But if I remember the story as you told it before, only one of them was actually yours Sorry if I have you mixed up with another poster who said something similar. But I do agree that once marriage becomes as common as a short-romance followed by divorce (I even read an article recently about a group wanting to perform "temporary marriages" that were only valid for seven years), then marriage is most definitely overestimated in these instances

I agree, safe and responsible sex is the only reasonable defense against the spread of STDs and unwanted pregnancies. I have no problem with those who choose to remain abstinent, I even find it somewhat admirable in a way.

To me sex could mean nothing or it can mean everything...from a one night stand to the night of your honeymoon its the same act, different feelings.

I would like to say that there could be a couple different ways we could think of premarital sex. On one hand you have people who randomly sleep with random people for no other reason then for pleasure and on other hand you got people who have sex with their boyfriend/girlfriend that they have a real relationship with. From a Christian perspective I can see how the first example can be considered wrong but not the second one.

Cade, in Robbies case I do feel he is not advocating virginity or imposing it using fear or self deprecation and shame...

i actaully do know of someone who is not religious at all who also choose to remain a virigin until he felt sure of his love of another .... he didn't beleive in marriage either........

for what ever reasons this was important to him , when he finally did have sex ( at 27) he shared with us that the was disapponted his idealization didn't match the reality, he felt he had over thought it missed the spontenatity of it ..... ......... Yet it was this experience that he learned from and values for the understandings it has brought him too...as it should be....

i do not know sexually irresponsible reckless people, or many who would seek out meaningless sex std's or unwanted children........ over a connection with another......but that is me.....

perhaps this is what religion is trying to convey in some abstract way who knows.. but i think that one should be taught that their sexuallity is a beautiful thing and just be safe and respectful and honest with others......this can go along way in creating a healthy functional cultural sexuality...we definitely have to be very careful not to create shame and fear around this most natural thing . really for practical reasons because of the dysfuncitons it leads to..ones that are just so harmful, rape, pedophilia etc.....and these are very valid concerns and ones that we should seek to understand how it happens and prevent it even if it means letting go of our sacred ideas that do not serve us as a culture.........

No, I think your not getting what I am saying either. Sometimes Christians dismiss rules of the Bible as 'Oh that was part of the culture and history of the times, so we don't have to do that now' and other times - they still co-opt them as being relevant for NOW. And really there doesn't seem to be a consensus or clarity as to which is which.

But you are not one of these Christians as you still think the OT rules should apply, all of them, without exception apparently.



Well as we have discussed recently on this thread - some of these girls (12 yr olds were getting married if I remember correctly) would have been married to their abuser. So the comparison gets a bit murky - and I don't believe as Cadetak said that they kept thorough statistics back then.



What are your sources for the incidence of abuse in ancient societies?

While sexual use of children by adults has been present throughout history, it has only become the object of significant public attention in recent times
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexual_abuse#History

The further back in history one goes--and the further away from the West one gets--the more massive the neglect and cruelty one finds and the more likely children are to have been killed, rejected, beaten, terrorized and sexually abused by their caretakers.
http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/05_history.html

So I think, point blank that you are wrong, irrespective of abuse with better education, sanitation, longer life - third world countries are probably more like biblical times - but I seem to remember you quite admire them. But for me at least give me this 'shambles' of a free society any time. To be honest as a white educated male - in most societies you would have come out on top. You would have had a similar level of freedom and power. Not so the case for us women, foreigners and homosexuals hey? That is not a jibe btw, just pointing out that of course our POV's will seep into this type of discussion. Got nothing against white educated males

Is that really what you gained from what i was saying, or are you deliberately tring to misinterpret/ be contentious.

Gods laws at the time were designed to make women more equal and to have more rights than those of the other societies around the jewish peolpe at the time. Extrapolating then, we can asssume god believes that women should have (along with all of us) the maximum rights and freedoms which our society can tolerate. So women can/should work . But the nurture, care, and protection of children remains the prime duty/responsibility of both parents and society.

Our society has given women great freedom without taking commensurate steps to protect children So no, women do not have the right to freedom at the expense of children's rights, but our great non religious society has not developed an ethical code, or a code of practice, to replace the role of the traditional family unit.

