de-conversion

72 Comments Add your own

• 1. karen  |  April 19, 2008 at 2:46 pm

  Looking back, I see that I used my “personal relationship with Jesus” as a cop out that allowed me to I could hold onto the black-and-white morality that had been comfortable to me when I was 5, 8, and 11 years old. By the time I was 15 I should have been outgrowing that and learning how to emotionally and physically deal with adult issues and moral ambiguity, but I was afraid to. Jesus gave me the perfect excuse to hold onto a juvenile morality. I thought I was being chaste, but I was just being childish.

  Oh man, Donna. I could have written this word for word about my own adolescence. So True!

  The scary thing is that if you give in to fear and hide in that childish world (using religion or whatever), the lack of personal development does seem to catch up with you eventually. In my case, it was the mother of all midlife crises in my late 30s. I would never wish that on anyone.

  It’s one thing to have an existentialist crisis and spend some years “finding yourself” as a young adult - before you have financial obligations and family commitments. It’s quite another to do the same in midlife when there’s so much more at stake.

  I came out of it intact - though without religion - but so many people do not.

• 2. LeoPardus  |  April 19, 2008 at 5:53 pm

  We should have been making out in the basement…….. We should have been exploring our sexuality…… We should have been stoned at a rock concert,

  You should have been playing at romance you weren’t mature enough for……. You should have been risking pregnancy…. You should have been killing brain cells….. ???????

• 3. salient  |  April 19, 2008 at 6:43 pm

  To belabour the obvious here, LeoPardus — exploring sexuality is not necessarily equivalent to risking pregnancy. Nor, by the same mechanism, is it necessarily equivalent to risking infection.

  How does one become mature enough for romance? At what magical age does a young person pass into “mature enough”? One day, immature, next day, mature.

  If ’stoned’ meant marijuana, as it probably did in writerdd’s youth, then few brain cells would have been at risk.

  I think that you are missing the germane point — about working towards social and emotional maturity freed of unhelpful rules — by racing down that Angstvoll slippery slope.

• 4. LeoPardus  |  April 19, 2008 at 8:26 pm

  exploring sexuality is not necessarily equivalent to risking pregnancy. Nor, by the same mechanism, is it necessarily equivalent to risking infection.

  You’ll have to define what you mean by the term “exploring sexuality” then, since it doesn’t appear to include “having sexual intercourse” the way you use it.

  How does one become mature enough for romance? At what magical age does a young person pass into “mature enough”? One day, immature, next day, mature.

  I made something of an assumption. Namely that writerdd was speaking of her mid teen years. I’d say that’s too early for most people. If she was writing about her late teens or 20’s, then the comment wouldn’t apply.
  As to the magical age, i don’t have one. For some people the late teens is OK. For some the late 80’s is still too soon. I’d rate the mid teens too early for almost everyone.

  Re marijuana- don’t be fooled by the current propaganda. It’s not the harmless little teddy bear that many would like you to think it is. By the same token, it’s not the deadly bugaboo some others would like to make it out as. More later if I have a bit of time.

  working towards social and emotional maturity freed of unhelpful rules

  I take it you mean the list writerdd had above. You think they are unhelpful. I quite disagree. Of course I don’t go for all the rules. Some are pretty useless. But neither do I throw them all out.

• 5. orDover  |  April 19, 2008 at 10:58 pm

  In my married life I still struggle with the overwhelming feeling that sex is a dirty and horrible thing, which was drilled into my head all of my life. Even though my pastor said that sex within the context of marriage is beautiful, I couldn’t separate the two. I honestly wish I could let go, be free, be adventurous, and just enjoy myself and my body, but my psyche is scarred from all of those years of conditioning. I can’t even wear lingerie without feeling like a horrible slut. Thanks a lot, pastors, teachers, mom and dad.

• 6. LeoPardus  |  April 20, 2008 at 1:11 am

  orDover:

  From what my wife tells me, the women’s groups are the worst with that crap. Hard to even imagine. Yeesh!

• 7. Slapdash  |  April 20, 2008 at 9:14 am

  Oh my…there’s so much I could say on this topic.

  I am not sure I am in 100% agreement with the original article. On the one hand, my emotional development was surely stunted by my abstinence education at church. To wit, I didn’t have sex until my early thirties.

  On the other hand, I’m not sure it would have been a better outcome to have been “stoned at rock concerts” or to have “explored my sexuality” as a teenager. Rather, I suspect those could have, or would have, led to different kinds of damage and problems.

  That being said, I agree with the larger point.

  orDover: I wish I had something helpful to say. In my case, I was luckily able to shed the “sex as dirty and horrible and wrong” church teachings fairly easily. But I know for many, many women brought up in the Christian church, it is a huge struggle to enjoy sex. Which totally sucks.

• 8. writerdd  |  April 20, 2008 at 12:06 pm

  Hi everyone, sorry I was out of town for a few days! Looks like an interesting discussion. I’ll try to get caught up tomorrow when I’m back to “work”!

  Donna

• 9. karen  |  April 20, 2008 at 4:22 pm

  In my married life I still struggle with the overwhelming feeling that sex is a dirty and horrible thing, which was drilled into my head all of my life. Even though my pastor said that sex within the context of marriage is beautiful, I couldn’t separate the two.

  Oh, I’m so sorry. I know exactly what you mean. This is one of the worst ways in which women (and men, too) are abused by repressive church teachings about the “lust of the flesh” and the evil, sinful physical nature. You hear that forever, and then you get this ‘Okay, you’re married now, it’s all good!’ message and damn if it just doesn’t compute!

  Add in Jesus, living in your heart and “knowing your every thought” and that’s not so conducive to free expression either!

  There are supposedly large percentages of women in the U.S. who are non-orgasmic. I have never seen any studies on it, but I would love to know how many of them were raised in fundamentalist religious teachings. I know at least one of my church friends is in this category.

  <blockquote< I honestly wish I could let go, be free, be adventurous, and just enjoy myself and my body, but my psyche is scarred from all of those years of conditioning. I can’t even wear lingerie without feeling like a horrible slut. Thanks a lot, pastors, teachers, mom and dad.

