Last week I got in this letter:
Dear John,
I have a simple-minded question for you. It’s about abstinence from premarital sex. How does this work? No, not the “How do I resist temptation and remain pure?” part. Let’s say that your purity is completely assured. You have quenched your sexual thoughts and desires, and you have not done any sexual experimentation. You are saving your first kiss for marriage. Then, the day of your wedding, you go home to bed with your new husband, and … suddenly and automatically everything works?
I ask because for most of my adolescent and adult life I have been living the purity dream. I suppressed most of my sexual urges. No dating, no fantasizing, no touching. I was more or less asexual, and almost completely clueless. Then I fell in love with a fine young man, and we fully intend to marry each other once our life circumstances settle down. The young man and I started doing the things that young couples tend to do, like holding hands, or an arm around the shoulders or waist, and…I could not handle it. The feelings I had were either so overwhelming and powerful I had to stop, or I felt completely and totally numb.
I have needed ongoing therapy to get over this, but it is clear that for the present, even if the young man and I did get married, the two of us would not be able to have a sex life. The act of marriage would not be able to overcome the years of sexual dysfunction that I have imposed on myself. The young man, God bless him, loves me and wants to marry me anyway, even if this never changes, and even if that means we can never have biological children together.
I feel betrayed, because I did everything I was told with regard to abstinence, and it led me to a place where I wasn’t able to cope with sex at all and feel so broken. Is this how abstinence is supposed to work? I can’t think of anyone I could ask other than you, John, who would listen to me and take me seriously and give me an honest answer. Bless you for just reading this and getting this far.
Dear Young Woman:
Thanks for writing; I appreciate your trust.
Excuse the bluntness, but the short form of the blog demands it. So, well, to jump right in:
The whole Christian purity, “I’m saving myself for daddy” thing is insane. I won’t even go into the 1.6 million reasons why, but if you trust me at all, trust this: It’s as insane a thing as any culture, anywhere, has ever produced.
And it’s left you not knowing if (so to speak) you’re coming or going.
Here’s the truth of the dynamic with which you’re now involved: Your body has a consciousness at least as rich, complex, and immediate as the consciousness that comes out of your mind. Your misfortune is that you’ve severed yourself from that consciousness. That doesn’t mean that your body’s consciousness has ceased to exist; it just means that you’ve learned to ignore the vast amount of information it’s constantly producing. You did that because you learned that’s what God wants you to do. You learned that being a good girl for God and (I presume) for daddy means ignoring and ultimately mentally overriding your body’s consciousness. So that’s what you did.
You succeeded in making your mind the dictator of your body.
And now the time has come for your body to rebel against that oppressive regime.
Well, if you’re a dictator, and the body of people you rule over rises up against you, what do you do? Hopefully, you talk to the people. You find out what they want. You listen to their complaints. You learn of their needs, and then go about satisfactorily meeting them.
It’s time for your body to be listened to, is all. Your body now wants its rights to be recognized, acknowledged, legitimized. You just have to start tuning into what your body is now so desperately trying to communicate to you. So do that. Start, finally, taking advantage of the vast, fabulous, buzzy-good resource that is your body’s consciousness.
Wave good-bye to daddy. The lights of your Purity Ball have now been turned off. Time to ditch that paradigm of existence. It’s not like it’s going to start working for you. You’re not a little girl anymore. Daddy’s not going to be the man the woman in you needs. (And, please, consider the possibility that the person you really want in your bed is more of the mommy than daddy variety. Do yourself the favor of just considering the idea that you’re a lesbian. Millions of people are, so don’t trip about it. Just see if you are. Think about it. You’ll know.)
[Update triggered by commenter to this post suggesting that it sounds like I'm against maintaining one's virginity until marriage: I have serious issues with the whole "purity"/ "My heart belongs to daddy" phenomenon ---with the Purity Balls and Purity Vows and all that. I think that stuff is so tweaked I can barely believe it's legal. But I have no problem whatsoever with anyone, for whatever reasons they deem worthy, waiting until they are married to have sex.]
You need to start accessing your body’s wondrous, genius of a consciousness. You’ve been talking to your body for so long: issuing it decrees, repressing its freedoms, denying its right to freedom of expression. Now it’s time too, well …
Occupy your body!
Now it’s time to turn off your mind, and hear what your body has to say.
Prepare for one seriously engaging speech. Just sit back, and let the consciousness of your body take over. Before long you’ll find yourself wanting to take a long, hot bath by candlelight. You’ll want to stretch; a little yoga would be just the thing here. You’ll want to take long walks outside; you’ll want sun on your skin. You’ll want to have a glass of wine, and some delicious food. You’ll want to dance.
Do those things. Do all of them, and more.
At some point in this process (which you must allow to take as long as it must; remember: you’re following now, not leading) invite your boyfriend over. Share with him what you’re going through. See how he feels about it all. (And see also how you feel about him. Your letter tells me that a good deal of your problem might be that you’re simply not sexually attracted to your boyfriend. To be perfectly honest with you, the very first thought I had upon reading your letter was, “Oh, she’s a lesbian. And he’s gay.” Who but a gay man would be okay marrying a woman he can’t have sex with? And tons of Christian marriages are between a man and woman who don’t yet realize they’re gay. It’s so classic.)
You can do this. You can become the happily sexual person God made all of us to be. You just need to reestablish your relationship with half of what God gave you—what’s yours, and no one else’s. Not daddy’s. Not mommy’s. Yours.
It’s your body. Let it do for you what it’s so long been waiting to. Trust that God made you whole, and that your body has wisdom your mind can’t begin to conceive. Access that wisdom. It’s yours.
If anyone cares: How I Lost My Virginity to My High School Teacher.
Additional Reading in Christian Issues...
- From hell to Crazy Town
- They’re here; they’re queer; they’ve plenty to fear: LGBT students form secret club at conservative Christian university [now including updates]
- When evil is serious, it reaches for a Bible and cross
- Guest post: “A Good Week to Hate Christians”
- From gay-hating fundie to righteously angry lesbian. Now what?
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 276 comments… read them below or add one }
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →
Claiming to be a virgin when one has not had sex (it’s not necessary to say vaginal, there is no other kind) is the simple truth. To claim not to be a virgin when one has not had (vaginal) sex is a lie. If you said it under oath, and it had any consequences you could be found guilty of perjury. People who know English realize that besides sex there are other activities such as foreplay, masturbation and particularly, perversion. Many who don’t like the truth that they engage in perversions of sex, will go on to pervert the meaning of words in the English language. They will use perverted expressions such as oral sex, anal sex, self sex to avoid the notion that they engage in perversions. Eventually these perversions of the language become accepted as secondary meanings. Then there become secondary meanings of the word sex. All so people don’t have to think of themselves as perverts.
The problem, I suppose, is learning that a certain amount of perversion is normal!
What in God’s name is “perversion”. Mr Rappe lists it as if it is a separate category of sexual behavior.
Words like perversion and normal and even SEX need to be defined if they are going to be entered into a discussion. Yes, even “sex”. Is holding hands sex? Is kissing sex? Is massage sex? When does touching become “sex”? Is masturbation perversion? Is spanking perversion? Is spanking even sex? I remember getting naked in the woods as a boy and frotting with the trees to get the feel of nature against my body. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frot It was wondrous. It felt like touching a part of God. (I still like it at 67) Is it a perversion? Can something be perverted if done with an object, or is a behavior perverted only if done with another person?