Because we have fallen in love with the god of materialism, we often choose alternatives which endanger or simply reduce the quality of life of our children. I dont mind if a husband stays home to care for and educate children, especially where women are earning more than men. That is one of the great portential benefits womens rights has opened up. That men can use and develp their caring and nurturing qualities and learn to become educators. However despite being a professional educator myself, i know from statistics and history, that the best learning environment for a very young child is in a family unit and one on one.
Where are the govt institutions and enforcers who will take the place of church, family and neighbourhood in educating and watching over young people?
Professional childcare can be safe and reliable but it is not comparable to the evolutionary precedent of constant one on one care of a parent and a child. Children can learn several languages, music, maths, and reading/ writing, before they are old enough to go to kindergarten. They are evolved to be at their highest learning potential in the first 5 years or so of life. They will also pick up all their core moral values and attitudes in this time.

Thus the more time a family has to spend with a child, the better opportunities that child has for every aspect of life. Why would any one entrust this period of time with their children to complete strangers. Why should they be allowed to, let alone encouraged to? What are the values of modern society which entertain the possibility that this is a good idea?

What i think is that the principles behind these laws are good social principles, and should be used today. However, both specific laws, and the nature of punishments, need to be aligned with the changing physical nature of modern societies, and our expanded scientific knowledge.

Eg a society which does not respect its elders, or the source of its knowledge, puts itself at risk ( a society where young people think their beliefs, values and rights are equal to those of people with experience and or education is a society at risk. a society which fails to protect its most vulnerable members is a society not fulfilling the basic role of any human organisation.)


Dont want to put words into your mouth and indeed some 12 year olds may have ben abused. However marriage and sexual activity between sexually mature humans is not innately wrong, unethical, or immoral and certainly not necessarily abusive. Marriage offered many advantages to women in those times.. Women typically bore about 14 children ( they would have had more but the length of breast feeding provided a slightly longer period of time when women were infertile after childbirth.) of whom only 2 or three survived to reproductive age ( 12- 14 approx )

Women did not live long enough to delay child bearing, ( and neither did men) if they were to have any surviving children, (and without surviving children their own chances of survival were lessened.)
One also has to fully appreciate the historical context of the times.

How cloth and clothes were made, for example, determined that even upper class women in the middle ages spent most of their daylight hours simply spinning and weaving cloth. This included girls from the age they were first able to do so. Today this would be seen as abuse because we have alternatives. it was not abuse then simply necessary for economic and thus physical survival. Working children simply contributed what they could from the earliest time they could. Even then that was not enough to ensure the health or survival of poorer families.



Sorry, the first 50 years of my life and education came before the internet. I have read over a million words per week for over 50 years. I have a degree in history geography and politics among other disciplines and i teach these subjects as well as english. if you choose to disbelieve what i say then you go and prove me wrong.



It is true that awareness, definition, and reporting, of child abuse, as with any crime, alters statistics.
It is further true that media coverage did not exist prior to a couple of centuries ago and has grown much more extensive in the last 50. However to assume that abuse or any other crime has always existed at the same level and has only been revealed by disclosure is neither logical nor realistic.
While standards say of discipline may have changed and all children may have been physically disciplined more in earlier societies this is not inherently abuse or even a bad thing. That's a pure value judgement. However, therer is little evidence from any early christian societies that prepubescent girls were commonly an object of sexual desire. There were many factors influencing this, of which, religious belief and social practice/conformity to social practice were 2 significant ones.





And what peculiar characteristic did the west possess? It contained an ethical/ moral system combining basically christian principles, with remnants of greco roman ethical /philosophical tradition.
Having read this it makes some valid points, but much is so value ridden as to be un academic. It appears to be a personal rant rather than an academic treatise.

Also, of course, most of the cultures explored in this article are explicitly non christian. Christian missionaries who encountered such sexual practises tried to impose christian values and moralities on them. For which, of course, they have subsequently been excoriated for interfering in others cultures and value systems.
You cant have it both ways.