  You know, there’s probably a lot you could do to improve things, if you’re willing to pursue this. There are many good books focused on women’s sexual lives. You might start with some basic information on anatomy, achieving orgasm (if you are not orgasmic) and communicating with your husband frankly. If books aren’t sufficient, try a few therapy sessions. It might be well worth it if you’re able to overcome some of that negative conditioning.

• 10. paulmct  |  April 20, 2008 at 8:29 pm

  Yes, I am also disappointed when women don’t choose to explore their sexuality.

  Very good point about stunting your growth. You have to grow up some time. Clinging to religious moral codes does seem to result in a certain childish outlook. That seems apparent from many of the comments from Christian commenters here. I also recall seeing one of the 1979 hostages commenting on TV on how childish and naive their fundamentalist captors seemed to be.

  As for LP’s response, there are sexual acts that don’t risk pregnancy and, of course, there is birth control. On the maturity factor, I don’t think there is a magic number or know that it makes a big difference. Most women tend to think their first partner is special, because it is a new experience, regardless of how old they were.

  Also - I wish I could remember where I read this but I can’t - the notion of teenage innocence is a fairly new one. Little more than a hundred years ago it would have been common for a girl in her mid-teens to be married and having children. It is different today because people stay in school longer to meet the needs of the modern world. Women and men need more education to join the work force before they can realistically, or responsibly, raise a family. So, social and economic development have created the need to resist or overcome the forces of nature in the form of puberty, which happens when it does for a reason.

  Good post, dd. Very real world stuff.

• 11. mutantcheez  |  April 20, 2008 at 11:57 pm

  I feel… conflicted.

  I too grew up in a pretty standard evangelical home and was preached the same message as you described. I was heavily involved in my church as well as youth ministry Once I hit a certain age (likely around 16-18ish) I began to become frustrated with the religion I grew up with, and in the spirit of the philosophy class I took in high school, I vowed to forsake everything I had once unfoundedly assumed.

  I surrounded myself with books and opinions trying to figure out what made the most sense to me.

  After two years or so, I finally ended up at Christianity again, but a qualified Christianity. I remain frustrated with certain aspects of the Church - for example: the way the Church takes sexual purity and makes that the core belief of Christianity to it’s younger members. Not to say that I think that abstinence education should be removed from youth ministry, simply that there doesn’t appear to be a substantial amount of Biblical reference to sexual immorality to warrant the emphasis the Evangelical Church seems to place on it. That’s just my own opinion though.

  To advocate making out in the basement, exploring sexuality, getting stoned at rock concerts, and (worst of all) studying for SATs (a joke….) over holding hands in church, having set boundaries in mind concerning physical intimacy, singing hymns while not under the influence of… certain substances, and reading the Bible seems like a pretty drastic step to take - at least to me - for a girl at the age of 15.

  Anyways, that’s my take. Feel free to respond.

• 12. writerdd  |  April 21, 2008 at 9:22 am

  The whole point of my message, that several people making comments seem to be missing is this:

  I should have been a normal teenager. I would have been better off being a normal teenager. There is nothing wrong with being a normal teenager.

  Instead I was a sexually, mentally, and emotionally repressed kid who thought I was better than everyone else when I was really completely screwed up because of the teachings of evangelical Christianity. A shrink would have helped me more than another Sunday school class and, yes, smoking a joint would have been better for me than more prayer. Why? Because the former in each case are part of the real world, and the latter were part of my imaginary fantasy world.

  This really comes down to my main problem with Christian doctrine: that it is somehow evil to be a normal human being and that our physical existence is tainted and must be resisted.

  We are physical beings. There is no soul or spirit — no supernatural essence inhabits our bodies. Our bodies are not a temple or a house for some non-corporeal “real” us. Our bodies are us. There is absolutely nothing wrong with fulfilling our natural instincts and desires for things like sex — even outside of marriage and even (perhaps especially) when we are young. There is nothing wrong with being human.

  My refusal to realize that the world was more complicated and morality was more ambiguous than my Sunday school teachers told me stunted me almost until my 30s and stole a part of my life that can never be regained. And I hope I can somehow help other young people resist the forces that try to coerce them into this kind of phony, stifling life.

• 13. LeoPardus  |  April 21, 2008 at 10:29 am

  mutantcheez:

  the way the Church takes sexual purity and makes that the core belief of Christianity to it’s younger members

  Man am I with you on this gripe. The Catholic church and the EOC also are guilty of this quite often.

  If I had a dollar for every time that I saw a church youth group holding a talk on sexual purity, doing a purity ball, handing out purity pledges, showing videos on purity, etc, etc, etc, I could probably fly every contributor to this blog to Frisco and treat them to a dinner along the Bay.

  The sex obsession backfires too. Hells bells, you spend all your idiot time thinking about it, guess what’s gonna happen.

  My wife tells me that she saw some article saying that evangelical kids, raised with this stuff, actually are more likely to engage anal sex. Just so long as they avoid “the real thing” they are OK I guess. I didn’t look into the study, but it is plausible. Gawd, I hope the evy/fundy’s don’t hear about this a start an anti-anal campaign. They’re anal enough as it is.

• 14. Rob V.  |  April 21, 2008 at 10:58 am

  As far as I can tell, this author is just upset she didn’t get to be more promiscuous at an earlier age, and blames her belief in Jesus for this.

  How utterly pitiful.

• 15. orDover  |  April 21, 2008 at 11:12 am

  Way to completely miss the point, Rob V.

• 16. LeoPardus  |  April 21, 2008 at 11:12 am

  writerdd:

  I think you, and some following responses, rightly condemn a prevalent tendency of churches to produce a severely fouled up view of human sexuality. It’s wrong, unhealthy, and ultimately counterproductive I think.

  Gotta agree with your main problem with Christian doctrine too. it is somehow evil to be a normal human being and that our physical existence is tainted and must be resisted

  We are, as you said, physical beings. What’s amazing to me is that trying to deny our physicality is one of the better known ancient heresies. Manicheism. Even the EOC does a poor job of defending against it.

  While I’m with you there appears to me to be insufficient restraint in what you advocate for an alternative. (Tell me if you disagree.)