We all speak about things thoughtlessly and then wonder why we have such human communication problems, but everyone categorizes things differently in their own minds. How can anyone know what we are blathering on about without agreed upon definitions? Without definitions, it’s all a tower of babel.
That’s not to say some things are not perversions. S&M, for example, can be fun or it can lead to some seriously harmful behaviors. For some, that is incomprehensibly welcome. The trick is to know when you are crossing the line and for me, anyway, that line is when you are starting to cause harm, physical or mental, to another person, whether consensual or not.
You know where that line is if you are a genuinely caring, loving person. “Young Woman(‘s)” boyfriend, for instance, sensed where the line was and didn’t push beyond it……for the moment. That, and the relationship, wouldn’t have lasted very long unless he was indeed gay. In that case, a whole nother set of problems would develop.
Oh, and btw, is a consensually accepted gay/str8, or gay/lez married relationship a “perversion”?
According to a purity test I took a few years back, the proper conjugation is:
I–am erotic.
You–are kinky.
They–are perverts.
Seriously, I believe that whatever happens between two consenting adults is their business. Not my place to judge.
HAR!! Good one, Diana.
There is no other kind of sex than vaginal? Oh, dear. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Donald… you can’t seriously think that oral sex isn’t sex, right? Or do you think that people just don’t have oral sex? There are many ways to have sex. Sex is what you define it. Sex is not just simply a penis entering a vagina. No, no no no. Sorry.
Amen to that! P in V sex is ONE type of sex. There are many many other wonderful ways to have sex, never limit yourself!!
What the heck is going ON in this comment thread?! I swear, I leave you people alone for five minutes ….
Sorry John. I couldn’t help myself and began to enjoy the various forms of the word perverse. To be sure, I regard the apellation Pervert to be offensive and outdated. However, much as I may agree with Rhys about the fluidity of human erotic feelings, I get my back up a bit when I hear people or spitting animals say that words can mean whatever I or they want them to mean.
Words are not fixed. Better get over any excessive annoyance at their changing nature or fluidity, because change is about the only constant in linguistics. To quote the Merriam-Webster Dictionary definition of anything is only to quote common parlance today. Quoting it 10 years from now might produce a different result.
For example, if you looked up “Judeo-Christian,” a 20th century, right-wing political term being bandied about in this thread, in any dictionary before 1899, you would not find it there, because no real concept of what that is (least of all how we use it today) existed then.
Don, can you confirm for me here that the Greek or Hebrew word for virgin actually means something closer to “one unto herself?”
I cannot speak to Hebrew, but the Greek παρθένος just means “virgin” or “unmarried.” The act of having sex was a right of passage for young women, somewhat synonymous with getting married (incidentally, this is a huge issue with respect to the “virgin” — actually “young woman” — supposedly in Isaiah 7:14 that Christians thought referred to the virgin Mary, as you’re probably aware).
But yes, when they did forgo marriage it was sort of an empowering thing (in our view), and a source of anxiety (to their men). Virgins were often associated with the huntress Diana (even male ones like Hippolytus, Actaeon, Narcissus), and so they spent their time hunting in the woods, a clear act of subversion of domestic hierarchy. And domestic here means “domesticated,” so virgins were considered “untamed,” that is, not subdued or subordinate the way they should be. They did thing like cinch up their garments to show their legs and let their hair run wild and free.
So yes, the notion of virginity was very different in many ways then; and Christian women took this up in the early period, devoting themselves to God wholly, something which is considered dangerous and subversive (see the Acts of Thecla). I touch on this on my blog on an entry called “Christians and Marriage: From Disease to Divine Design”. The link is on my name. I feel weird putting links here to my own work (makes me feel like a spammer) but you can find it there easily enough.
Thanks for asking!
That is fascinating and I’m looking forward to reading more. Thank you!
I’m thinking of the Hebrew word Bethulia (בתוליה) from the book of Judith in which the (fictional) city of Bethulia (which translates “virgin” in the Hebrew or “one unto herself”) was besieged by Holofernes, and the chaste widow, Judith, saves her city (which was a stand alone city – unto itself) from the army of Nebuchadnezzar by using deception to kill their general, thus preventing the advancing army from reaching Jerusalem.
This was explained to me by the classics professor I’ve mentioned to Don elsewhere from the Chautauqua Institution who has been to seminary, studied Hebrew, and has studied scripture from a literary and Jungian perspective. (If you’ve never heard of Judith it’s because her book didn’t make it into the Protestant version of scripture.)
Another fun little fact: the Greek and Roman god of marriage: Hymen.
Those crazy anatomists.
I agree. Words aren’t fixed. They are culturally and historically dependent. I’ve used this argument frequently when it comes to those who support a “plain reading of the text” and counter it with the example of a plain reading of MLK Jr.’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” 2,000 years from now without knowing anything about MLK, the 1960′s, or American history. I’ve also used Paris Hilton’s definition of “hot.”
AND…..I would argue, this would also necessarily apply to the Founder’s use of the word “God.”
My Fundamentalist family reads the same letters and historical documents from early American history and any time Jefferson or later Lincoln or others use the word “God” they hear and read and think “God in the same way I define and understand God” and all the necessarily connected doctrine associated with that. This is the problem with a “plain reading” of anything. We are reading wearing our own biased glasses to interpret the meaning for how it seems to us, here and now, without having any knowledge of the intent of the writer in the context of the lenses the writer was wearing when it was written, both specifically to that particular document on that particular occasion and more globally to the writer themselves. It ignores the fact that speakers and writer shift the tone and word choice and angle of the content to fit the moment, the audience, and the purpose.
With respect to the Founders, yes, definitely. One only has to read Adams’ and Jefferson’s exchanges with respect to the Trinity:
“Adams to Jefferson, 7/13/13: “I have never read Reasoning more absurd, Sophistry more gross, in proof of the Athanasian Creed …” and then Jefferson in response (8/22/13): “It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet the one is not three, and the three are not one …” Then Adams (9/14/13) in response: “The human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker … This revelation made it certain that two and one make three; and that one is not three; nor can three be one.”
Thanks so much for both of these replies. They are very helpful.
I’m not saying that sex doesn’t have a definition, and that it can just mean whatever someone wants it to mean. Sex does indeed have a definition. I’m saying that there are different kinds of sex and sexual activities that can fit into that definition, and that a person can decide whether or not, for them, that act fits into that definition.
I have a friend that emotionally cannot have full-on intercourse, and for her, heavy petting is how she expresses herself sexually. (I realize this may be TMI, but I’m trying to make a point). For her, that is sex. And if in your mind, you are engaging in sex or sexual activities, then that is sex because you are identifying it as such and participating in it with that intention and those feelings.
I get that we have to draw the line somewhere. I mean, like John said before – is picking up a french fry and eating sexual activity? Well… no. Certainly not by my standards. But I guess, is it possible that picking up a french fry for some person out there in the world would be arousing, and therefore could be sexual to them? Unlikely – very unlikely – but, still possible. There are a LOT of weird things out there in the world. I don’t even want to go into the weird, disgusting things that people find sexual. Just trying to illustrate my point.
Rhys
And to further illustrate that point:
According to my dictionary, sex is defined as “sexual activity, including specifically sexual intercourse.” This is not saying that sex is only sexual intercourse, but rather sexual activity as a whole which sex includes sexual intercourse.