This is not to say you could not find some academic work to support your pov but i think quoting this one does your cause more harm than good.
Moreover, it mixes up a lot of social parameters which should be separated and does not define things clearly. Neglect and cruelty are two very different things, for example, and both depend on social definitions of the time. One could argue that even kings im medieaval times lived lives of neglect and cruelty compared with working class people today. We have a healthie,r more diverse diet than they did, and better dental hygeine for a start. lol.
My point is...even if this is absolutely correct, shouldnt a modern society being doing much better/ have eliminated these social evils?. Instead, we find children dying in australia through malnutrition and hypothermia. We find young children becoming the victims of organised groups of pedophiles. We find children(by modern definition) engaged in sexual activities, often fueled by drugs or alcohol, and also social pressures and mores. We find parents so drugged out that they abrogate any duty or sense of responsibility for their children.



Dont know where you got any idea i admire third world countries. wasnt me. I thank my lucky stars i was born in this country and in this age.


I appreciate your point about white educated males. However times are changing. Thirty years ago i worked for over a decade, on many projects to promote the needs of girls in education, and in life. More recently i have done the same to promote the needs of boys, because education in particular, and life in general, has become much more advantageous for young women than young men. For example, i bought a house recently. The real estate agent(and all people in the office) were female. The conveyancer was female. The banker and all members of the bank staff were female. Modern jobs and technology suit women's evolved abilities more than men's. Incidentally, i had taught the banker, the conveyancer, and at least one member of the real estate firm., thus in some small way, contributing to their success in life.

I also worked for many years as a school counsellor and am personally more than aware of the disadvantages suffered by the powerless and disadvantaged in our society. I even worked with women's refuges, and shelters. Why do you think that i want a society based on rules and ethics, which are designed to protect the most powerless and vulnerable, rather than reward the powerful?
My reading of the bible is that this is precisely what it is on about, from OT to NT.

What I don't understand is that all of these "religions" have been created by man and not by god.

Let me just say that I haven't read through the 14 pages of replies and I don't plan to because I think it's kind of a personal question. However, my beliefs as a former practicing Christian and now an agnostic trying to find her way is that sex before marriage is not wrong. If I were to find myself in a relationship with someone who wanted to wait until marriage, then I don't think I'd have a problem with it. Sex shouldn't be what your relationship is based on. Even though I'm not Christian anymore, I still thing sex is a special thing and I personally wait to get to know someone first. Hell, there's hygienic reasons for that though

Good question Hopefully got some people thinking

I totally agree and what's more, to abstain from pre-marital sex guarantees that we will marry a stranger. You do not really know a person until you have shared those most intimate moments with them.

Never thought of that. Scary thought.

if one can't share this aspect of themselves with me how do we ever truly know each other, its the part where we are the naked with the lights on where we are candid and honest and willing to be real...... it is important intimacy and the depth of it and the willingness is the foundation of the relationship IMO .... so many can't even talk about sex what they like or want how does that work when you can't even discuss it?????....I am not offended because one is so attracted to me they seek a sexual union i am honored..i do not understand this sex isn't important .... the level and quality of intimacy in the bedroom reflects in all the areas of the relationship they arent' seperate parts it is a culmination of the bond and closeness two create ther are no limits or rules for this,nor should there be ........


sex is a beautiful thing i would like to hear of more who celebrate it and make it important who look beyond the man made dogmas and make it about the two who are the living breathig expresions of what it means to love to be as one....... ....even if its not about the actual act the relationship should be about affection and a sense that one really likes their mate and takes the time for them etc etc.......

Love can be expressed in words and touches . . . in glances and smiles . . . . with kisses and embraces. But each of those inspire a greater expression and for that reason sex is without boundaries of time or legal status.

I may know every rise and hollow of a woman's body, but until we give that ultimate part of ourselves, we never know the true depth of our feelings.

Love is not truly expressed in vows, rituals, licenses or certificates . . . . it is demonstrated by that singular act that declares that I am completely hers and accept her as part of me.

