Why do people engage in fornication before marriage?

Post Reply New Topic

VERY true!

Thank you for your considered response. I understand your point about the body-mind dualism, but that is not quite my view. I believe that both that as humans we have both reason and emotion, and yes we are physical beings - our brain itself is part of our bodies, and essentially Platonic or Cartesian dualism of body and mind is an inaccurate notion. You are right about the religious aspect - I am a Christian. It is probably true that I have allowed negative experiences to colour my thoughts and feelings. It just seems to me (with respect to the clearly differing views here) that at times long term celibates (for whatever reason, not necessarily religious or even voluntary) are at times made to feel ashamed of what is not shameful (ironically what Christians have been accused of, with some justice). Also, is not the notion of a sexual relationship without an emotional involvement itself a form of dualism, as though one could separate body and soul? I personally am troubled by the idea that one would use another person as essentially a vent. I wish to be clear that I have sexual desires and fantasies, it is just very important to me to get to know someone well as a friend first, and I would actually like it to feel romantic and be able to take my time. I realise that in the past puritanical ethics have been used oppressively, but I am not sure that the other extreme is necessarily invariably kinder. I have tried not to be too judgmental given different norms, but I am conscious that indeed many of us are coming at the question from a very different background. It seems to me odd that while Christians are frequently accused of being (and sometimes are) very uptight about sexuality, yet it is many of these vastly more experienced people who seem to talk about lovemaking as though it were really dull, and even of rejecting someone because they could not fulfil their every desire every time, while I was at one point waxing lyrical about the joys of an experience that I have never had. I realise I was probably being somewhat rude about my more sexually active fellow human beings; I was just a little frustrated that some seemed to be ridiculing people for daring to suggest that it might make sense to wait. I also thought that some of my fellow long term celibates (I hope I am not misunderstood; I am using this word merely for those who have been going without for a prolonged period, not necessarily someone taking actual monastic vows or anything) might need a little encouragement.

I would agree with your point of view. I find it troubling that people would treat fellow human beings as though they were bodies without emotions and thoughts. I would like to be able to take a long time with someone, and I agree that prospects of a long term relationship surely would be adversely affected by a knowledge of previous promiscuity. Not wishing to sound too harsh, but I do have trouble understanding such a mindset.

I got volumes I could respond with but will truncate it down for now to the "virgin" aspect first:

Originally, the word "virgin" in its original Hebrew-word context, simply meant a Young Girl (and yes this is a factual translation-discrepancy where the similar Greek-word that it was translated into would or could be translated into other languages as Virgin as a "default" rather than Young Girl being the translation).

It's also one of the reasons why "God" is referenced as a "He" or male-entity, because once more, certain languages default to their "It" be translated as "He" when it was in reference that of which is supposed to otherwise be genderless (when you study or speak languages like French or German or Spanish each noun is either masculine or feminine or neutral/neuter, the car in French is la voiture, and would be grammatically-incorrect to say: LE voiture).

Also, all diseases™ do have a cure, for God™ (the context of God™ being defined by Terence on his The Testament of Truth web-site) certainly wouldn't allow the manifestation of anything without also its equal and opposite neutraliser (Dr. Royal Raymond Rife had already developed a cure-all machine many decades ago for example). Additionally, the idea of "trust" and "betrayal" has more to do with the "sin™" (i.e.: Negative-Emotions) within humanity, for one does NOT feel "jealousy" IF they were free of such sin™, and perhaps for a better context, I should quote another portion of The Messiah's writings in regards to relationships & partners...

...that of which I have quoted is the reality of relationships as penned by the very messiah himself (just think of how different the "scriptures" of olden-days would be if Jesus himself were to personally write out the entire bible instead of scripture™ being written by men who very likely had political/corporate-affiliations...) !

I would agree that people who don't want to be sexually active should not be ridiculed for their preferences. Some people are also asexual. Some people prefer solitary masturbation to sex with other people. Or expressing their fantasies through imagination. Part of being sex-positive is accepting the range of sexual expression (or non expression) and not regarding one as more valid than another. (With the caveat that non-consentual sex is never okay.)

I am not a Christian and don't believe in the concept of soul. However, I believe you are making a false dichotomy between sex in a committed relationship and sex that is just one person using the other. Some people may not want a romantic partnership but may still have an interest in having sex. That does not mean they can't take the feelings of their sexual partner into consideration and thereby have a sexual encounter that is fulfilling to both parties. Abusive sex can occur in casual encounters and in long-term relationships. The important thing in either situation is to communicate and to attend to the needs and desires of your partner.