Sexual, as defined by the same dictionary, means “relating to the instincts, physiological processes, and activities connected with physical attraction or intimate physical contact between individuals.”
Those instincts are different for everyone. Different things arouse different people. People have unique sexual desires and fantasies, etc. Therefore, it can be said that sex, which includes sexual activity and full-on sexual intercourse, can be different for each person.
I’ve always understood that sex can be defined as any activity that has the potential to lead to orgasm, which, of course, includes quite a bit more than penis inside the vagina sex.
If oral sex isn’t sex, then why do we call it “sex”?
This argument is why Christian kids are having anal sex at rapid rates (and damaging themselves in the process). They are avoiding the vagina. But this whole conversation is why I’m so fascinated by Christianity as an observer (though I practice it as well). The neurotic ways we approach sex, the conversations we get drug into that ultimately have no meaning or draw no conclusions are what we spend so much of our time on. It’s an example – at least to me – why so many people consider Christianity and intellect mutually exclusive, because we debate what “sex” really is – is it anal? Is it oral? does it include a vagina? What about an object inserted into a vagina that’s not a penis? The point others make isn’t that we aren’t smart, it’s that we lose the smart in conversations we allow ourselves to have that are circular and hair-splitting.
You know, my point was that I was brought up in the ways of abstinence, I followed it for a long time, and it has had a profound effect on my sexuality and my way of thinking. I never claimed to be a virgin *now,* and whether I would describe myself as a virgin depends on context.
Sorry OP, I think I got caught up in some wise ass argument when I intended to be serious.
I think I can empathize with you. Although I have no idea what a purity ball is or the “daddy” thing. Daddy is what I called my father and what my children called me before they changed it to Dad. I was brought up in a Lutheran school where we were taught that dancing was a sin because it was not possible to get that close without having sinful ideas. I was 27 or 28 before I had a successful date. I prefer not to remember the 4 or 5 that consisted primarily of choking on my own tongue due to the strength of my feelings. Six months later I married that young woman and now, 48 years later, we are still trying each others patience. I just want to encourage you not to give up.
Thanks for bringing this topic up, sex as an entire topic is so huge in Christianity and we have to start talking about it candidly. You’re a brave soul for facing it. I’ve found this article n the NYT to be so powerful (it was for me). http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/09/fashion/09Modern.html?pagewanted=all
For the record, many institutions define rape as the unwanted insertion of any part of one person’s body or an object into any orifice of another person’s body. (A finger in an ear would more likely be considered assault in the proper context.)
My best friend is in his early 40s and still a virgin. An enormous part of that has to do w/ his religious upbringing and the expectations his parents have of him even at the age he is now. I see him date, he goes through short term relationship after short term relationship, and he gets frustrated when they end. By denying his sexuality he has effectively muted his emotional development as well. It’s very sad. I’ve tried to lovingly address this with him but it just ends in him exploding at me. I thought about sending him a link to this but it wouldn’t be received well. All of this stuff is so complicated and it doesn’t seem like it has to be.
I’m sorry, John, I love you (in a totally non-gay way, of course) but I don’t think you can claim the Dan Savage Crown until you’ve taken an evil-doer’s name and turned it into a noun that creates a vivd picture of a vulgar sexual act. (for those not following, google “Santorum) …. still dude, you’re getting close, and I’m cheering you on. xo
I don’t know John all that well, but I’m hoping that this is the sort of line he would not cross.
Go check out Dodson and Ross (dodsonandrossDOTcom). The younger woman was raised in conservative Christianity…homeschooled all the way through, even. Sometimes she talks about it and it is soooo fascinating, because I can so relate with her upbringing.
That website have a LOT of very woman-friendly FRANK talk about sex, our bodies, sexuality. It’s…um….graphic…but incredibly helpful.
My advice is just echoing many others, particularly in the realm of: start using your hand, start getting comfortable with your own body. Find your clitoris. Mess with it. Mess with it in a bunch of different ways.
…And just because nothing physically happens the first time doesn’t mean anything won’t happen the tenth time. Often, it’s getting our *minds* used to the idea and okay with it, and that then allows our bodies to wake up.
(In which case, sometimes it helps to find an erotic story that turns you on, or a fantasy that works for you, which does the work of turning your MIND on, and then read or think of that story/fantasy while using your hand or a vibrator down below and see if your body doesn’t follow right along after the mind…).
Most of all…have fun! Which is hard to do when we’ve been taught all our lives to *watch out* for our sinful bodies (groaning sigh)…but sex and our sexuality is FUN! It is super fun! It’s fun all by yourself and fun with a loved one. It’s just a whole lot of fun.
And it’s a serious part of our biological make up….so anyone or any theological camp that works to get us to deny that part of ourselves IS going to produce people with problems—because sexuality is a very important part of the human being’s make up!
I have had to make peace with the fact that the theological camp I was raised in is seriously messed up when it comes to sexuality. And I slowly had to get okay with the idea that masturbating was NOT a sin I had to pray and ask forgiveness for after the fact. And I slowly had to get okay with the idea that exploring my sexuality (including my orientation…in my case, bisexual…and getting okay with exploring THAT one took me awhile to get okay with, let me just say!) is a healthy thing to do.
And that was all a process, because, probably like you, I was raised to believe that fire and brimstone was awaiting people who did such things. The fear of hell was so palpable for me and it affected everything I did for so long… but a fear-based life is no life worth living.
Be patient with yourself and give yourself a lot of grace. You are on a wonderful journey, coming out of all that garbage….and it is going to be a lot of fun!
This is the best advice I’ve seen so far on this thread. I think the ding-a-ling crowd is well intentioned but fails to understand that girls don’t have a thing hanging out there to play with, so it’s entirely possible to grow up without ever experiencing an orgasm. I had a conversation not long ago with a 40-year-old married female friend who asked me in all seriousness how you tell if you’ve had an orgasm. She thinks she MIGHT have them, sometimes, with her husband, but she’s not sure. Well… a little gentle prying, turns out she has never had one. It’s not really something you fail to notice! So – recommendation – vibrator, dirty book, long afternoon alone. Repeat.
Until she knows what sexual feelings are like, it’s premature to ask if she has them towards men, women, or this man in particular.
I appreciate you sharing this story I struggle with sexuality, but for slightly different reasons. I’ve been caught between the demands of a Christian society, which expect me to be a good, chaste girl and never even acknowledge the existence of my sexual nature, and the expectations of men, who insist that I give in to any and all of their sexual advances. I’ve experienced male sexual aggression since I was 14, so now, at 23, I still don’t know how to be sexual on my own terms, to fully enjoy sexual contact, or even how to climax.
It’s an extremely difficult cycle to break out of. So few people are willing or able to be involved with someone who borders on asexual, even if it’s only the result of trauma and repression. The struggle is as much being sexual with another person as it is being sexual with myself, and it’s so difficult and painful for me to learn to be comfortable when there’s still a constant expectation for sex. I hope the author of this letter is able to reach the sexuality that exists within herself and come to terms with it. She’s lucky to have such an understanding and patient partner, but it will still not be an easy thing to do.
“Dear Prudence” today hits on this subject, and her advice is surprising! http://www.slate.com/articles/life/dear_prudence/2011/11/help_i_ve_had_sex_with_only_one_woman_and_now_i_want_new_partner.html
wow- what a complicated situation….