Sex before marriage is far more acceptable than marriage before sex. I do not need a preacher, priest or county clerk to endorse or certify my love. A piece of paper giving me permission to behave as a man with his woman? It is too much like buying a car.

gosh you said that beautifully, as a matter of fact this should be a guiding principle IMO.....


i also loved that one is really a stranger to you if you do not share ones sexuality...


well this has been bookmarked Ex......(((HUGS)))

Thank you, you are too gracious, m'lady.

iono it seems kind of weird an older adult is cheering on some younger people totally giving themselves away in this manner. No one is saying to have an oppressive attitude but I doubt an open marriage is the way to go either.

I'm sorry I thought you were implying that we should go back to the way society was back then, perhaps I misread, I apologize.

I agree with the above but I do not think we can return to the way things were lets say fifty years ago. because a big chunk of that did have to do with women's rights at the time. As a woman you it wasn't really possible to support yourself so you basically had to get married and because you didn't work you had nothing else to do then to raise and be with the kids. There are a ton of other reasons why marriage and the traditional family are no longer standard and it isn't necessarily because of a lack of ethics. For example my little brother went to day care...not because my parents thought it was a good idea but because both of them had too work to support the family and daycare was the only option.

Since it really isn't possible to return to the way society was today's society must adapt. Abstinence doesn't work, it use to be but the reasons why it worked no longer apply, so an increased education and awareness of safe sex practices is the only logical course of action to combat unwanted pregnancies and teen pregnancies. Right there is a big reason why children are such in a bad spot, the other reason is of course bad parenting, which is a bit harder of a problem to solve. Theres a few ideas that could work(someone here, might have bin you idk I forgot, said the government should pay stay at home parents which was a brilliant idea) but I won't get into all that here. What won't work is trying to reinstall abstinence or trying to bring back old social norms.

Lets say your right and religion, abstinence, and old social traditions are better for society...no offense but it doesn't matter because it won't happen. We realistically won't go back to the way we were fifty years ago(which I agree is sad in certain ways) so I think the best course of action isn't to try to return to something old that worked but to create something new that works.

I'm thinking that Abstinence itself makes it harder for you to actually become married. When trying to answer the original question I concluded that If a women wanted to me to wait till marriage I would if I loved her, she loved me, and I thought there was a decent chance at us getting married. But in reality I would find out about her abstinence before I fell in love with her or even before I even knew her all that well...so odds are I would move on, possibly to someone else I like . I don't believe sex is necessarily an important part of a relationship but it is a part of most relationships none the less.

Although I don't necessarily find it wrong, I am somewhat against wildy open sex but don't see anything wrong with premarital sex with you girlfriend/boyfriend, who your in a relationship with, and have feelings for.

Thanks cadetak. I appreciate a lot of people make assumptions about my ideas because they see me as an old fashioned, born again, bible thumping christian. Of course the reality is a lot more complex. I see good things in the bible and christianity but also in other religions and in science and rationality. My ideas came to meo like my beliefso in many shapes and forms and are not dependent on one "religious " belief.

I agree entirely that we cant go back. However in countries like australia, im sure we have both the wealth and the social/technical skills to go forward. We won't be able to do that in a positive way, however, until we decide what our core ethical and moral needs are, as individuals and societies.

Then we can shape society in many ways to meet those needs. Yes the payment of families (men or women) to stay home and over see the nurture and education of preschool children is one possibility, but would require the diversion of a lot of economic and social resources by society. Our present govt is more interested in getting all women to work, and its social policies and expenditure are aimed in that direction.

I'm perhaps not the best person to speak about the relative virtues of abstinence or the importance of sex, because my personal values and experiences seem at variance with the expectations of so many others.

I was technically a virgin at marriage, aged 25. No one then ever saw this as anything but an honourable condition (even for a male)I have only ever had sex with one woman (my wife) For the last 15 years since i was a bit over 40 a medical condition of hers has made traditional sex imposible. Fortunately since a triple by pass 4 years ago,the drugs i take for my heart etc seem to have reduced my libido. However, as far as i can ascertain my sexual appetite was that of an average male, particularly when i was younger.

Sex is actually not as important as society, and many people, argue. Many women, and a smaller but still statistically significant number of number of men, go through life with no sexual experience whatsoever. Sex is like a nice flavouring. It adds spice to a marriage, but is not an essential ingredient, particularly as one's culinary appreciation and tastes mature.