  When you say, “There is absolutely nothing wrong with fulfilling our natural instincts and desires for things like sex — even outside of marriage and even (perhaps especially) when we are young.” my first thought is, “Hang on. That requires some caveats.” Such indulgence needn’t go too far before one’s health is at risk. Such indulgence can and does produce problems with old boy/girl friends. Such indulgence does not make a good basis for marital fidelity.

  So while I agree with much of your analysis of the problem, I don’t perceive a healthy balance in your solution.

  Thoughts?

• 17. LeoPardus  |  April 21, 2008 at 11:16 am

  Just as troll George seems to disappear, up pops another religious attack dog to show us how insensitive and opinionated the “love of Jesus” can be. Thanks Rob V. You’re an inspiration to rabid Rottweilers everywhere.

• 18. writerdd  |  April 21, 2008 at 11:42 am

  So while I agree with much of your analysis of the problem, I don’t perceive a healthy balance in your solution.

  As long as young (or old) people:

  1) Don’t feel pressured into doing anything they are not ready for or anything that makes them uncomfortable

  2) Protect themselves against disease and unwanted pregnancy

  I don’t really see what the stodgy anti-sex rules are good for at all, except to give a bunch of preachers a power buzz and to keep women, particularly, under their control.

• 19. writerdd  |  April 21, 2008 at 11:48 am

  To be fair, Rob V is partially right about his evaluation of my post.

  He misses the larger psychological and social issues — which are quite important and should not be overlooked — but partly I am pissed off that my belief in Jesus robbed me of my youth. I obeyed a bunch of fuddy-duddy religious rules that should have been tossed into the rubbish bin of stupid human ideas a long time ago. It makes me sad to see that so many people would rather go back to the 1950s mentality of denial rather than face the realities of human life, and that religion gives them an easy way to bury their heads in the sand.

• 20. LeoPardus  |  April 21, 2008 at 12:05 pm

  dd:

  I know next to nothing about your youth. When you say, “but partly I am pissed off that my belief in Jesus robbed me of my youth.“, how do you mean?

  Obviously you lived through it. You got through school. I’d guess you had some fun (picnics, mountain climbing, whatever). And there is some positive to abstinence in that you never had to worry at all about pregnancy, or STDs, or jealous boyfriends, or about a drug overdose, or being taken advantage of while drunk/stoned.

  My sister suffered every one of the above (except for an STD so far as I know). She’s still a messed up human. So I don’t see indulgence as anything like a solution. Restraint looks a lot safer.

• 21. Rob V.  |  April 21, 2008 at 12:12 pm

  Thanks to dd, who acknowledged I got her point partially right.

  [ I should have added this next bit to my previous comment, but I wanted to see the reaction. Juvenile, sorry. (I still think dd's lament pitiful, though.) ]

  As a young man bombarded by my hormones, I can say that it was not an easy road to wait until I was married before I had sex. But I in no way feel I was cheated or that I missed out on anything. Quite the opposite, actually. I feel I not only protected myself from possible disease and unplanned pregnancy, but I also protected myself and other girls/women from the emotional turmoil of a breakup that almost certainly is worsened by the added bonds created by sex. I liken the term “exploring one’s sexuality” to a selfish behavior that simply uses another person for one’s own gratification, rather than the wonderful sexual exploration that goes on in the loving, focus-on-your-new-spouse honeymoon.

  And honestly not trying to sound smug, I like the fact that I have personally proved that humans are not just animals that “must” copulate just because their hormones tell them to. We have self-control, and there’s nothing wrong with exercising it, physically or emotionally. There’s absolutely no psychological-stunting going on if tennagers abstain from sex, and I challenge anyone to provide proof in the form of a peer-reviewed article that studied such a hypothesis.

• 22. HeIsSailing  |  April 21, 2008 at 12:13 pm

  My wife and I rented the movie ‘Kinsey’ a few months back, and it provoked hours of thoughtful discussion between us. We both came to the conclusion that human sexuality is *human* and needs to be discussed in a discreet and tactful manner among responsible people. It cannot and does not deserve to be ignored, or placed under baseless religious taboos.

• 23. HeIsSailing  |  April 21, 2008 at 12:16 pm

  writerdd:
  “The Jesus Movement, started in California by hippies who got high on Jesus instead of LSD, knew Jesus not as the stern, Father-God sorting out the sinners and the saints on Judgment Day, but as an earthy, loving brother accepting all humanity with open arms.”

  This is the environment I was raised in. Those Jesus Freak hippie communes had plenty so-called ‘Love-Ins of their own. I was well aquainted with sex (and drugs) at a very early age. Not that I participated in it - I just saw it everywhere. It was only when we moved to the midwest that I found sexual repression in the Baptist church we attended.

• 24. Anonymous  |  April 21, 2008 at 2:02 pm

  What is really pitiful is that we have people like Rob V. that think that we are supposed to be celibate because of religious beliefs. I am a Christian myself, sort of, and I know that people have tried to live according to God’s so-called “will” for so long that the false lives of many of these people began to fall apart. The result is an increase in sexual expression. If people think sexual promiscuity is a problem, they must realize that religion only covered it up, not solved it.

• 25. Anonymous  |  April 21, 2008 at 2:03 pm

  What is really pitiful is that we have people that think that we are supposed to be celibate because of religious beliefs. I am a Christian myself, sort of, and I know that people have tried to live according to God’s so-called “will” for so long that the false lives of many of these people began to fall apart. The result is an increase in sexual expression. If people think sexual promiscuity is a problem, they must realize that religion only covered it up, not solved it.

• 26. LeoPardus  |  April 21, 2008 at 2:08 pm

  Rob V:

  Thanks for stepping back in with thoughtful comments.

  I agree with your post 21 pretty much entirely.

  There have been some studies looking for correlations between pre-marital sex and post-marital fidelity and/or divorce. Pre-marital promiscuity correlates with post-marital infidelity and divorce. Pre-marital abstinence has only a weak correlation with fidelity, and a similarly weak correlation with avoiding divorce.
  I don’t recall there being any correlation between pre-marital sexual behavior and physical abuse in marriage. There is however, a strong correlation between non-marital (pre- or post-) promiscuity and physical abuse.