I was told that everything I needed to know about sex I could learn in the Bible. (to which I now say- which story- Lot and his daughters, Jacob and Leah…???!!!) I was not allowed to attend sex ed classes at school… so on and so forth… I went to Bible college. Met a boy. Started having sex before marriage at the age of 19. Got prego. Got married. (shortened version) Sex was not that great for me at first. I couldn’t figure out what all the excitement about sex was. Finally, I threw away all the “christian” advice that I had received and started reading all the dirty magazines I could find. I was going to figure out how sex could feel good for me and how I could enjoy it… Most important, I was going to figure out how to get an orgasm… Best advice from all the info I read: explore your body… get to know it… figure out where all the parts are that make you feel good… use your hand- YES MASTERBATE!!! For me it was the only way to show my boyfriend/husband where and how to turn me on… Step #2… sex toys and wild positions… Sorry if this is too graphic, but having grown up conservative Christian and then going to Bible college- people in my situation really don’t know how to have good sex and THAT is ruining many relationships… I’ve had too many talks with females who have been married for years and have never had an orgasm… again- sorry for the graphics! But there are couples who need to learn this stuff- for the sake of their relationships.
I realize every situation is different and every story has it’s variations- perhaps my experience will help another in a similar situation… I appreciate those who have given out websites and other forms of advice on this topic- I’ve read some good stuff here.
Well, if nothing else, you can learn the withdrawal method from Genesis 38 (the story of Onan.) You can also learn how to seduce your father-in-law! (Protip: Dress like a whore.)
This woman is certainly not alone! Her story is not uncommon at all. As a clinical sexologist, my wife (Becky Feder Knight) is very familiar with these stories, and she’s a great resource for anyone who needs help working through these emotions and psychological struggles – and helping to learn how to “occupy one’s body.” Her website is LivingSexuality.com, and I hope you and others will refer people to her for help.
John, this post really resonated with me, so much so that I linked to it on my own blog. I am male, but I still know how this woman feels. I was taught growing up that sex outside of marriage was never, ever, ever, ever ok. I specifically remember watching television with my mother and having her express disapproval at a number of television characters having sex outside of marriage. I still to this day get comments from them if I mention couples that I am friends with who are living together out of wedlock. Basically growing up, I thought the word “adultery” meant any sex outside of the bounds of marriage.
This affected the way I dated well into my 20′s. I realize that I was looking for the type of person my parents taught me I should be looking for rather than the person I really wanted. I was looking for the future mother of my children and now at this point in my life, I don’t think I even want to have children at all. I believe this thinking also has significantly reduced the number of dates I have had. I basically feel like I am just now coming to terms with all of this and I am now left with being 31 years old, but having the sexual and dating experience of a 19 year old and I don’t know what to do catch up to where I want to be. I definitely want to be in a relationship. I feel that I have repressed my sexuality and that it is unhealthy. I want someone to share my life with. I want companionship that I can’t find in just platonic friendship, but I now feel utterly ill equipped for the task of finding it.
Former: Wow. Yours his a very touching testimony. I really appreciate your honesty here, and the depth of your feelings. Thank you for sharing this. Very challenging stuff.
I had the exact same experience with the word “adultery”. Based on how strongly people felt about not having sex before marriage and the fact that not committing adultery is one of the 10 commandments, I somehow ended up thinking that any sex with a person one isn’t married to was adultery. Luckily at 13 the older sister of a good friend of mine kindly explained to me otherwise. I then learned the lovely word “fornication:. I also wondered where the Biblical prohibition on premarital sex was, but no one seemed to be able to explain that one to me. I do remember a high school Bible teacher (I went to conservative religious schools) telling our class that having sex with someone when you aren’t married is one way of cheating on your future spouse. He, of course, didn’t back this up at all.
Well, according to Tertullian in “On Modesty,” any sex outside of marriage is in fact adultery.
I learned in another thread that I shouldn’t get too hung up on the specific WORDS in Scripture … it’s the MEANING that’s really important. Trying to define various words in a way that creates a certain type of nonmarital sex that’s OK for you to have … means you’re missing the point.
There is no such thing as premarital sex, according to the Bible. Once you have sex with someone, you’re “one flesh” with him, or with her. Which means the two of you have just taken the most important step in becoming married, and the formalities are all that remain to be done.
In my case, “pre-marital sex” is completely wrong as I see myself as unlikely to ever get married.
That’s real rough on the victims of rapists isn’t it?
Speaking as a rape survivor, yes, I must admit it’s a bit of a bummer.
Following the merits of your own argument, were you still a virgin after being raped? Do you consider yourself “one flesh” with your rapist in the eyes of God?
There are amazing men out there – tons of them- who will find your story charming and very special. And hot. Don’t worry about your lack of e xperience, the right men find that alluring and will give you exactly what you want. Remember that for a lot of men, helping you orgasm is the ultimate sexual fulfillment for them, even beyond their own orgasm. Find those men. Trust me on this.
Oh, my, DR. I do believe you’ve given me the fantods.
What’ s a fantod? Is it the modern-day vapors? I think we need to bring back the vapors.
So because a woman is struggling with sexual feelings for her partner, it is suggested she is gay !? What a predictably male assumption!
WTF
Au contraire, mic. Actually, this is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. It may not be the only possibility, but it is certainly a possibility, and wish I’d had someone suggest that to me during that phase of my life and the time in which I was in a very similar situation. I was 21 and had just moved to NYC – I was so incredibly excited to start dating! But… nothing happened. I went on dates. A good lot of them. And there was just nothing. I remember calling my mom and asking her – “Why don’t I feel excited about this? What is wrong with me?” She had no idea that I was transgender (or about to come out as gay at the time) and even if she had an inkling, I don’t think it was something she was ready to embrace just yet.
I wish that I’d had someone to say to me what John just said to the OP. Because I feel like I could have saved years of shame, self-loathing, and feeling like I’m not good enough and never going to be ‘normal.’
So, no – this isn’t a predictably male assumption, but rather a call to introspection. (Of course, I can’t speak for John… these are just my personal observations and feelings).
Mic: I said she should CONSIDER the possibility that she MIGHT be gay. And she did, in fact, in her answer here in the comments section, show her appreciation for that suggestion. Back off.
Rock on, John!
Okay, I wanted to say something positive, so I did, but I don’t just want to be flippant about it (as in, yes I do want to be flippant, but
I want to be more than that as well). I was abstinent – though not chaste — for a little over 5 years in my twenties. At the time, I made the choice to focus on my career. Later, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I had been sexually molested as a child, and that might have influenced my decision as well. Just another possibility to consider in a situation like this.
Lee (aka evil)
“reluctantly came to the conclusion”??? I don’t know what that means.
I wouldn’t presume to speak for Lee but that phrase certainly spoke to me. My father was emotionally and, although it was rare, physically abusive to me. For most of my life I’ve made excuses for him, and didn’t want to attach that label to him. I even avoided recollection of parts of events to eliminate parts that made the conclusion that he was abusive inevitable. It’s hard to accept that someone you love, and should be able to trust, betrayed you. I know I was reluctant to face up to that for most of my life. I couldn’t cite any particular studies for you, but it certainly seems like that’s a pretty common aspect of abusive relationships.
On rereading this comment, I see even now that I’m making excuses for him. The physical abuse may have been a rare event, but that modification was really just more denial, I’m reluctant still — see what I mean?
Thanks. I get it.