For example, I have never even thought about/considered ending my marriage, because sex was not a part of it. The marriage, and the interpersonal relationship between my wife and i, adds so much value to my life that ending it because of no sex is actually a laughable idea.

Like wise, getting sex outside the marriage is inconcievable because of the respect i have for my wife, myself, and our marriage. I could not live with myself (literally) if i had ever been unfaithful to her.

I was directly tempted by other offers in our courting years, and even when we were engaged. When i explained my feelings for my wife (to be) to those women, their reaction was purely positive, (well a couple burst into tears) and they all expressed the hope that they could find someone who loved and respected them enough to treat them, with the same love and respect.

This was 35 years ago of course, but from what i observe of women, i dont really think their ideals and values have changed so greatly.
Its just getting almost impossible to find someone who will love them, and treat them with that form of respect, because of the changing expectations of our society.

My love for my wife has remained constant and undimmed over the years. I see her as the same radiant blonde curvaceous woman of approx 30, which she was when we met. She has not grown plumper her face is unlined and her skin is as silky as ever(at the age of 64) for whatever reason( i claim my wife bewitched me)


She claims i am either blind or deluded, but if so, it is the blindness/delusion which love brings, transforming the objective reality into a completely different subjective one.

I am not married, I have two children with the same man.. we have been together for 14yrs, we dont need a marriage certificate to verify how much we love each other. One day we may have a Hand Fasting ceremony

Now if I was single and a christian man wanted to wait until we were married, of course I would wait if I loved him with all my heart.

But would the Christian person want to marry someone that wasnt a virgin?

Creators Blessings
Little Wolf

Awww thats adorable!

With love in effect things change considerably. I was in love with a girl who I never had sex with, she was a virgin, not abstinent till marriage but I knew that sex would be a long ways off. It didn't bother me at all.

Love however is rare and usually doesn't happen instantaneously.

Say there is a perfect women out there for me and then you cloned an abstinent version of her and presented me a choice between the two...what do you think I would pick? What do you think most people will pick? Thats the thing really you may be a good fit for a person but there also could be another person who is also equally compatible and good that isn't abstinent. So theoretically Abstinence could theoretically lower the possibilities of getting married. As I said before odds are you are going to find out that someone is abstinent before you get romantically attached and for a lot of people sex is a factor and since they are not attached they may move on.

Another quick factor here is that women want to be loved but men just want sex(generally speaking) so what happens(especially among younger people) is that a women will have sex with a man hoping that it will get him to fall in love and/or get him to stick around...or men act like they care but are just doing so for sex.

Again ,sadly, i find myself in basic disagreement, supra.

Why does one have to be naked (Lights optional) to be candid, honest and willing to be real?

For a realationship to work well, we have to learn to be like this, most of, if not all, the time. If that is the only time when one feels candid ,honest, real and connected, then yes the relationship wont work without sex, because it wont have the other qualities without sex.

After 15 years without sex, for example, my marriage would be inoperanble under those conditions. Luckilly we were always able to display those qualities to each other. It made for some rocky moments, to be truthful without the buffer of sex, but it made those feelings more honest as well. In my case, love provided protection from hurt, along with an honest assessment of my own strengths and weaknesses. My wife is just naturally, candid honest and real.

It seems kinda weird that you would refer to it as "giving themselves away" rather than "giving of themselves." Remember that all the arguments have been qualified with sex being an act of love . . . . not sex for the thrill or experience.

And we are talking about love, not law . . . .whether civil or religious.

I was not really referencing you but a conversation on page 13 in which I assume one was an older adult offering mixed signals to someone who I assume is younger in reference to safe sex and placing that in context to an earlier conversation they had with a younger person where they were discussing with them sexual issues and made it sound like some great victory that the younger person lost her virginity. Just seems kind of creepy like Fagin, Svengali, or the Pied Piper and someone in that vain who wishes to corrupt the youth.

Thank you, Clovis . . . . now I understand.

