Wet Dream Forum

A question for religious people:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_nqySMvkcw

You might want to check the whole speech if you want here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vrpPPV_yPY

Enjoy.

omg it's been so long since we talked! are you still the same old thor? honestly some of my views have changed since our last exchange, particularly regarding my openness on sex and marriage.

but regarding the video......ummmm, what is to say about it? as pauli would say, "it is not even wrong."

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

What are your new views, bonbon?

hey squeeze, i have to be careful of what i say because these views are still tentative and i'm not a bible expert whatsoever. i know that most bible experts interpret 1 Cor. 7:2 as a prohibition against premarital sex. and they would say it such a matter-of-fact way! but i have to be honest to myself, and i don't see why it has to be necessarily interpreted that way. in hermeneutics, teachers are always stressing the fact that scripture must be interpreted in terms of its context. and in my opinion (which is, again, a tentative one) 1 Cor. 7:2 should be interpreted in the context that, back then, they didn't have contraception!

TIME did an article on this <http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,811919,00.html> and I love what the scientist has to say about it. "No doubt it seems absurd to think of the clergy as leading a movement to relax a standard of sexual morality ... I remind you, however, that it was the Protestant clergy who brought about the first great sexual reform of modern times by attacking and reversing the restrictive taboo of ecclesiastical celibacy. There is no inherent reason why they could not lead a second reform of equal magnitude and importance, especially with the cooperation of their Jewish and Mormon colleagues . . ." If they did so, said Scientist Murdock, "the youth of this country might flock to the churches that now repel them, and religion might even be restored to that position of central world significance which it enjoys in most societies but has lost in our own."

What do you think?

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

The video portraits the fact that, as Neil deGrasse Tyson said, "the universe is not here for us". Lots of stupid useless things happen, and we are the "hey, thats clever" group. We are not special, only as much as you want to think about it. We are just lucky to not be one of those fetuses with dumb features that often die a week after birth.

hey there. so did you finally got laid? congrats if so man.

cheers

LOL, no i did not. as i've said, all this stuff is still tentative--very liminal. if i do get laid, i'll be sure to tell you guys. after all i've shared in this forum, doing so would be a piece of cake.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

Yes, bonbon, re: premarital sex, it's true--they didn't have contraception back then. We do now, though it's not 100% fail proof, except for the pill in most cases, but that doesn't protect against STDs, and sometimes creates nasty side effects in the woman, since it messes w/her hormones. But besides all those practical reasons, I don't even think that's the point. As for the Biblical historical context, in the OT, if a couple has sex, then they were expected to get married, bec the Jews saw the act of sex as the act of marriage. A marriage (like in the Catholic church today) isn't considered consummated until the husband and wife get busy. And virginity was prized, bec that act of intercourse, with the spilling (usually) of some blood from the tearing of the bride's hymen (sorry to be so graphic) was their way of "cutting the covenant"--almost all covenants in the ancient near east, whether of loyalty, a treaty between parties, hospitality, marriage, etc. were established by the shedding of some blood, since blood is considered sacred. (Think of the time when God established a covenant w/Abram and had him split all of those animals in two, and the torch passed through them, etc. That is an example of a blood covenant. The blood make the covenant inviolable.) Now, if a dude is sleeping w/all of these different chicks (or vice a versa), he is essentially making covenants w/them, covenants that he has no intention of keeping.