Thanks, Lori. A therapist nudged me toward the conclusion that I had been molested as a small child in some way which I don’t really remember. Since I had no specific memory of molestation, I resisted the idea. When I brought up that I had my first vaginal and anal exam by age 5, however, the therapist told me that’s not normal, and is usually only done if sexual abuse is suspected. I asked my mom about it recently, and she remembers the exam, but not the reason for it (she has senile dementia). And no, it wasn’t the exam itself that created the trauma. However, I personally have problems believing in the recovered memory syndrome – where people are led to believe they were abused or victimized in Satanic rituals or anything like that with no other facts to support it – I am reluctant to discuss it. No disrespect to anyone who has recovered memories intended. Sorry, this is rather painful for me.
What if it were defined as anything that resulted in orgasm for one party or the other?
[Gosh ... by that definition I've had sex with three women, even though I never had vaginal intercourse until I was married. Ah well, confession is good for the soul, and so is anonymity, at the moment.]
Regarding the waiting until marriage thing, Dan Savage had something good to say on the issue to a young woman who wrote in saying that’s what she wanted. He told her to examine her reasons for doing so and if she decided that’s what she really wanted then go ahead and do so. He then said that people don’t like it when other people brag about or flaunt all of the people that they have sex with and neither will they like it if someone goes on and on about not having sex until marriage. This made a lot of sense to me. Everyone needs to make their own choices on the issue. While we don’t have to be secretive, we don’t need to constantly subject our friends to the details.
Could you point me to the article, if you can remember which one it is? I think the Stranger has his complete archives.
Took me a little while to find it, but here it is. Also, I hope my previous comment didn’t sound like I was criticizing you for writing to John about this. Re-reading it now it looks like it could come across that way. If anyone read it that way, I only meant that it’s fine to talk about sex in certain contexts but unnecessary to do constantly.
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=1567
Thanks! Look forward to reading it. No worries, you didn’t do anything to offend me, and I have a pretty thick skin anyway, at least on the Internet
A. That’s not even almost what I said, and B. Why would you try to really, really like a blog?
yeah, cuz that’s what i said. read much?
It’s common. People show up looking for a fight—and they just start swinging.
I’m so sorry I didn’t mean to swing at anyone. The article resonated with me. I appreciated it. I somehow must have misunderstood your intent as the author and read my own struggles into it. I meant to thank you for writing it and for your spirit of grace towards the girl who wrote to you. I’m going to go reread it, I missed something. I didn’t mean this comment to be disparaging towards you or the post in any way.
I know what this girl is going through. I’m glad she’s doing therapy, but I’m sitting here knowing that in the way I was raised, we somehow saw sex as a sinful thing until marriage, instead of it being explained as a great thing in the right atmosphere. Had I heard “a great thing in the right atmosphere or time” I probably would not have gone through the same things as this young woman. Mind you, I had sex before marriage, got pregnant, and still on my wedding night, I locked myself in the bathroom for an hour, and my “wonderful” (now ex) husband, who was supposed to love and protect me, let everyone know about that night. I guess it sounds weird because I WASN’T a virgin, but I think it came down to knowing I made a mistake by giving vows and legally (and in front of God and friends) bound myself to the wrong man. I don’t look at this as lesbian/gay thing. I see it as you found a wonderful ideal man in every way, who you really don’t have a passion for.
Re-reading this, I sound heartless at the end. This really goes deep, so please writer, if you’re reading this, I’m not taking it lightly, I’m just thinking that the road to hell is paved with good intentions by our loved ones, and all our ideals get really skewed when we are ready to step down a huge step.
“The feelings I had were either so overwhelming and powerful I had to stop, or I felt completely and totally numb.” Unless those overwhelming feelings were revulsion the problem is not “wrong gender.” The problem is wrong conditioning.
I had much numbing due to childhood trauma. Yes, I did have to learn to feel my body. Yes, I have had dialogues with my psyche. But none of that made me gay or was because I was gay. (Of course, given the source of my trauma was my MOTHER, attraction to women was never gonna happen. But still.)
My niece is gay, two of my (female) cousins are gay. (None of them seems to have been abused. One of them seems to be the happiest of her siblings. Four all told.) So the gay thing just does not seem to fit with this lady’s situation at all. So I have to say that while I think much of your advice is spot on, some of it is YOUR agenda.
While, yes, purity balls and the focus on one’s father as the controller of the sexual relationship is weird and more than a little sick, I’m not sure that I see it in her letter. Maybe I’m missing something?
Anyway …
It might be worth mentioning that there are also many ways for a person to be familiar with his or her sexual feelings and thoughts without consummating a relationship. I was a virgin when married the first time, and abstained from sex between the end of that sexual relationship and my second marriage. It can be done, and it’s a very healthy thing.
Having said that, it’s important to realize that you’re not going to go from avoiding all thoughts of sex to having Hollywood-style sex because of a couple of exchanged vows. There exist several books on the subject of preparation for marriage, and it’s a conversation that the couple should have, several times. There is a lot to be said for realistic expectations.
Anyway … There are a great many perfectly-healthy ways to think about sexuality that don’t require abandoning notions of pre-marital abstinence. That is something very important to know.
Ken – I’m not suggesting that just because young people have genitals that they should rush out and use them. I have a 24 yr old son who is still a virgin. He has had girlfriends, but he never was comfortable being that intimate with them. I have no doubt though, that he is familiar with self expression of his sexuality.
It sounds like this young woman was indoctrinated with the belief that sexual thoughts and acts are all bad – she doesn’t even know where the on switch is.
That’s like sexual abuse in reverse.
“Sexual abuse in reverse”……wow, what an amazing and yet chilling idea. I never thought of it that way.
I have thought of it that way and have sometimes thought that controlling behavior that forces another not to have sex could be just as abusive as forcing someone to have sex against their will. I’m not trying to be flippant about rape, just suggesting that maybe we need to expand our definition of what sexual abuse is. Do others think that this could be true? I’d like to more deeply explore the idea of comparing forcing someone to have sex versus forcing someone to not have sex.
My own feeling is that that would fall more under emotional abuse– denial of intimacy, denial of self.
I have never heard of “purity balls”. Saving yourself for daddy? That really (really) creeps me out! Teenage girls think and talk about boys constantly – holding hands and kissing is normal! To never kiss a guy until your wedding day – huh? I can’t imagine being told your whole life that sex is wrong and don’t even let a guy hold your hand – and then on your wedding day you’re supposed to learn “everything” from kissing to vaginal intercourse in one evening. That would seem more like rape than making love.
Not only that – what if you find after you get married that you’re sexually incompatible. You wouldn’t buy a car without at least test driving it. But a young man or woman is supposed to marry someone without knowing them well enough to have at least seen them without their clothes on? Not to mention to see if they merchandise (on both sides) actually works?
That’s just crazy talk.
I’m fully in agreement with you, Val. I was well experienced by the time I got married and don’t regret a bit of it. I also did not have sex until I was eighteen, the summer after graduating from high school, which was the right time for me.
I’m still interested in sex in my fifties, though I no longer have a partner. (I’m straight).
crap, i can’t write any of the things i want to comment about this, because the family part of it is … not awful or abusive or anything, but just too bizarrely personal. like, more personal than the stuff about sex that i already said before. does ThruWay Christians have a women’s area???
You could create one if it doesn’t. I’m sure people would thank you for it.