• 27. Anonymous  |  April 21, 2008 at 2:27 pm

  The thing with promiscuity is that we’ve gained this freedom and don’t know how to rightly use it. This is one of the first times that we’ve had freedom like this, so we go wild with it. It’s like a poor person instantly scoring big in the lottery, and then he/she becomes poor again after a few months of excessive spending. We just aren’t used to this kind of sexual freedom yet.

• 28. Quester  |  April 21, 2008 at 3:00 pm

  I’m of two minds about sexual experimentation as a teenager. On one hand, I have regrets that I didn’t experience some things. On the other hand, I was the guy everyone went to when things went wrong for them. They came to me for a listening ear and a shoulder to cry on. And I found, beyond the Christian insistence on abstinence, there were a lot of things I was glad I didn’t experience.

• 29. LeoPardus  |  April 21, 2008 at 3:16 pm

  Anonymous:

  You are right. Humans didn’t evolve with the ability to turn their reproductivity on and off. And until only a century or so ago, we still didn’t have the ability. Less than a century is far too short a time to make the adjustment.

  Quester:

  beyond the Christian insistence on abstinence, there were a lot of things I was glad I didn’t experience.

  Right on. During my teens I was not Christian. Neither were my sisters, nor most of my friends. We all have things from our past we could have done well without.

• 30. A thinker  |  April 21, 2008 at 3:43 pm

  It’s funny that there seems to be no indication that there is any middle ground between a stifled upbringing that denies a lot of freedom of emotion and outright teenage debauchery. The point is, giving someone freedom to take some choices about themselves does not mean handing them a one way ticket to destruction. I think what the writer said was along the lines that the church she belonged to gave her little freedom to express herself emotionally and so she had little understanding of how her emotions worked - her love for J- that she realised was a fantasy. I think the most disturbing commandment: “It is better to wed than to burn” shows the crux of the matter: to promise hellfire for activities that seem to amount to no more than a kiss - that is not reasonable, as some seem to suggest the church’s control of the writers sexuality was.

  Maybe abstinence may promote fidelity, but what is the point if that comes form fear of damnation? (though I do not suggest all abstinence stems from this) Saying “people aren’t ready” seems a weak defense, assuming as it a does a weakness in all given freedom. As for Rob, you seem to have, partly, abstained from fear of getting hurt - but yet we live and learn, and if you never do anything due to that fear, then you do not truly live; and when you are hurt you have no experience - it hurts worse. You do not want the bonds from sex with someone you may not love, but it is little emotional protection for others to hold them at arms length until they are legally bound to you - they are still hurt, they wonder what is wrong with the tat you deny them this intimacy. And, without those stronger bonds, how can you be truly sure you have foundthe one?

• 31. writerdd  |  April 21, 2008 at 3:47 pm

  Having sex before marriage does not make a person promiscuous. I once wrote an article on why I think it is a bad idea to wait until marriage to have sex. It is a particularly bad idea for women, but I think it’s pretty stupid for anyone. Perhaps I’ll write on that topic again for this blog.

  Regarding having my youth stolen, I really did not have much fun. I was afraid of everything, mostly because I thought if I did anything fun it would make Jesus unhappy with me and/or I would end up backsliding and going to hell.

• 32. Anonymous  |  April 21, 2008 at 4:22 pm

  Just throwing this out there, but, as best said by the wordsmith Andrew Bird, “Moderation itself can be a kind of extreme.”

  Also, we seem to be focusing our discussion around the idea that monogamy is the situation we will eventually all find ourselves in. How do these kind of discussions hold up for a person who never intends to marry? Do they never get to have sex, ever?

  (PS- Thank you all for your kindness and concern over the scars left from my early Christian life. My husband is wonderful and we have open converstaions about my problems and are slowly but surely working through them. Baby steps!)

• 33. writerdd  |  April 21, 2008 at 4:24 pm

  Rob V., it sounds like you had the same kinds of fears that I did when I was younger. I disagree with your assumption that “exploring sexuality” is inherently selfish. There is no reason that two people have to be married to explore sexuality together and in a mutually satisfying and generous manner.

  I hope you and your wife are happy with your sexual compatibility. If so, you were just lucky. But it would be sad to marry someone you’d never had sex with and realize that your sex life was terrible because you weren’t compatible. Abstaining because of fear or pressure from religion is not admirable. It’s just sad.

• 34. LeoPardus  |  April 21, 2008 at 5:01 pm

  A thinker:

  I quite agree about moderation. There is middle ground. And as you said, folks don’t seem to want to go there. The tendency to polarize is just silly, and in this case harmful too.

  “It is better to wed than to burn” shows the crux of the matter: to promise hellfire for activities that seem to amount to no more than a kiss

  You misunderstood the verse. Burn is understood to mean “burn with passion”, not “burn in hell”. There are however a lot of people who seem to prefer the latter meaning. Sad.

  Maybe abstinence may promote fidelity, but what is the point if that comes form fear of damnation?

  Agreed. It ought to come from desire for future happiness.

  Saying “people aren’t ready” seems a weak defense, assuming as it a does a weakness in all given freedom.

  Wha’? There’s no connection there at all. Five-year olds are ready to pick a career. How does that assume a weakness in all given freedom? Come on now. There are times and ages when people are not ready for certain things. Sorry, but you call ‘weak defense’, I call ‘far weaker objection’.

  Rob, you seem to have, partly, abstained from fear of getting hurt - but yet we live and learn, and if you never do anything due to that fear, then you do not truly live; and when you are hurt you have no experience - it hurts worse.

  So you don’t refrain from grabbing electric fences why? Could it be for fear of being hurt? Maybe you saw others do it. Maybe you believed a parent who said, “Don’t touch it or you’ll get one nasty zap.” People avoid lots of stuff not to get hurt. To fail to do so is likely to result in a short, painful, and unhappy life. This objection is not though through.

  You do not want the bonds from sex with someone you may not love, but it is little emotional protection for others to hold them at arms length until they are legally bound to you - they are still hurt, they wonder what is wrong with them that you deny them this intimacy.

  You can’t help it if someone is that insecure. You could of course try telling them why you believe it is better to abstain, but if they are so insecure that they can’t accept it, you can’t help that.