Knowing Supra Sheri as well as I do, I can say that you do, in actuality, agree. She is speaking about unconditional honesty and love when she uses that "naked with the lights on" metaphor. She's referring to moments when there can be no lying and no faking. She means "naked" as in who you are and not some idealization from others' perceptions. If you can be "naked with the lights on," then you are representing unconditional truth. Supra Sheri and her wonderful family live their entire lives "naked with the lights on." Her relationship with her husband and children is nothing but "naked with the lights on." In my opinion, this uber-amazing quality is the stuff ("candid," "honest," "real," "and connected") which makes for the best relationships. And, I would venture that you, Mr. Walker, certainly find agreement here.

Ex.. clovis is referencing my post about a dear friend of mine who gave another friend of ours advice that added such a beautiful aspect to it and helped her put behind the dogmas she had been oppressed with from her religion.. gosh her and her lover are so happy and adorable and are officailly living together and having great sex and just delighting in the journey of their relationship... love with out limits.......



clovis, IMO there is nothing to fear about the journey of sexuality its the most beautiful journey two can embark on, the people i know are amazing, resepctful, mature and wise giudes..i do not know folks who exploit or seek to take advantage of others.... but I do not think that embracing your sexuality is a bad thing ......I think our attitude is alot of it......i also find my relationship to be the most joyous fun I am having i love it even the growth bumps and delight in it.... I can't think of a better gig......how kool is it to have someone to get to love day in day out unconditionally its a great honor IMO....and in my case i have a hottie to paw also ...lol (14 years and it feels like we just met yahoo ) don't let anyone tell you its not possible .....


enjoy your life and your love its your moment, live it tot he fullest....is what I'd say... IMO of course....all the best....

my error i should of clarified i was using 'naked in a metaphorical sense" ..although honest and rawness with all the lights on is the only way we roll, thanks for articluating this for me my beloved freind ....I have to concur Micheal it does make for a relataionship that is nothing short of bliss as you and your beautiful family are living also ((big hugs to the whole brood) ....You and Bex as you know are great inspirations to Sean and I and vice versa.... we are all focused on the love shared between us about us, for us . ........honesty and unconditional love being our guiding principles in all aspects of our journey .. could it be any other way?????...........


and from the wonderful posts I have read of Mr Walkers he seems to be delighting in the same type of love, perhaps he was to superfical and hasty in his interpretation......

I will be the first to admit there is a place in any relationship for great sex and it certainly is cultivated in mine .......lol...

My father used to say "never buy a car before you test drive it." Of course I have lived by own standards as far as sex and love are concerned. I ususally hate talking about this subject because it seems in my own experiences that women who enjoy sex are viewed as "loose" or other things but today I'm going to force my own hand and give an honest opinion. I dated a man once that did not believe in sex before a committed marriage and he wasn't christian either. Things worked out fine in the beginning but eventually it created problems between us and I wasn't going to run off and get married just to have sex getting married the first time was enough. Sex is a very important part of a relationship to me, granted it isn't everything communication and closeness in spirit are also vital but sex is something that is a part of that. Personally I hold myself to the standard of only being with someone in that way when I love that person and I am in a committed relationship but not marriage, this is just a piece of paper in my mind. So to get to the point I do not see being able to continue dating someone that would only have sex after marriage because a piece of paper is fairly unimportant to me as to where sex is a mutual sharing and for me if it is lacking in the relationship than usually other things seem to lacking and that is my honest two cents for the day.

Here's my estute and enlightened opinion BooM BooM Good!!!!

I have to concur one that would place such a fixation on bieng married before being intimate with me would be great cause for concern for me.....

it wouldn't work, i wouldn't place conditions on my intimacy or love nor would i start a relationship that way either. as I am savvy enough to know it won't work.....I feel this is the biggest reason divorce is at an all time high. its seems to be more about words on a paper then the actual two people in the relationship the two have to squeeze themselves into some frame that may not even relfect them at all and live with it or suffer through it. ...gosh love would not ask this of anyone....not the love i'd be interested in......


if all those conditions exist for ones sexusal spontineity imagine the control issues outside the bedroom eeks....

one poster on here said it would have to be for a darn good reason and being afraid because you have been taught this way is no excuse in my book.. an adult is an adult for a reason its on you to decide who you are ..

another poster also mentioned one unwilling to share of themselves fully is basically a stranger and wishes to remain that way..I'd be in it for the intimacy 100 percent. and vice versa....... ......