I think if a couple is capable of communicating honestly & openly with each other they can discuss what they see as part of their physical life together & come to terms w/o actually having to go on a test run, as it were. This presumes they are at least well informed on the subject.
The problem with this whole purity movement is it’s based on shaming of women. Men who fail aren’t chastised the way women are. In fact it’s kind of expected men will fail. But who are they failing with? This is so 1920s. Women who have sex before marriage are “tramps” or “whores” or “loose” or “sluts” or…. When men do it, well boys will be boys. So then we end up with women like the writer of this letter who are so totally confused about sex at all.
Our sexuality and sexual feelings are given to us by God. Otherwise we wouldn’t have those feelings at all. And why would God give us those pleasure feelings associated with our genitals if he didn’t want us to feel good sexually?
Honestly, my advice to the letter writer would be to start masturbating. Seriously. I’m not joking here. Get comfortable with yourself first. Really, it’s not a sin to masturbate. In fact, for those who take the Scriptures that seem to say don’t have sex outside of marriage, masturbation can be a way of living up to that standard. Honestly, I think whether people have “pre-marital” sex is something between that person and God and between the two consenting adults.
So really, Letter Writer, go get a vibrator. Or stick with your own hands. Or the shower. Or whatever. Just figure out what a real orgasm and all the feelings leading up to it are all about. Then you’ll know if you actually like sex. If you still don’t feel sexually attracted to your guy then maybe you have the wrong guy. Or like John suggested, explore your sexuality. There’s a big wide sexual world out there waiting for you.
Yes, yes, yes!!
Absolutely. Step number one.
But don’t do what I did and get too reliant on a vibrator. Took a while to not need one anymore! I’ve heard that you should masturbate with your non-dominant hand so it doesn’t feel so “perfect.” That way when you’re with someone else, you won’t need “perfection” to get to the big O. Maybe that’s TMI, but I certainly wish I’d heard that advice about 10 years before I did!
YES. To everything you just said. Yes.
The key here is that you’ve provided a safe place to discuss and questions issues that many Christians don’t feel safe discussing anywhere else. That is quite an accomplishment, and doesn’t surprise me one bit.
I think this is a great response. But! John, Young Woman, and all readers – please remember that Gay and Straight aren’t the only options.
I have many friends who are asexual. They simply aren’t attracted to people sexually. Romantically? Heck yes! Do they cuddle and hold hands and sleep in the same bed as their spouse? YEP. But they simply aren’t interested in sex.
And that is okay. It really is. So, remember, please remember that one NEVER has to limit their options to ‘Straight’ and ‘Gay/Lesbian’. Trust yourself, trust your gut, do all things with consent and love and a gentle spirit.
I wrote a comment up, but you already said the gist of it. Except that instead of “my friends are asexual”, it’s “I’m asexual, and the gay/straight dichotomy messed me up for years.” The idea that if you’re not gay you must be straight (or vice versa, but that was the form it took for me) is damaging even if you never act on it.
So glad my words rang true to someone! I myself am genderqueer, and ooofta…. trying to explain that to some people is honestly a headache and a half.
“What? You mean, there is more than just men and women?”
“Yep”
“Whaaa—”
So, yes, the binary system is damaging and erasing and wrong, and you, Brin, aren’t alone out there. Peace!
Thank you for saying that! I really consider myself to be an asexual lesbian. I have been in a relationship for 20+ years and we haven’t had sex for a long time (for which I sometimes feel guilty) but I must admit I’m just not that into it. I rarely if ever think about sex and wonder more deeply that I’m screwed up because of it than because I’m gay. Harris, thanks for helping me feel a little bit less of a freak in this hyper sexual yet hyper repressed society.
I see it more in terms of romantic orientation and sexual orientation. One, such as yourself, can be homoromantic and asexual. Or someone could be heterosexual and panromantic (sexually attracted to a different gender but romantically attracted [meaning flirting, courting, dating] all genders).
I’m pan-sexual and pan-romantic all around, and I’m really glad that you don’t feel alone anymore. Click through my name to my blog, and send me a note or something if you’d like. You are awesome and never a freak. Peace!
Eeek those purity balls and rituals are freakish!
Well done John you tackled a tricky topic with wisdom, honesty and heart.
Thanks for being real
I am writing under a different name then I have used every other time. My heart reaches out to this young woman because I was her. I saved myself for marriage. I bought the whole purity thing. The churches I attended weren’t satisfied with just asking me to not have sex. No, they didn’t want me to date, kiss, hold hands, hug, dance, NOTHING. You see, because one day God was going to show me to a man and tell him that I was the bride for him. He would then ask to court me and we would begin a pure courtship process.
He did and we did. We were never alone. Our first kiss was at the wedding altar. My honeymoon was a very difficult experience. I literally had to disassociate myself from the sexual act. My body was there, but I wasn’t present in any sense of the word. I went through the motions to satisfy the whole consumation of the body thing. I knew that sex was my godly Christian duty. I knew I needed to have sex to have children and I did want to have children.
Over time, I got better at the sex thing. It gradually became easier for me and I didn’t have to disassociate myself to do it. I have never really enjoyed sex and I have only had an orgasim when masturbating. We are divorced now (lots of reasons other than sex). I am single and back to being A sexual. And I don’t care. I have no desire to ever have sex with a man again.
John brings up an interesting point. Because I think I might like to be with a woman. I am most comfortable with them. And my deepest thoughts always involve women. But, that is a can of worms I can’t open. My fundamentalist programming is too deep. I would rather be alone.
God bless you in whatever you decide.
(,*_*,)
if you can even say what you just said, i would at least consider deprogramming yourself.
not like it’s my business or anything and not like i have a clue about sex or life or anything. just… it can be really really nice, if you find the right person.
This breaks my heart to read.
I loved your answer, John. I read it and didn’t think about her being lesbian. She needs to find out. Occupy. Yes. And there are ‘safe’ ways to figure it out. Kudos.
Brilliant!!
Wow, John … did you quote the entire letter?
The letter, or at least the portion you quoted, doesn’t say anything about whether its author participated in the “purity ball” phenomenon. Chastity is a long-established Christian ideal; the daddy/daughter “purity” movement that you find so distasteful is just a very recent subcultural development that tries to construct new ways of upholding that ideal.
Among several of the problems in your response is that you seized upon what sounds like a sincere request for help and used it as an opportunity to attack a subculture that may not even have anything to do with what this young woman is concerned about. You got a general question about chastity and instead of answering it, you teed off against purity balls.
No wonder your readers conclude, rightly or wrongly, that you’re opposed to chastity in general. And if they didn’t conclude it from this post, then they might well conclude it after reading your post about your high school teacher. In fact, after reading both posts I’m a bit puzzled as to why anyone would come to you for advice on abstinence.
Life’s a mystery, Ralph the Wonder Llama.
To which I say,
What was that catchy little phrase again…….oh, right. Oh, snappeth.
“In fact, after reading both posts I’m a bit puzzled as to why anyone would come to you for advice on abstinence.”
You know, John actually wasn’t the first Christian person I went to, but he was the first person who actually took me seriously. By “actually took it seriously,” I mean not delete my question outright.
My own advice is simply that it takes time. If you put off physical intimacy until after the wedding, then obviously neither of you should expect full-on intercourse on your wedding night. It took me and my wife a few days to figure things out on our honeymoon. It might take you longer. But if you trust each other, you can get there.