One could say, "Well, that is Old Testament stuff. I'm a "New Testament" kind of guy... That doesn't apply anymore, Christ (somehow) eradicated EVERYTHING in the OT, etc." OK, well, let's see what Paul had to say abt it--and I think this is the strongest Biblical argument against premarital sex--and it's 1 chapter before I Cor. 7:

6:15 "Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

That's the NIV translation. I really love how The Message summarizes the 2nd half of that passage:

16-20 "There's more to sex than mere skin on skin. Sex is as much spiritual mystery as physical fact. As written in Scripture, "The two become one." Since we want to become spiritually one with the Master, we must not pursue the kind of sex that avoids commitment and intimacy, leaving us more lonely than ever—the kind of sex that can never "become one." There is a sense in which sexual sins are different from all others. In sexual sin we violate the sacredness of our own bodies, these bodies that were made for God-given and God-modeled love, for "becoming one" with another. Or didn't you realize that your body is a sacred place, the place of the Holy Spirit? Don't you see that you can't live however you please, squandering what God paid such a high price for? The physical part of you is not some piece of property belonging to the spiritual part of you. God owns the whole works. So let people see God in and through your body."

That's just it, sex isn't just about skin-on-skin, or even whether a girl will get pregnant or not. It's a physical and spiritual union w/another person. Some proto-Gnostic types back then thought that their body, because it was matter, which they believed to be fallen if not downright evil, really didn't matter that much. Some became ascetics because of this, living harshly restricted lives, trying to "mortify" the flesh. Others took the opposite route and figured, well, it's gonna burn anyway, and so they became hedonists, foolishly thinking that what they did with their body didn't affect their spirit. Paul corrects that libertine viewpoint here saying, no, there is no such thing as "no strings attached" sex. (Some of the Gnostics said they could sleep w/prostitutes bec it 'didn't mean anything,' they thought it was a purely physical act, like eating. That's what Paul is referring to in 6:13--it's a quote from one of these guys, and he responds to it.)

Instead, Paul (and God, I believe) says, no, sex isn't just a fun "physical act," God designed it to bring two people together in incredible intimacy, intimacy that joins body and spirit together in a rather permanent way. And this intimacy and uniting is part of its design--it's inevitable, it's not something you can turn on or off before you have sex, it always happens. And that is a good thing, if often helps keep couples together when they are going through hard times. In fact, Paul basically commands married couples to have regular sex in 7:3-5! (That whole 1st paragraph in Ch. 7 is all about dealing with inappropriate lust--"because of your lack of self-control"--and remaining faithful to God and one's spouse--there is nothing in there, even in verse 2, which you mentioned, about prohibiting pre- and extramarital sex because of possible pregnancy or single parenthood or abortions or STDs. All of those things existed then, too, but Paul's argument here doesn't include any of these things as reasons against fornication. He only addresses holiness and faithfulness and a righteousness type of self-control, keeping Christ as one's primary focus, and (I think) helping to ensure a good sex life for those who do marry.)

A Christian must remember that his body and spirit ultimately belong to Christ, and so for him to have sex with another person joins that person to himself, but also to Christ) in a serious way. If God has honored and sanctified our bodily "temples" in such a way, then why would we treat it like it was "common" and join up with another who isn't following Christ? Or in the case of another Christian, why would we essentially lie to her and create this kind of physical, emotional, and spiritual intimacy when we have no intention of committing to her? If marriage is a metaphor for Christ and the Church, then how are we modeling Christ's faithfulness and sacrifice for the benefit of the other by having sex with them outside of the covenant/commitment of marriage?

"You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body."

Hey Squeeze! I appreciate how you took the time to write all that--it shows how much you care about me as a brother in Christ.

First off, let me just say that I don't believe in "'no strings attached' sex" either. I'll never (in my right mind) go off to Vegas and gang-bang a prostitute, or anything like that. Sex is to me (and I think for most people) a big deal: it's something I'll only do with someone whom I feel a very deep connection too. 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!

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.

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."

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

lol, hows a baby born with a outside-of-body heart that dies in a couple of weeks not even wrong?

my little 5 year old cousin was born with a congenital face malformation. it was debastating to their parents of course for the rest of the family too. the poor girl is only 5 and has been to loads of surgeries already, trying to make her face look better but its still far from looking normal. im not going to lie and tell the truth, she looks gross. thats how it is. shes going to suffer so much for the rest of her life cos of being born that way.

its easy to sit on your chair and quote that pauli dude with that nice soundin phrase, but things are fucked up in real world. things are fucking wrong in real life.
i feel so sorry for her, once she starts gettin older its going to get worse.