Well Hey Sheri! It is always a delight to hear from you. I have to agree about the control factor in more ways than one having lived through it. I had made a vow to myself after that marriage that I would be true to myself and never marry again out of obligation than I was engaged but after putting alot of thought to it I broke it off because I felt pressured and like it was a condition of the relationship and just as you believe I do not think love should have such conditions.

Intimacy as far as sex is concerned to me is a part of human nature and love and although I respect others in their views I tend to believe that the whole "have to wait till marriage to have sex" thing is based on fear more than anything, fear of God to be brutally honest and since I do not fear God I do not fear the wonderful gift also given to me of sexuality. You know something that comes to mind is my ex-husband's remarriage and my children were readily told his new wife to be was a virgin and it was advertised yet they would never sit down and talk with the children about sex and about their questions and curiosities beyond that they should remain virgins till marriage in EVERY WAY if you get my drift on that one. I never did understand either the advertisement and pride taken not ever having had sex until marriage.

Well I guess I came to the same conclusion I started with that I could not retain a relationship with someone who used marriage as a condition to have sex, it just would not work for me.

as you Star....I have to agree agian that i also entertain the idea its fear based ... and i also have no such fear so i also apprecaite and marvel in this gift.....


you also bring in another great point those that are afraid and ashamed of their own sexuality teach this to others and often it is their kids and this is how the cycle perpetuates..we can't teach of some thing we ourseves can't embrace...not very well anyways......
I feel its so unfair to turn a child against their own sexual essence......

wonderful thought provoking post star as always....

Uhh! Thanks, i think.

I was probably reading supras comments literaly. I have said to her before that i struggle to comprehend some of her views becuase of her literary style(as some struggle with mine)

I also was lifting the quote from a section previously quoted, rather from the full original text, so i may well have taken it out of context.

I am only too happy to be corrected on this point.

While it may not be supras argument, many people do struggle with emotional intimacy which is not wrapped round by physical intimacy. Men, in particular, often find non physical expressions of love very hard to articulate when they are not being inspired to a higher plane by the physical element.

Boys and men under psychological testing, for example, recognise a far narrower range of emotions through facial expressions than women do. Young men, in particular, see a very limited range. This limits their receeptivity to, and awareness of, anothers emotional state and needs.
It is part of the reason why they resort to physical conflict, when girls/women are able to negotiate their emotional needs and feelings with each other.

I believe sex happens before two people even lay a finger on the other.

Nope, it definitely requires contact.

Although i remember a film where orgasmic sex was induced by nothing more than the application of a finger to certain pressure points on the palm of a hand.

Where.... Where?????

And why would you even want to touch that other person? It's because of attraction, and that is what is going on in your mind - you see? It happens in the head first.

That is not sex though, that would be hormones.

amber i get your point its part of the process...yet I see that Matty is adding the details .... ithink I read somewhere that S.E.X. is an acronym for (S)ynergistic (E)nergy e(X)change...... works for me lol...

Agreed. Your statement is pure genius.

I must have being doing it wrong all this time!!!!!

Move on.

Sex is awesome.

We only get to live once.

Several good friends are already dead. I at least plan to get laid a few more times before I hit the fan . . .

I wouldn't begin a relationship with a Christian.

or a smoker.

Been there done that on both and I wouldn't do it again.

I'm far too comfortable with who I am and how I like my life.


Cheers
Pendora

Smoking is awesome. In fact I think I'll go light up a Kool right now.

Damn, it pays to be an alcoholic athiest, right?

I didn't mean it in a bad way, Infra.

I just know what my limits are.

That's not a bad thing.

I wouldn't have a relationship with a cop either. I couldn't stand it when he left for work each day.

Or a military man.

I just know my limits.

Enjoy your Kool. I don't know how anyone can smoke those menthols I just couldn't get used to them back in the day...lol


Peace

LOL!

Getting back to the topic of the thread . . .

I always had a Kool after sex . . . .

Before marriage.

Man I love being in college and summer here. Parties every night, alcohol, tobacco, and whatever else you can think of.