Instead, they are the ones that preach the whole counsel of God, even the parts that are difficult and challenging and require some type of a sacrifice. People don't want the church to simply affirm what they are already doing. It offers nothing then, and has no use, since we all know that things aren't all right in the world. The church and the people of God are
supposed to be a prophetic voice in the wilderness, calling a spade a spade (in love and with integrity), whether the issue is sexual immorality or human trafficking, and pointing the way to true life and love and justice and peace and joy, not the cheap, falsely-fronted versions presented by the media and rooted our own immediate appetites.
[quote="bonbon"]Now, you could argue that those parts of Scripture cannot be re-interpreted due to its contextual background or whatnot. If so, I really have nothing to say....because I'm not a Theologian. On a philosophical level, however, I think my proposal makes sense because it passes the 'experimentum crucis'--it would hold to be true in any state of society. Let me put it this way: if a handful of us lived in a deserted island--where there doesn't exist a state to issue a marriage license--how would the Bible's stance on sex apply there? Since no official marriage exists, it would be simplified to my proposal--"at the point of intercourse, make sure you love her and intend to stay with her."[quote]
I'm not a theologian, either, but you don't have to be. Like I said, the Biblical arguments against premarital sex have nothing to do with preventing unwanted pregnancies, the spread of disease (which they probably wouldn't have understood to be spread that way then, anyway), or with simply aligning with the broader society's values (or not). They have everything to do with the individual, his (and his body's) relationship to Christ, and to his or her future or current spouse. These types of arguments do pass the "experimentum crucis" test, and are just as true and valid today. I don't see how taking a "looser" stance on premarital sex would somehow improve the institution of marriage, since the de facto arrangement for the large majority of couples today is to begin sexual relations before they get married anyway, and yet successful marriages (and marriage rates themselves, in some places) are on the decline. The sour "fruit" of that behavior is already obvious. I don't think this is due to some sort of a guilt complex held by sexually active non-married couples because the church doesn't sanction their activity. In fact, more sexually liberal churches are seeing declining numbers, but more conservative Evangelical churches, especially Pentecostal/Charismatic ones still are on the rise, especially in places like Latin America, Africa, and China. And these churches are generally strongly against pre- and extra-marital sex, and so I really don't think it's a church popularity issue at stake.
As far as your desert island example goes, first of all, that would be a really rare exception, and one should never develop policy (or doctrine) based on rare exceptions. The Bible doesn't specify how exactly a marriage should take place. As Christians, we both agree, I assume, that marriage is a church-affiliated activity (it doesn't have to literally take place inside a church but is sanctioned by the church community), and blessed and officiated by a priest or pastor, and involves the co-celebrating of families, friends, and even acquaintances. Biblically, whether it was an "official marriage" if by official you mean State-sanctioned or not, is irrelevant. If there is such a thing as state-sanctioned marriage where you live (as is the case w/most people today in the world), then that process should be involved; not because we need their blessing (or stamped certificate), but for being a good witness in society, affirming what is good in it, and by obeying its just laws. But on some level, a marriage usually involves some sort of a public ceremony, and usually invokes the blessing of God upon it. The most important part of it is the commitment of the couple to each other and to God and to keep that relationship publicly accountable on some level.
If, on your desert island (is no one else on the island except for the couple?), it was a matter of "at the point of intercourse, make sure you love her and intend to stay with her," and no such "official marriage" exists, then at that point, because of the commitment involved, it
would be marriage, so they wouldn't be having premarital sex in that instance, so I don't see your point. That committed sexual act would, in fact, be the act of marriage (as it is in a standard marriage). But in your more personal theoretical example, if you wouldn't have sex with someone unless you "feel a very deep connection too [them]. In that sense I could safely say that any person I intend to have sex with is a person who (at that point) I intend to marry," then why just intend--instead, man up and actually marry her first! A wedding doesn't have to be a big, expensive, complicated deal.
But then you also asked about what if you find that you aren't "sexually compatible" (which you might not be initially, anyway--it takes time for two people to figure out what they like to do together in bed and open up fully like that--that doesn't mean it won't be amazing in a few months)--but let's say that you two aren't as sexually compatible as you hoped in your scenario--would that then be the one condition that would cut off that intention to marry them? Like, "Hey baby, let's have sex--I feel a very deep connection to you and intend to marry you anyway." Afterwards--"*yawn* That was IT?!?!? Forget it, even though you just opened your heart, soul, and body to me, my intent to marry you is off!!! Thanks for nuthin', prude girl, I'm outta here. I'm gonna find me a woman who is better at getting my rocks off..." Haha, I can't imagine you doing that, but if that isn't that case, then I don't get your aversion to waiting 'till the wedding night...
Login
Register
FAQ