Which is what the video was trying to say, which I'm saying isn't wrong.......

we're on the same side, dude.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

Sorry, BonBon, it's taken me so long to respond--I forgot to check this thread!



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.



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...

LOL, it probably won't be exactly like that...but actually yes that's the idea. The first time will be more of a learning experience, so I actually don't expect it to be that mind-blowing. But ya, if we've already been doing it and working on it for months...and if it's just not working out...then that (in my opinion) would be a legitimate reason to break up. I'll probably say it more like, "Hey baby, this past year has been wonderful with you. We've got a lot in common and it's really fun hanging out with you. But honestly, I'm just not feeling the chemistry," but you get my point. And, you know, if she's honest enough she just might agree with me; women want good sex as much as we do!


For me sex is like the pinnacle of the dating selection process. In your lifetime you might go on--oh let's say--100 first dates. Out of those only 50 make it to date #2 because they passed your basic requirement of being funny. Then 30 make it to date number #3 because they're funny *and* kind. If you keep going on, finally perhaps only 5 people become your actual girlfriends. Out of those 5, only 3 of them you have sex with. And out of the three, only 1 you marry.

So you see, sex--being the final part of the process--is still very much exclusive for me (unlike for Thor who has threesomes with his gaming buddies). And (hopefully) having this perspective will raise my chances of finding someone who's more compatible for me. I still highly respect your views, but I hope you can see the sense in what I'm saying.

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

Bonbon, I get the sense of what you are saying, and frankly I don't see Christ in it. What I mean by that is besides everything I've shared already (and interestingly enough I don't see you making any Biblical or spiritual arguments for your current dating mindset), what I hear you saying is pretty much the same thing as any other half-way decent secular person. In other words, you might not be having threesomes w/gaming buddies (and who knows if Thor is even telling the truth--a lot of guys are talk when it comes to stuff like that bec they want to seem "macho"), but I don't see how Christ has changed or is influencing your views on dating or expectations on finding a marriage partner. It sounds like the same fear-based, odds-based dating paradigm that most secular people have.

Like I said, I don't think you have to actually have sex w/someone in order to discover whether there is "chemistry" there or not. Besides,, how many people who are truly in love w/ea other have horrible sex lives? Love=wanting to serve and please the other. If you want to do that, you will figure it out, and love also = compromise. Sorry, brother man, that's the truth. Love does not always equal perfect sex life, perfect relationship, perfect fun, etc. If your dating/engagement can't go through difficult times w/misunderstandings, financial/job difficulties, family strains, etc., then it won't last. It's not bec your sex life wasn't A+ from the start. It's because there wasn't that depth of commitment (trust in God when things don't seem to be going right and a willingness to work on one's own issues first before we go and point fingers at our spouse) there. What I am saying, and I don't mean to be harsh, but I honestly don't think you have a grasp of what marriage is really abt and what it requires. You still have the mindset that many teens and young adults have, and its one that is based on our "meet my needs first" expectations in our culture today. We are a generation of entitled and privileged people, and although that is a good thing in many ways, in our fallenness, it can enable our selfishness and unrealistic expectations--our sense of entitlement. Because we are taught that we "deserve" the best in everything (and best here meaning perfect, which of course, we ourselves are not), we are afraid of commitment, and we often lack the faith to take the plunge of commitment when all normal indicators say "go."

Statistics show that marriages that were preceeded by a time of living together and/or sex aren't more likely to last than those that weren't, though that seems to go against common logic. I have a friend right now who is living w/his gf (though they are currently not sexually active, though they had been in the past), and he really wants to move out, though he still loves her. Why? Bec living together isn't marriage. I don't mean that in simply the legal or religious sense, but it's different in that that same level of commitment just ins't there. It's so easy to bow out of, and because of that many couples aren't as determined to fight for it, to work things out. God's ways aren't burdensome or to simply "test" us; they are there to give us life, and that more abundantly.