  And, without those stronger bonds, how can you be truly sure you have found the one?

  And with those stronger bonds how well will you do breaking off when you find out they are not “the one”?

  And that brings up this utterly nonsensical idea that there is “the one” out there. The best piece of relational/marriage advice I’ve ever heard was actually a short quote. “Successful marriage is not so much a matter of finding the right person. It’s a matter of being the right person.”

  dd’s idea that Rob (or me for that matter) was “just lucky” to find a “compatible partner” without premarital sex is silly. I’ll wager Rob and his wife, dd and husband, and pretty well every married person on this blog, weren’t too compatible when they got married. At least in terms of communication style, conflict resolution methods, taste in decor, sleeping habits, etc. You had to work all those out.

  How much time did you spend before marriage ‘exploring’ those? How much time after marriage did you spend striving to work them out? How big a part of your life are all those in terms of hours/day?

  So you want to pretend that sex, which takes up a much smaller part of your day, and is far from the number one reason for divorce, absolutely MUST be hammered out before marriage.

  Sorry but the dreamy idea of “the one” is the stuff of Disney animations (or The Matrix). And the idea of “ya cain’t marry what ya ain’t screwed” is also the stuff of the movies.

  In reality (i.e. outside of the movies) “happily ever after” takes work, not matchmaking. And virgins marry virgins, produce children and have good marriages. (And as I said before, what studies there are indicate they do a bit better at it than the victims of the “boff’ em first” mindset.)

• 35. LeoPardus  |  April 21, 2008 at 5:10 pm

  dd:

  Having sex before marriage does not make a person promiscuous.

  Obviously. Here’s a definition, “characterized by or involving indiscriminate/casual/irregular/haphazard. mingling or association, esp. having sexual relations with a number of partners on a casual basis.”

  When I used the word ‘promiscuous’ I used it properly. Generally I don’t use terms too loosely. In my field that’s really bad form.

  I once wrote an article on why I think it is a bad idea to wait until marriage to have sex. It is a particularly bad idea for women, but I think it’s pretty stupid for anyone.

  Fine. I disagree thoroughly. I think sex before marriage does more harm than good. And while the statistical significance values I’ve seen aren’t huge, the data are on my side.

  You can have your opinion and write on it, but kindly don’t condemn those of us who think you’re wrong. You may think our ideas harmful, we think the same of yours. Ideally we ought to lay out what data can be found to find the verity of the matter. Even more ideally one side, after looking at the data, ought to be prepared to say, “I was wrong. Now I will change my tune.”

• 36. LeoPardus  |  April 21, 2008 at 5:13 pm

  dd:

  By the way, it sounds like the sect you belonged to in your youth was a bloody disaster. I’ve seen it’s like a few times, and would frankly not lift a finger to stop you if you tied them to a pole and caned them daily for a year.

• 37. orDover  |  April 21, 2008 at 5:18 pm

  Comment #32 was me, I forgot to put my name in. Sorry!

• 38. writerdd  |  April 21, 2008 at 5:46 pm

  Marriage is an artificial construct invented by people as a financial and cultural institution. It has no meaning and does not exist in nature.

  What makes it better to have sex with only one person in your entire life anyway? I agree that cheating is wrong, because it can hurt the other person. But that’s just because of deceit and a breach of trust. The reason that cheating is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

  I don’t see what could be wrong with serial monogamy or even with having sex with multiple partners during the same period of one’s life as long as all were agreed and all took adequate precautions to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancies.

  All these sexual rules from religion are based on nothing but the desire to keep women under the control of men.

• 39. writerdd  |  April 21, 2008 at 5:49 pm

  By the way, it sounds like the sect you belonged to in your youth was a bloody disaster.

  Just a side note, and not directly in response to this. But it reminded me of how every Christian sect is happy to point out all the flaws in the other sects — in fact I often hear that I only turned away from God because I was involved in a “bad” form of Christianity — but they never are able to see the motes in their own eyes.

• 40. Abstinence and Education &hellip  |  April 21, 2008 at 5:54 pm

  [...] I was motivated to re-post something from my blog of last August after seeing the discussion of earlier this week.  I think it’s a different take on a similar upbringing but perhaps with a different [...]

• 41. exevangel  |  April 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm

  LeoPardus said
  Fine. I disagree thoroughly. I think sex before marriage does more harm than good. And while the statistical significance values I’ve seen aren’t huge, the data are on my side.

  I really think it’s age dependent. I don’t wish I could go back to have free sex at 15 but I maybe wish that age/maturity/relationship status were seen as a distinction separate from the issue os marriage. I don’t begrudge the message against teenage promiscuity, although I do begrudge the tactics used by the church in trying to force this. And I definitely believe that sex can be restricted to committed serious relationships without requiring marriage.

• 42. Rob V.  |  April 22, 2008 at 8:51 am

  dd said:

  Marriage is an artificial construct invented by people as a financial and cultural institution. It has no meaning and does not exist in nature.

  Boy, with that argument, I should be able to convince the IRS I don’t have to pay my taxes! To say that an artificial construct has no meaning because it does not exist in nature is ridiculous! Written language is an artificial construct that doesn’t exist in nature, but it surely has meaning.

  (Oh, and by the way, swans mate for life.)

  dd also said:

  All these sexual rules from religion are based on nothing but the desire to keep women under the control of men.

  I think you just revealed your true heart about this subject, which explains some of the passion you have about your stance. Either you were, like Leo said, exposed to a sect of Christianity that was way off, or you misinterpreted what was being preached. Because the fact is, abstinence education is not for women alone, it’s for men just as much. I think men have gotten a pass on their promiscuity for too long, even within Christianity. That can change. It is changing.

  Don’t you see the heart behind it? It’s not out of control, it’s out of respect for another because of their value as a person, not as a plaything that can be tossed aside. Who would reject the love and respect of a person who says, “I was with no one before you, and I will be with no one but you, for as long as we live.” If you really stop to think about that.. it’s just… wow!

• 43. orDover  |  April 22, 2008 at 12:46 pm

  Again, I would like to bring this up: What about people who don’t WANT or don’t plan to ever be married? Are they not allowed to have sex? Leo? Rob?