I don’t know you, but I am pretty sure of this: the feelings you experienced when your boyfriend touched you are not wrong, and John’s advice on getting more in touch with your body seems wise to me. I sure hope you’re incorrect in saying that the two of you can never have sex. In Christian theology, sexual intercourse is integral to marriage: it is what makes you “one flesh,” in Biblical phrase. The wedding ceremony formalizes your union, but it does not create your union. If you don’t have sex, you’re not married, whether you had a wedding or not. If you do have sex, you are one flesh, whether you had a wedding or not. That’s all that Christian chastity really means.
Well, technically a wedding w/o sex merely means the marriage has not been consummated. It’s still legit in the eyes of God & man.
In the eyes of man, yes, if you sign the documents you are married, and entitled to whatever legal and societal benefits exist for married people, whether you’ve had sex or not. In the eyes of God, if the marriage has not been consummated, it can be annulled, which means it never happened.
I think “in the eyes of the Church” might be a better way of putting it. God knows better than we do if we’re married or not.
So God has some way of speaking to you that contradicts the truths he has revealed to his Church? How fascinating.
There is a distinction between “one flesh” and “married.” Intercourse makes you one flesh, but there is a lot more to Christian marriage than intercourse. However, intercourse is an indispensable part of any marriage, I should think — whether the spouses are Christians or otherwise. Is it really controversial to say that a marriage wherein the two partners have never had sex is no marriage at all?
Yeah, ‘cuz there are any number of people who want to get married who can’t have sex for any number of reasons. Doesn’t make it any less of a marriage.
And, yeah, God speaks to me through this rare gift called common sense. God in omniscient/omnipresent; He is always in the Eternal Now, existing everywhere all the time simultaneously forever. There is no past/present/future to Him as we humans comprehend the terms. So that pretty much means He has a better knowledge of everything than even the most informed of humans.
example: fairly rare but i know it happens cos i know someone with this: there are physical and sensory disabilities that severely limit one’s capacity to bear being touched by other people at all … would some say that these folks don’t have the right to get married, if they love and want to spend their life with someone (who can also be OK with their physical limitations)?
(I’m still trying to figure out which Reply link to click in order to put responses where they make the most sense. Sorry if this appears out of place.)
Unless I’m mistaken about the OP, both she and her young man are physically capable of having sex. For them to enter a marriage contract and never have intercourse would, I think, be somewhat less than what God intends for marriage to entail. Married people who are capable of having sex with each other, but choose never to do so, are missing out on something.
We have not been talking, until now, about special cases for quadriplegics, et al. These don’t disprove the general point. Obviously these folks have the right to enter a marriage contract for mutual support and whatever intimacies they are capable of. And I’m forced to agree that in cases where God chooses to allow things to happen to us that render us incapable of having sex, God can also still choose to honor our marriage covenants.
I think physical intimacy is a prime ingridient for most marriages, but if — >IF< — a couple can be happy together w/o sex, it's literally none of our f*cking business.
Agreed. But the question of what part of someone else’s relationship is our business and the question of what constitutes a Christian definition of marriage are entirely separate questions.
So you’re cool with people marrying despite physical disabilities, but if people with mental disabilities which prevent them from having sex get married, it’s not okay?
Some quads can have sex – my brother-in-law is a quad, and he has all kinds of freaky and painful nerve responses in various parts of his body which can make things difficult. But there are other types of physical disabilities. What about men who have had their penises blown off, which is becoming a common injury for our soldiers overseas? Are they still married?
BTW, if you want to know whether quadriplegics can have sex, watch BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY.
RTWL: “In the eyes of God, if the marriage has not been consummated, it can be annulled, which means it never happened.”
You say this like it is absolutely true. And, yet, this interpretation is not consistent throughout Christendom but a rather Catholic slant. Protestants would beg to differ.
Really? So let’s say my plumbing works, and my fiancee’s plumbing works, and we say the words, give the rings, eat the cake … and then on the wedding night she locks herself in the bathroom until I promise not to touch her … and that happens every night for a year, with no progress toward intimacy. You’re saying you know Protestants whose view of marriage is so out of whack that they’d insist that I stay married to her?
I guess it’s possible … these ARE Protestants we’re talking about, after all.
Unless she told you (rhetorical) in advance AND YOU AGREED that there would be no sex, yeah, you’ve got a case: She agreed to marry you under false pretenses. Likewise if she finds out you’re not really a wealthy billionaire superhero but a stock boy who lives in his mom’s basement. Being dishonest in order to enter into a marriage is fraud and can, in certain circumstances, carry severe legal/criminal penalties.
Ah, but you are confusing a legal definition of marriage with a Christian definition of marriage. They are not the same thing. Yes, I have grounds under the law, but would you say I also have grounds because the Christian covenant of marriage has not been fulfilled?
If you were a marriage counselor, would you advise any couple with adequate physical equipment and ability to enter a sexless marriage with each other?
Dear probably catholic Wonder Llhama,
There has never been a time when legal marriages were not accepted as the definition of marriage by Christians and Jews. Specifically the relationship between men and their wives and concubines, as structured under the laws or other norms of their society. It was specifically in terms of such normal definition that the commandment about adultery was given. A religious group which does not honor the normal definition off marriage may be regarded as a cult, no matter how large it is. Of course a religious group may define sacraments if it wishes, and it may define marriage to be a sacrament, but they cannot define marriage because the definitions of marriage in any society is prior to the definition such a “sacrament”
Well, Christians defined marriage as a sacrament well before our present American society arose, and since that society is so heavily influenced by Judeo-Christian thought, it seems natural that there’s a substantial amount of overlap between social & religious definitions of marriage.
Whether that’s true in all times and places I’m not so sure. Sociologist Rodney Stark has argued, for example, that Paul’s teachings on marriage and the role of women (restrictive as they may seem to us today) actually offered women a significantly better deal than they got in 1st-century Roman society at large!
But anyhow, the fact that Christian & social definitions of marriage do overlap doesn’t mean they are identical. Treating marriage as a sacrament can mean that the church imposes specific responsibilities and expectations upon married people which the state does not impose. These expectations carry no legal weight, of course, and are not enforceable by the state, but that doesn’t mean they don’t amount to a definition of marriage. They’re just different than the state’s definition. In general, you could say that some churches hold married people to a higher standard than the state does. Those standards, of course, are applicable to people within those churches and cannot be imposed upon people outside those churches against their will.
I like being “probably Catholic” … of course, if I drop one of the L’s in Llama, I’d probably be Buddhist.
Dear Ralph,
Guess it depends on what your definition of definition is huh? Do you suppose Christians also have their own definition of five dollars? If someone quotes a price for their car, will you be asking whether that’s i Christian dollars or regular?
Donald: I live in a state where gays don’t yet have a legal right to marry. Despite that, there are ministers and officiants who will perform religious “civil union” or “commitment” ceremonies for gay couples … I had the opportunity to attend one not long ago. Unfortunately, although these ceremonies can be beautiful and meaningful, they don’t confer the full legal rights of marriage upon the couple. Are you saying that ministers in my state should not be performing ceremonies like this, seeing as how they don’t meet the state’s definition of marriage?
The definition of a word belongs to neither the state nor the church, but, to the language. It is not decided by an organization nor is it up for a vote. I’m sure you can apply this to your question and arrive at the correct answer.
Donald, you seem a little stuck on the notion of a word having only one definition. You’ll admit only one definition of “sex.” You’ll admit only one definition of “marriage.” It’s an interesting personality quirk, I guess, but it does make conversation difficult.