It's also amazing to me how many people I know who have done the whole dating a million people thing, who, years later, are still single, and not even in a committed relationship. Oh, and please don't ever tell a girl (like you said in your fake speech there) that you are going to "hang out" w/her. I know a LOT of single women and one thing they all tell me is that if you are going to ask a girl to go on a date, call it a DATE, and not some pussy version of "hanging out." Talk about lack of a spine. Is it easier? Sure--waaaay easier, and for as strong and courageous us men CAN be, our default version is laziness, let's be honest. If you aren't ready to call it a date, do the girl some dignity and don't ask. On the other hand, you don't have to "date" 100 women to find the 2 or 3 that might work out long term. If it's a date, call it that and treat her right, but if it's just "hanging out," then take the opportunity to become friends. Not bf/gf, but friends who respect ea other, without "benefits." You will get to know and understand women so much better w/out all of the adolescent drama and silly unspoken rules that usually accommodate dating. Can a friend turn into a gf? Sure, but it's hard to go back to being friends again afterward if it doesn't work out. Hard, not impossible. But on the other hand, I also know couples who were acquaintances/friends for a while (like at church) who ended up going out, and eventually getting married. In some ways, I think that is ideal bec you get to know them for who they are first, bec people often try to constantly put their best foot forward first when dating, and it becomes this scripted courtship dance for a while, but you don't REALLY get to know the person.

Man, I don't know, it just sounds like you are planning on becoming this serial monogamy guy. I'm in my mid-30s and I don't know any guy who has lived that way who now feels like it was the way to go. Recently, there has been this unusual trend among many of my friends (I know a lot of people, haha) of meeting the right girl, and getting engaged after like 3-6 months. It goes against my more cautious mindset--i've always though a couple should date for at least a year, and THEN get engaged if that seems right. But maybe that's bec I've observed others who were in the wrong relationships. But for like 5 of these couples, when they knew, they knew. Only time will tell if that is true, but as these couples are all dedicated to Christ and sold, awesome, mature, fun and healthy people in their own right as individuals, something tells me this is right. One of them told me the other day that he wished he had more patience and self-control before, bec now that he's met the woman he wants to marry, he regrets the things he's done in the past w/other girls, bec he was desperate to make things work or see if she was right, etc. But when the real thing came along, those questions weren't still hanging around. They both just new, and everything felt really right and natural, and comparatively easy. They feel like they have both "come home" in their relationship. And guess what, they aren't having sex.

Have faith in God, Bonbon. Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and ALL these things will be added to you. Don't allow yourself to get caught up in the culture of fear and doubt and commitment-phobia. Trust God more that he isn't going to require you to date 100 people and put your heart and everything else through all of that in order to find your best match. Trust him, that he is indeed good, and that the one he has for you will also be great in bed, as you two work on it, after you take that step of faith and commitment. The physical intimacy of marriage is the crown that needs to be built upon the others of mental, emotional, relational, and spiritual unity. Develop the others first, and sex will be the icing on the cake, not some misaligned pre-requisite. God is good! All the time! And you are his kid. Trust your Abba, and save the drama for your mamma...

Hey sorry for the late reply, these past few days have been busy. But wow...I'm not sure what to say to you honestly. Perhaps it's because you've seen more of life that you're putting so much effort to deter me of this path, but I really don't see what the big deal is. I don't see myself having less commitment to my future wife just because we had premarital sex, and I don't see a clear-cut reason why one would necessarily lead to the other. No matter how important sexual chemistry is, as a Christian, my vows at the marriage altar will of course be prioritized over some hottie who's gonna try to steal me away from my wife. But if I could raise my chances of finding that hottie *before* I make those vows, then why not?