  Rob, you are displaying the classic holier-than-thou Christian attitude. You are presuming to know writerdd’s “true heart,” which is nothing any of us can do. Most of the Christians who come around here really don’t understand that. You must be a bloody psychic.

  I think her comment about sexual rules leading to the subjugation of women has a lot of truth to it, it isn’t the ranting of an ultra-feminists who is bitter at all men, or something like that. Just consider genital mutilation for a second. It is done within religious sects (Muslim AND Christian), and many times its goal is to prevent women from enjoying sexual activities so they won’t be tempted into “sin”. What about the church proclaiming that birth control is sinful? It’s that the same thing? It’s just another way to control women’s bodies, do tell them what they aught to do with their reproductive organs. Abstinence education might be geared toward both boys and girls, but I’ve never heard about Christians cutting off a boy’s penis so that he can’t enjoy sex.

  You last comment doesn’t make me go “wow!” Not in the least.

• 44. writerdd  |  April 22, 2008 at 1:09 pm

  It does not make me go “wow” either. It makes me think, “Why would anyone care about this?”

  I care that my partner is with me now. I don’t care what he did before he met me. It’s, frankly, none of my business. (Unless he has a disease that I should know about.)

  The whole cult of virginity borders on mental illness if you ask me.

• 45. LeoPardus  |  April 22, 2008 at 1:11 pm

  Rachel:

  Meant to get back to you on that. Just busy.

  My take on the unmarried is that they can choose what they do with the “sex question”. Some do choose life-long celibacy. Fine if they want to. Most, I suspect, do not choose celibacy. (I know I would not have.) They may just live together, or they may have a girl/boy friend they don’t live with. That’s fine too as far as I’m concerned.

  For the most part I don’t have big issues with what adults do in their private lives. As long as it isn’t likely to impact the lives of others much. And of course that would be where a promiscuous person would bother me. Such behavior can indeed impact other lives.

• 46. Rob V.  |  April 22, 2008 at 1:18 pm

  orDover:

  Rob, you are displaying the classic holier-than-thou Christian attitude. You are presuming to know writerdd’s “true heart,” which is nothing any of us can do. Most of the Christians who come around here really don’t understand that. You must be a bloody psychic.

  Actually, I was using psychology. I have a theory that with enough comments on a blog post, a person’s true wordview will be expressed, you just have to look for it. I could be wrong about dd, I admit that. (Hence why I said, “I think.”

  What about people who don’t WANT or don’t plan to ever be married? Are they not allowed to have sex?

  By a strictly Christian definition, no, they shouldn’t be having sex. Sex is only supposed to be had within the boundaries of the marriage of a man and a woman.

  You last comment doesn’t make me go “wow!” Not in the least.

  Oh well.

• 47. Anonymous  |  April 22, 2008 at 1:20 pm

  from my previous comment (#46), wordview should be WORLDview

• 48. mec  |  April 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm

  Rob V.– I remember my college-era pastor completely twisting and turning Song of Solomon to make the point that the couple were married before having sex….never quite got that from the text itself! I’d like to challege you to show where the Bible says no premarital sex……

• 49. writerdd  |  April 22, 2008 at 1:42 pm

  Actually, I was using psychology. I have a theory that with enough comments on a blog post, a person’s true wordview will be expressed, you just have to look for it.

  Yeah, right, Rob. Get over yourself. I write what I think and am quite forthright in stating my opinions. I have no reason to be dishonest when I post online. In fact, the main reason I blog is to say what I think.

  Evangelical and fundamentalist Christians often accuse me of having a hidden agenda but that makes no sense at all because I just blurt it out there for everyone to read. I don’t know anyone who has a more open agenda than I do, frankly.

• 50. LeoPardus  |  April 22, 2008 at 2:26 pm

  writerdd:

  Regarding your statements:
  Marriage is an artificial construct invented by people as a financial and cultural institution. It has no meaning and does not exist in nature. ……
  All these sexual rules from religion are based on nothing but the desire to keep women under the control of men.

  I recognize both of these as points of view expressed by an extreme wing of gender feminism. Like most extreme views, they do nothing toward reaching understanding, balance, or truth. Don’t go from extreme, fundamentalist religion to extreme, fundamentalist feminism (or any other extremes or fundy’s). It won’t bring balance, or joy. Just bitterness.
  [And yes, I notice that comes of preachy. 'Twasn't meant so. I've done my share of extremes and was never happy in them.]

  What makes it better to have sex with only one person in your entire life anyway?

  I’ve cited some reasons already.
  -You needn’t fear STDs.
  -You needn’t fear rivals and jealousies.
  -You foster stability in your life.
  -You foster trust for yourself and your partner.

  A counter-list of the problems of multiple partnering could be made if you wish.

  The reason that cheating is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

  If you leave out disease and pregnancy I suppose.

  I don’t see what could be wrong with serial monogamy

  That’s easy. It’s an oxymoron. It doesn’t exist, just like square circles, and omnibenevolent condemnation to hell.

  To your side note:
  every Christian sect is happy to point out all the flaws in the other sects

  One of the reasons I left was that I finally realized they were ALL full of sh:t.

• 51. Rob V.  |  April 22, 2008 at 2:43 pm

  mec:

  Christians sometimes use the very old word “fornication” to refer to premarital sex. This is expressly forbidden in the Bible in many places. (A few: 1 Corinthians 6:13 & 18, 1 Corinthians 7:2, Ephesians 5:3, 1 Thessalonians 4:3) More modern translations call it “sexual immorality” or even just “immorality” and it’s a bit ambigous said that way, in my opinion. Either way, the greek word is “porneia.” You can learn more what that word means here, if you’re interested, and it will show you the other passages where it is used. Note: sometimes it is used metaphorically when Israel “cheats” on God, but you have to read the verse in context to see if it is literal or figurative.

• 52. Quester  |  April 22, 2008 at 2:57 pm

  Leo, I don’t want to get between you and DD, but I don’t understand what you’re saying.

  DD: What makes it better to have sex with only one person in your entire life anyway?

  Leo: I’ve cited some reasons already.
  -You needn’t fear STDs.
  -You needn’t fear rivals and jealousies.
  -You foster stability in your life.
  -You foster trust for yourself and your partner.