Have you ever met anyone who actually lives up to your ideal of using words only according to their primary definitions in your dictionary?
Neither have I.
So what happens when a paraplegic gets married and cannot have sexual intercourse? Is he or she then just out of luck? I have to agree with buzz – marriage is so much more than sex. You even said so yourself right below.
Additionally, I would have to say also that the definition of sex is fluid. My friend is a progressive sex educator and has had this discussion with me recently. Sex is really what you define it. For some, it might be intercourse. For others, it might be defined as any sexual act, including heavy petting, etc. etc.
“Additionally, I would have to say also that the definition of sex is fluid.”
TMI! TMI!
Sorry… I didn’t even think about the double entendre there. Of course, that comment was not intended to be vulgar. Apologies.
Rhys
It did make me chuckle, but I knew what you meant.
With respect to marriage, I don’t think the Bible, with its emphasis on procreation, really contemplates any kind of sex other than vaginal. And yet, I can’t help agreeing that claiming to be a virgin while avoiding only vaginal sex is disingenuous. One ends up saying things like “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.” Nobody really believed that was true, even if it was technically accurate.
Now you distinguish between truth and technical accuracy. The first meaning of sex in my old Merriam-Webster is activities that can lead to child birth. I will continue to think of those who use words according to their primary meanings as speaking the truth. (Not necessarily the whole truth.) I will agree there are millions of Americans so ignorant they would spend 40 million dollars to find out more specifics of the non-sexual activities that took place with that woman.
Heh! Even the Merriam-Webster definition is “fluid,” if you like. Making eye contact with an attractive person across a crowded room could lead (eventually) to childbirth! Does that make it “sex”?
Sounds closer than assisted masturbation.
But dictionaries base their definitions on current and past usage of a word. And other dictionaries do not necessarily agree with yours. For instance, here is the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, considered the gold standard of dictionaries of English, and the best etymological dictionary in any language:
“Physical contact between individuals involving sexual stimulation; sexual activity or behaviour, spec. sexual intercourse, copulation. to have sex (with) : to engage in sexual intercourse (with).Now the most common general sense. Sometimes, when denoting sexual activity other than conventional heterosexual intercourse, preceded by modifying adjective, as gay, oral, phone sex, etc.: see the first element.”
Yes, the OED definition sounds a little more serious, and pretty much in line with contemporary use.
Donald: have you ever read the opening notes to a dictionary? You might be surprised to learn that dictionary editors, pretty much across the board, consider it their job to DEscribe, not PREscribe, common uses of words. And those uses are changing and growing so quickly that any print dictionary is out of date by the time it hits the shelves. The older your Merriam-Webster is, the less help it’s going to be in sorting out language that happens in the here and now.
A recent “hot topic” in the area of religion-and-politics was the question of whether Mormonism is a “cult,” which arose in discussions about GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Check any Internet forum discussing that topic and you’ll find people creating a great deal of confusion by tossing around four or five different definitions of the term “cult,” all of which can be found in this or that dictionary.
If you want to use a dictionary to decide who is and isn’t speaking the truth, that’s your prerogative, I guess … but no dictionary is intended for that purpose, and you might end up with some pretty strange conclusions.
Wasn’t it Dr. Ruth Westheimer who said the brain was the primary sex organ? (She also said, “Ask your partner: ‘Do you like my penis?’” which in that funny little yiddshe mama voice of hers is one of the funniest things you’ll ever hear.)
I’ve practiced abstinence too and had absolutely no issues at all with what he posted. He raises some extremely valid points on the *whys” women and men make this choice that have absolutely nothing to do with the freedom and peace of mind that can come with not having sex but let’s not fool ourselves, this is a HUGELY complex issue and a lot of our own emotional stuff gets intertwined. Many Christians can use abstinence as a way of hiding from those emotional issues. So he’s right to list those as a possibility, those of you who are taking these words as John making some kind of outright condemnation on purity or decisions about sex that are along the purity continuum are borderline creepy in your projection.
There you go, DR. Exactly. This is so complicated. It’s a spider web. The decision to be chaste or not has so much to do with so much. Reducing this to a religiously-related decision probably misses the point except with the most simple or single-minded folks.
There is so much input these days re. sexuality. Most of it bad. Most of it cliche, pandering crap that has nothing to do with people and everything to do with selling something (or nothing).
My only advice to the OP is to ignore everything but her own intuititions re. her sexuality. Don’t let anyone other than herself dictate who or what she is. That includes the religious noise. It’s irrelevant. Be true to thyself, OP.
John, if you’re the Christian Dan Savage, I’d consider that high praise indeed!
High praise for Dan Savage, anyway…
Just an observation: I’m not sure when vaginal intercourse became less intimate than oral sex, but it’s definitely switched. How one can consider one’s self a virgin while having a vigorous sex life via oral sex is kind of beyond me. And BTW, I think both are perfectly fine regardless of marital status. Only maturity, and mutual consent matter.
That’s a great question. What needs to get touched & by what for something to be considered “sex”?
I know in the porn world the dividing line between “soft core” and “hard core” is whether anything other than clothing actually comes in contact anybody’s plumbing, if you know what I mean & I think you do…
You know, I actually always wondered where the dividing line between “sex” and “non-sex” were. I mean, there’s a huge range of experiences between a crush and hand-holding and kissing and full-blown love with sex to crack the plaster. And are we to judge based on acts, or the feelings one experiences? If I mentally check out during coerced sex, does that mean I’m still abstinent, or not? What if I’m having some mind-blowing feelings while just kissing? The more I thought about it the more I found the concept of virginity and abstinence poorly defined and hard to assess.
OP: I think this is a very interesting question you raise, and one that I hope to be able to examine at some point in my classes. (I’m a Sociology major). I actually just posted above and said that the definition of sex is fluid, and sex really is what you define it. Some people consider having sex to be heavy petting/fondling, etc. To them, that is sex. To others, the definition might be different.
The idea of abstinence as something other than just physically abstaining from sex – the idea of emotional abstinence – is something I never thought of before. Growing up in the Southern Baptist church, I was taught that things were black and white, and that we shouldn’t ask questions.
These concepts and ideas are so much more complex than black and white, right and wrong, etc. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Rhys
I’m not a regular reader of the site, but since you seem interested in the subject of how people define terms like “sex” and “virginity,” I thought I might recommend reading Hanne Blank’s “Virgin: The Untouched History.” It’s a really interesting academic look at social constructions of virginity and their implications. It really drives home the point that the more a person examines the concept, the less sure of what it is they become.
Thanks, JPT – I will definitely check it out!
Rhys
Your definition of sex (that is is indeed fluid) is totally correct. The idea that one is a virgin until they engage in P in V intercourse is ridiculous. In that case, a lesbian with a healthy and active sex life would be considered a ‘virgin’ her whole life! Which, of course, is nonsense.
However, to a medieval man interested in paternity, she would be as virgin as any potential husband could hope for, and her desire or lack of same for sex with a man would not be of interest to him. It’s only since the advent of fairly reliable birth control that virginity has been defined in ways other than not having penis-in-vagina sex, and even more recently that DNA testing has eliminated doubts about paternity. Intimacy defining sex is even more recent a concept than love defining marriage.
Ohhh, I’m guilty of that one. “Nope, we’re not having sex!” while doing everything up to.
← Older Comments
Newer Comments →