^^^ YES, thank you!

AlexandertheSolitary, I've hesitated several times to respond to your many elaborate comments because I didn't want to impel you to go on, but I want to tell you I agree with Agenaki.

I'll also add that, based on the nature of your numerous postings here, it sounds as if you have an obsession with others’ sexual behavior and attitudes about it, and what seems to be a difficulty accepting the words of those with more/any experience.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with voluntary abstinence, and sex is an interesting topic, but it seems that your over-analysis may actually be a barrier to greater understanding for you. I respect you as you are—solitary—and know that you may be predisposed to fixations (nothing inherently wrong there) but you might not realize that you may have trapped yourself in an unproductive infinite loop. If you’d much rather think about and debate relationships and sex from the sidelines, you may talk yourself right out of ever gaining any valid “evidence” to satisfy your curiosity. If that’s what you want, acknowledge it, accept it, and move on.

If you really want to hyper-analyze my point of view, you may want to know that I’m a well-balanced forty-something NT with a very healthy and happy 20-year marriage, but I’m hoping that you will give more attention to your own sexual/emotional/mental well-being in the near future. I wish you well.

Whether or not people cheat on each within relationships has got nothing to do with whether or not they have sex before marriage. That's between them and their partner but people can cheat on each other regardless of whether they are married or not, I don't see how marriage makes a difference in that case. Your argument is a non-sequitur with regards to the topic at hand because they are 2 different issues.

Yes. The thread topic is, "Why do people engage in fornication before marriage?", and not "Let's See How Sublty This Thread Can be Diverted".

Different strokes for different folks. If you are not interested in sleeping around or having a relationship with someone who has at any point slept around? Yay for you, you don't have to! The reverse is also true.

Sex can be fun. Between boyfriends in high school/college, I had a friends-with-benefits thing with one of my best (male) friends off-and-on til I was about 23. It worked for me and him at the time.

What's with the judgement? Just because others do something that is different than what you would do?

Sex before marraige is like eating the dessert before a really good thanksgiving meal; it lessens the experience.

I like dessert, but if I eat it before a meal then I can't really enjoy all the food. So before I could really appreciate the meal that took so long to prepare, I'd have to wait for some of the non-nutritious desert to digest first and even then it still takes away from the full experience of the meal.

I'd rather wait for my thanksgiving dinner and then enjoy the dessert after the way it's intended to be. Plus I know how much regret sucks. But everyone is different.

I suspect a lot of "fornicators" are not really into marriage, per se, except in a mercenary way [marrying into social status or money]. just like that song, "what's love got to do with it?" outside of a sublime combo of lust and trust, love itself seems in our culture a quaint notion that went out with button shoes. many folk scarcely can describe it outside of parents' love for their children.

To a point I agree with you.

My issue, if we accept the food analogy, is that I don't feel that people are really being fed. People are going hungry and are not being fed. At all, much less at Thanksgiving. And for some people, the dessert seems less a tasty afterthought and more like the breadcrumbs that fall to the floor. People who are deprived and desperate enough will take the first thing they get. Sex is not THAT hard to obtain. And if you're used to having pretty much nothing most of your life, you'll gladly take it.

Don't misunderstand me…I think it's best to wait for marriage. Nothing can excuse sex before marriage. But given the demands people place on the young and still expect them to wait, I have to say we're being unrealistic. I think parents should be more supportive of young couples, encourage earlier marriage, and walk young married couples through maintaining solid, healthy relationships and raising children.

And…btw…if you look at underprivileged communities where single motherhood is the norm, this already happens. Grandparents frequently come alongside their kids to raise the third generation. Imagine having that kind of safety net and support system for young married couples--not taking on sole responsibility for raising children, but basically just being there to keep new parents from screwing it up. And not just that, but having both families come together to keep both parties accountable for how things go within the household ("Hey, son! It's your anniversary today. Have you bought flowers for my daughter yet? OK…you need to do that NOW"). If you had everyone on board, things like "cheating" and "divorce" would cease to have much meaning.