  I can see that the first one of those four is true, but why would having had sex in the past affect any of the other three?

  DD: The reason that cheating is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with sex.

  Leo: If you leave out disease and pregnancy I suppose.

  Both are consequences, the second possibly negative, but would they be so upsetting if it weren’t for the “deceit and breach of trust” DD mentioned?

  DD: I don’t see what could be wrong with serial monogamy

  Leo: That’s easy. It’s an oxymoron. It doesn’t exist

  And this point, really, is the one that inspired me to respond. What on earth do you mean by “It doesn’t exist”? Even in the bounds of a worldview that allows sexual intercourse only within the confines of marriage and divorce is considered impossible, widows and widowers are allowed to fall in love and marry a second time, after their first partner has died. If they are loyal to that second partner, they are “serially monogamous“.

• 53. exevangel  |  April 22, 2008 at 3:13 pm

  The writer and theologian Adrian Thatcher (who wrote “Marriage after Modernity” http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2051 ) argues that the one partner for life thing is a modern invention, not associated with the history of the church at all. His arguments are pretty convincing and I’d say he supports a position of limited serial monogamy where the relationships are very serious (kind of the idea that you would only sleep together if engaged and perhaps the engagement might end and you both move on). He certainly seems to suggest a fact finding mission of whether two people can sustain a happy marriage and this involves sex. I agree completely.

• 54. LeoPardus  |  April 22, 2008 at 4:13 pm

  Quester:
  I can see that the first one of those four is true, but why would having had sex in the past affect any of the other three?

  You needn’t fear rivals and jealousies.
  Jealousy about old boy/girl friends. Especially if they still live nearby or come visit. Would you really trust your spouse with a person he/she used to sleep with? Or yourself for that matter?

  You foster trust for yourself and your partner.
  Same as above. And, if you enjoyed variety before marriage, what makes you things you’ll be happy with monotony/monogamy after?

  You foster stability in your life.
  Most folks think that jealousy, rivalry, and mistrust are destabilizing.

  would they be so upsetting if it weren’t for the “deceit and breach of trust” DD mentioned?

  Hmmm. You don’t think you’d be upset, aside from the breach of trust, if your spouse was diagnosed with an STD? or if you were faced with a pregnancy you hadn’t planned on?

  What on earth do you mean by “It doesn’t exist”?
  Monogamy is understood to mean a single mate for life. So when one dies, that commitment has been fulfilled. And I’ve never met anyone who uses “serial monogamy” to mean “one person only until one of us dies”.

  Now divorce and remarriage brings in a whole ‘nother ball of kittens.

• 55. exevangel  |  April 22, 2008 at 4:47 pm

  LeoPardus: Jealousy about old boy/girl friends. Especially if they still live nearby or come visit. Would you really trust your spouse with a person he/she used to sleep with? Or yourself for that matter?

  If you don’t trust your spouse that’s a problem period. Classic “if you love the bird let it go free, if it doesn’t come back it was not yours in the first place” argument. I’d be appalled if someone claiming to be my one-and-only distrusted me that much! You are giving her so little credit!

• 56. LeoPardus  |  April 22, 2008 at 5:34 pm

  exevangel:

  Do you honestly think that having the person you or your spouse used to sleep with around presents no temptation? That it is a really comfortable situation? That it would be just “no problemo”?

  I don’t care how much credit you want to give someone. It’s not a happy situation.

  (No. I don’t speak from personal experience. I speak from knowing many others (Christian and non) who have been in this situation. The nigh universal consensus is that it’s not a happy, comfortable situation.)

• 57. exevangel  |  April 22, 2008 at 5:40 pm

  LeoP:

  Simply: yes. She chose you. End of story. There is no longer any temptation unless the relationship with you is damaged in some way. So if there is temptation it’s a good indicator of “red flag! need help!” but otherwise it is not a temptation. People only stray when they are unhappy for some reason, however small and justified/unjustified.

• 58. Quester  |  April 22, 2008 at 6:02 pm

  Jealousy about old boy/girl friends. Especially if they still live nearby or come visit. Would you really trust your spouse with a person he/she used to sleep with? Or yourself for that matter?

  My wife and I were both virgins when we married. I am jealous when she spends time with her exes, as is she when I spend time with mine. We trust each other. We are just both jealous and possessive.

  Do you think it’s somehow better knowing that your spouse loved and cared for this person, and still cares for this person, but doesn’t know what it is like to have sex with them?

  Same as above. And, if you enjoyed variety before marriage, what makes you things you’ll be happy with monotony/monogamy after?

  Because you chose monogamy after experiencing the variety, making an informed decision. If you tried renting more than one type of house before choosing which one you would buy, you can still be happy with the choice you made.

  Most folks think that jealousy, rivalry, and mistrust are destabilizing.

  Very much so, but they are not dependent on sex. I am jealous of my rivals in storytelling and humour and have to keep myself from being mistrustful when other men entrance my wife with funny stories, as my wife works at trusting me when she notices other women listening to my stories and laughing at my jokes.

  Hmmm. You don’t think you’d be upset, aside from the breach of trust, if your spouse was diagnosed with an STD? or if you were faced with a pregnancy you hadn’t planned on?

  I would be upset, but I’m not sure if I’d be more upset (aside from the breach of trust) than if she got a disease that was not sexually transmitted, or became pregnant with a child I fathered despite our plans to not have a child yet and the precautions we take to keep this from happening.

  Monogamy is understood to mean a single mate for life.

  If you go to my response #52 and click on the final word in my response, it will take you to Merriam-Webster’s definition for monogamy:

  1archaic : the practice of marrying only once during a lifetime
  2: the state or custom of being married to one person at a time
  3: the condition or practice of having a single mate during a period of time

• 59. LeoPardus  |  April 22, 2008 at 6:26 pm

  exevangel:

  It would be nice if things were really that clean and simple, but they aren’t.

• 60. orDover  |  April 22, 2008 at 6:30 pm

  The notion that two people being virgins until they are married to each other and that leading to a marriage of near perfection is ridiculous. As has already been said, there can be jealousy with or without sex. There can also be doubt about “what you are missing” which can cause people to engage in extra-marital affairs.