This sounds a bit contradictory, like a Christian honoring marriage on one hand, but also being a horny guy justifying getting laid with a few 'hotties' before marriage on the other. Is using a few females you don't really care about to have sex with before settling down to marriage really Christian?

Would you mind if your future wife also got laid with a few male 'hotties' before marriage? Would you feel that you could have the same level of trust with her if she had done that? Would you consider her to be a good, upstanding, moral Christian?

Ooops sorry if my post was sending the wrong message. I wasn't trying to say it's okay to sexually exploit females who I have no long term interest in whatsoever, provided that I'm unmarried. I was trying to say that, via premarital sex, I could raise my chances of having one of those 'hotties' as my wife.

It's true what Squeeze said, how we could intelligently guess a person's sexual personality by dancing, making out, ect. But honestly, I'd rather just actually find out by doing it!

_________________
"The only fatal thing is to sit down content with anything less than perfection." -C.S. Lewis

really. Do you want some pics of them or what? lol. That is the typical idea that someone who sees having thresomes and such as impossible has about you. "He must be lying, most definitely bs". Dude, im not lying, and i've had 4 thresomes so far (always with the same two girls). I've meet the girl whos 20yo for like a year. We are friends, and then she introduced me to her friend whos 19. After a couple of weeks, hanging out with them and some other friends, it happened. The first time was sort of spontaneous. I was making up with the 20yo girl when her friend just rang the door bell at like 2 am. We were alone, and she went to the door and invited her to come in (and we were at my place, she didnt even ask me). Then the girl returns to my room, wearing only a thong, and then there was her 19yo friend. I was like dude, what the fuck, im half naked, we were making out, your friend is here. But instead of getting confused or nervous since it was unexpected, i acted all cool about it, like if i was a gettin threesomes everyday lol. It seems my friend knew her friend was open minded about this too beforehand (thats why she invited her to come) and from there i just went with the flow. And man, what a flow. Both girls are fine as hell (no pun intended), I thought I was going to explode in a minute, but I somehow managed to deal with the situation successfully. I dont want to enter into details since this may not be the adecuate forum for this but man, getting two 'hotties' playing with their tongues at the same time is just too awesome to describe with words.

The guitar hero thing was sort of random. I had my ps3 and the plastic guitar thing near the bed. After the sex my friend saw it and said, "lets play some guitar hero" and we rocked some GnR while still being naked. im laughing just by remembering it.



lol@using a few females. There are females who are also okay with having sex without needing to sign a pact that says "you'll never have sex with anyone else and die by my side" or something along the lines. I just turned 22 and that is just a no-no for me at the moment. Apparently you didn't take this into account. Of course, we never know when and where "that special girl" can appear and change everything, but right now im just having fun.



lol@paranoid at non-virgin girls. Yes, I would have no problems to date and eventually have a serious relationship with a girl that in the past had an amazing sexual life and had fun. In fact, my longest and most serious relationship, the person that has been the most important in my life so far was with a girl a year younger and had more sexual experience than me. Was this something to worry about? No. If you love someone you don't care about that. In fact it was cool since I learned a lot with her, and she was very comprehensive. We were faithful to each other for two years. The relationship ended because she had to move far away, i was only 18 and she was 17. That teached me a lot. It was devastating, but one eventually learns that life is life, to cut a long story short.

Trust me, because a girl is virgin, doesn't automatically means she would never cheat on you. Whores are whores, regardless if they had lots of sex or still are virgins. If the person is mature enough and both partners feel love for each other, you don't need anything else.



Man, you really have a point there. And I can tell you from my own experience. I don't want to enter into details, but trust me, sometimes it just doesn't work at a sexual level, and sometimes you can't guess it until you go for the real thing. My advice is, meet people, have fun, and you'll eventually find "her". If sex has to happen with other girls before you find "her", please, enjoy, go for it. It only gets better everytime. If you don't want to, drop a pm with their numbers lol.

cheers