Until society decides to start being reasonable about saving sex for marriage and families learn a thing or two about corporate solidarity, you're going to have a tough time finding people who can take the idea of waiting very seriously, or at least seriously enough to follow through.

sex is nigh well impossible for some of us to obtain.

Please forgive me if I conveyed that impression. And the over-analysis is merely an attempt to respond to the considered responses of others (and at times to defend and encourage those I empathised with). We are social, relational beings, rather than just autonomous individuals, and there are few actions that have precisely no impact on our fellow human beings; even thoughts and emotions can unconsciously affect our demeanour, colour our words and influence our interpretation of those of others (as may have occurred here, for example) all of which may have an effect upon other people. I appreciate your concern. But you misunderstand me somewhat, I fear. On the one hand I have a commitment to an ethical code as to how to interact with others, part of which governs what I consider personally to be the most honourable way to seek romantic interactions with women. That is not obsessive, just part of the personal set of ethical boundaries that we all to some extent have if we wish to take others into account - obviously these boundaries vary immensely from person to person. I actually have many more friendships with females than males, and I have sought actively to get into a requited romantic relationship (including using online dating agencies). I was also slightly disturbed by what appeared to me to be the naively dualistic assumption (ironically what I was accused of) that one [i]could[i/] completely divorce whole aspects of one's humanity without any adverse psychological consequences: surely intercourse involves the whole person, body, mind and soul (I realise that the last term is problematic and has different meanings, but the expression still stands). A lot of the argument from the more sexually active (holding hands in my case!) side sounded so joyless, which seemed very odd to me; I would rather die a hopeful virgin than get to the point when lovemaking could ever be described as "meh" (though the whole experience including the flirting, courting and physically affectionate stages prior to marriage, should be both pleasant and pleasurable to the woman; this is important to me, though at the moment this just consists on my trying to be disciplined with my eyes and words - hands and feet should go without saying - in order to avoid making either strangers or friends uncomfortable). "Unproductive infinite loop" sounds more like the darker of my fantasies, or my fixations with specific women who I am unable to be with, than my attempt to clarify my position on relational ethics. I also wished to point out in some instances the likely impact upon other people as well as upon oneself in some common scenarios. I also find the "whatever feels right for you" philosophy one of the more annoying of platitudes: for one thing, feelings are changeable, for another there is [i]neither[i/] a positive nor an inverse correlation between our emotional and moral states (in layman's terms, we sometimes feel good about being bad - callous indifference to others for example - bad about being bad - wallowing in remorse while not actively seeking to behave the shameful habit as well as good about being good - satisfaction at having made someone happier for example - and even perversely bad about being good - feeling ashamed of one's "niceness" decency, interests, virginity, innocent attraction, healthy loving relationships, etc. I hope that is clearer, if even more verbose.

Point taken that long term (including married relationships) can be abusive and/or manipulative, while many shorter unions can be loving, two lonely people seeking comfort, experimentation etc., which it would be inappropriate to describe in condemnatory language unless it was one taking advantage of another's vulnerability.

Last edited by AlexandertheSolitary on 31 May 2015, 11:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Fair point. In my case, while I can manage a sort of charm in a friendly fashion, I genuinely do not know how to express romantic interest without either sounding too intense, or too flippant, neither of which would be helpful in commencing a courtship of a fair lady (I have not meant many I would consider plain, though I can imagine others might find them so; the content of their character and their intellect are also important to me. None of this changes the fact that I may sometimes desperately desire the holding of a woman, but I do not see how that could ever be an excuse for making a woman even uncomfortable. I am actually more comfortable with a more submissive, steretypically feminine role, with more initiative from the female, provided she was not too aggressive and frightened me away. I am aware that some would find this pathetic, others sweet, but perhaps not especially desirable; so be it, it would be worse to pretend to be someone else. I accept that some of my ethical constraints may act as self-limiting factors, but no more than being picky about fetishes or having only one physical "type" for example. My method does require a degree of patience, which is not invariably my strongest suit.

That sounds rather sad . I think a loving relationship outside of wedlock would be arguably preferable to marrying for the wrong reasons, and am puzzled by the appeal of sexual intercourse (as opposed to lovemaking) without regard for the other. Obviously there are times when I really would like simply either to hold a woman without consequence, or gratify my libidinous impulses without consequences, but practically and morally that would not be an option that I even wish to pursue. Surely fantasies and associated habits would be preferable to involving a fellow human being.