  My husband had sex with other women before we were married, I did not. We have spent time with a few of his ex-girlfriends. He doesn’t keep in contact with them, but twice we’ve bumped into them and ended up having dinner. I didn’t feel at all threatened because he had had sex with them. It isn’t as if having sex with a person makes you pine for them for the rest of your life, or causes you to lose you self-control in their presence. My husband’s relationships ended with these other women for specific reasons, and I know that he doesn’t have any sort of feelings for them. As unlikely as it is that he will cheat on me, it’s doubly unlikely that he will cheat with a woman that he already knows he isn’t compatible with. I trust him around other women, whether he has slept with them or not.

• 61. exevangel  |  April 22, 2008 at 6:36 pm

  LeoP

  I don’t mean to imply that you will not feel jealous, but that you should trust your spouse.

  Things are never clean and simple but in the end game if you trust and love someone truly you will never find a lack of contentment enough to act on. If you are married to someone and have no reason for doubt you should not restrict their motions even if that includes seeing an ex-love. Sometimes people just need to see what’s out there without acting out of context and when they do, and they come home to you (rejecting a past love) they demonstrate that they are firmly committed to you. This takes patience and faith but it is rewarded.

• 62. dd  |  April 22, 2008 at 11:03 pm

  My wife and I were both virgins when we married. I am jealous when she spends time with her exes, as is she when I spend time with mine. We trust each other. We are just both jealous and possessive.

  Sounds like a very immature relationship to me. And I think you are in denial to think that you actually trust each other if you are as jealous and possessive as this sounds. I hope you find what you need to help your relationship to mature into real trust.

• 63. dd  |  April 22, 2008 at 11:07 pm

  Do you honestly think that having the person you or your spouse used to sleep with around presents no temptation? That it is a really comfortable situation? That it would be just “no problemo”?

  Yes, yes, a thousand times yes.

  I would not loose one ounce of sleep even if I found out that my husband was stranded on a deserted island with his ex-lover. He left her and stopped having sex with her and chose to be with me. Why would I have any fear that he secretly still wants to have sex with her? I have no desire to get back together with any of my previous crushes either. Those relationships are less of a temptation to me than a stranger would be.

  I have to ask the obvious question — would you cheat on your partner with an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend? It sounds like you are projecting your own desires onto the rest of us.

• 64. Quester  |  April 23, 2008 at 12:06 am

  Sounds like a very immature relationship to me. And I think you are in denial to think that you actually trust each other if you are as jealous and possessive as this sounds. I hope you find what you need to help your relationship to mature into real trust.

  *laughs* Why, thank-you for your insightful analysis, DD! I think you are foolishly and hypocritically jumping to conclusions from insufficient data, but appreciate your kindly expressed hope for me and mine.

• 65. dd  |  April 23, 2008 at 10:18 am

  Quester, I didn’t mean to sound insulting, but I am not the type of person who will beat around the bush just to sound polite.

  Jealousy and possessiveness are not signs of a healthy relationship.

• 66. LeoPardus  |  April 23, 2008 at 11:11 am

  exevangel:

  I don’t mean to imply that you will not feel jealous, but that you should trust your spouse.

  Fair enough and I agree.

• 67. LeoPardus  |  April 23, 2008 at 11:51 am

  dd:

  I don’t think your view is realistic, but if you can operate that way, great for you.

  would you cheat on your partner with an ex-boyfriend or girlfriend?

  I only date may four or five gals besides my wife. No sex with any of them. There were a few female friends I found attractive. I still have female friends who are attractive. Would I have sex with any of them? …. I cannot give an absolute ‘yes’ or ‘no’. While I reckon that I generally try to be a good boy, given the right gal, the right time, the right mind frame or emotional state, I don’t doubt that I’d indulge temptation.

  It sounds like you are projecting your own desires onto the rest of us

  I know that some people seem to be quite immune to sexual temptation. Others are not immune. I seem to be in the latter category. I’m sure others hereabouts are too.

• 68. dd  |  April 23, 2008 at 3:35 pm

  Well, one thing for sure: this is a very personal topic and everyone has unique perspectives and experiences!

  I’m no expert by any means and what I express here are my opinions and nothing more. YMMV.

• 69. Quester  |  April 23, 2008 at 5:28 pm

  Quester, I didn’t mean to sound insulting, but I am not the type of person who will beat around the bush just to sound polite.

  DD, I’d be more insulted if I thought you knew anything about me, my wife, or my relationship that would put you in a position where you could make an informed judgement. As it is, I’m more amused than anything else.

  Jealousy and possessiveness are not signs of a healthy relationship.

  No, they aren’t, but as far as I can see they are signs of being human, and only after acknowledging personal feelings of jealousy and possessiveness can such emotions be compensated for and can conscious decisions be made to not act on these emotions. There is little we can do to actually control what emotions we feel, after all.

  In a similar manner, if I were to deny I have a very poor sense of direction, I would be lost all the time. Since I acknowledge and admit this lack on my part, I have been able to train myself in map and compass use, and have bought a GPS. You can call that immature, unhealthy or in denial, and I will take your claims for what I think they are worth.

  I’m no expert by any means and what I express here are my opinions and nothing more.

  As you say. The same is true for me.

• 70. LeoPardus  |  April 23, 2008 at 6:53 pm

  dd:

  Just wanted to say that I appreciate your “get it out in the open” way of dealing with an issue. It may look brusque, but as I see it, it’s just that you really do want to bring issues into the full light of day and really deal with them.

  A long way of getting around to just saying ‘thanks’.

• 71. dd  |  April 23, 2008 at 7:01 pm

  Thx Leo. My mother’s best friend called her “hammer mouth”…. the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree…. there’s some truth to these old cliches, huh?

  Quester, we all have to find our own way. As long as you’re both happy, then all is well in my book.

  Everyone else, great discussion. I think I’ll work on an article about masturbation next. Oh boy!

• 72. LeoPardus  |  April 23, 2008 at 7:09 pm

  I think I’ll work on an article about masturbation next.

  And WHAT will you use for the image at the top of the article? Hmmmmm??

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed