How important is abstinence?

[SoulWeaver]

13 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

Question for the posters who have indicated they feel abstinence until marriage is important to them for their own moral/spiritual/personal reasons, but that they get why it wouldn't be important to everyone and wouldn't necessarily think less of someone who didn't live that way.

...Suppose that you met a person. You dated for a while. Your personalities matched and there was romantic chemistry. You were seriously thinking about marrying them. And with you this person is willing to wait until marriage because they really like you and they respect how you feel about it, and they want to try and make it work--they'll wait until your ready.  

But you find out that before meeting you, this person had a rather active sex life. With multiple partners.

Everything else about the relationship is great and feels right--is the sole fact that they were not abstinent before they met you a dealbreaker???

Could you marry that person?
How much would it bother you that they had other sexual partners before you?
Would you feel insecure about having sex for the time with a partner who you knew was substantially more experienced then you?

...or would it not really  matter at all, so long as they respected you and didn't try to make you do anything you were uncomfortable with and committed to waiting for you to be ready?
 

I most certainly am not qualified to make that decision on my own, and would turn to fasting and prayer to ask God to help me out. If He gave me the go-ahead, then of course I would still marry her, but if He said no, that isn't the right person for you, then of course not.
There are reasons marrying someone who wasn't abstinent raises concerns for some of us. For example, my future wife is someone I need to be able to trust to help raise my future children to follow God's commandments and life the life He asks them to live. Since abstinence is one of the things He commands, there would of course be some difficulty involved should my children discover their mother didn't follow that rule - I mean, I'm in a family of 21 cousins overall, my own family of me and 2 siblings included, so it's not like I've never heard all the times kids try to use the 'but you let Alex do it!' argument.
On the other hand, though, we do have a recorded case of a prophet marrying a harlot on God's orders, so it's possible God may look at the woman in question, understand the full extent of circumstances involved, and still tell me that yes, I should marry her even though I'm her seventh man or something like that, in which case no, it doesn't matter, because God said don't worry about it. While this scenario is fairly unlikely in my opinion, I'm not going to rule out the possibility.

9 hours ago, JimmyBeans said:

Thank you for that, I am LDS as well. So then you know what I mean when I want to learn the reason behind the rules right? I don't want to sound like I lack faith or anything. but I totally think it helps to understand the "why" of what we standards we live so we can explain it better to others, and to help our own testimony as well, and like others said before it helps to understand the other side. I have had a problem with judging others in the past for things like this so this thread is one of the things im doing to open my eyes a bit.

On the other hand @Shoblongoo “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.” -John 8:7 Im sure with your knowledge you know the context, but just let me know if you don't. Pretty much that is considered a sin, but in my church (along with many others) sins can be forgiven and we all are imperfect. If you saw my earlier posts I said some things regarding soulmates and finding to "perfect match" to which I argued that they don't exist, and that the perfect relationship is something that is built between to willing people. So if that person was willing to accept my morals and willing to make our eternal goals come true than of course I would marry her. 

So in short, God forgives everyone so we should too.

Yeah, I most certainly get the idea of wanting to know the why, and don't worry about sounding like you lack faith, your faith is between you and God, and isn't anybody else's business. It does help to understand both sides so we can better explain and know where the other guy is coming from as well.

[Lord Raven]

19 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

@Shoblongoo I would ask them to get tested for STDs, and probably would ask them not to wear a white dress on our wedding day, as much as that might not make sense to a lot of people. I need people to know that I married someone who made mistakes and is ready to move on from them.

I think you may want to rethink this somewhat. It almost sounds like you kinda want her to shame herself by outing that she's not a virgin. (Which is why I'm saying that shaming comes from everyone, because this really does feel like shaming, even though it's a Christian tradition).

I mean I get you're pretty religious, but to a very large extent that is between her, you, and whatever deity you believe in. Not something to parade about in public. However, if she doesn't mind it then it's whatever. I just think the implications of asking someone to not wear a white dress is just mean.

[Silver-Haired Maiden]

Alright just to add my two cents:

I don't care about my partner's sexual history so long as they remain loyal. I don't think it's rude to ask them to be tested if you know their past to ensure both of your health. It's not rude, it's health safety. Now insecure about performance is something else entirely and I think most people have that no matter the circumstances. That can be overcome.

Marriage isn't for everyone but if he didn't wanna get married I would probably leave. That's just me personally though. There's also other things to consider in that like legal issues and stuff to come later. There are certain rights under the law that only a spouse can have and if whoever I was with wanted to deny me that I don't see it working. Not to mention I don't want kids so...

Now that is something that's a deal breaker. Kids. I do not want kids and no one is going to push me into having them. I also know that it's a deal breaker for many so I try to be up front about it.

A dress is not that important. The color of the dress even less so. However white is a color associated with sexual virginity and so many women won't wear white if they've been with multiple partners. It's personal preference but not a big thing.

[Shoblongoo]

My wife wore a red gown at our wedding.

Not to make any statement about shame or purity or not being a virgin--that wasn't even something we were thinking about.

She wore red because in Chinese culture, red is for celebrations. White is for funerals. When I was showing her traditional american wedding gowns and veils she was like "Wtf!? Did someone die??? That's a funeral dress!!!" 

...so thats why we were getting those odd looks...

lol I didn't even realize "only virgins wear white at their wedding" was still a thing. 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[ping]

27 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

lol I didn't even realize "only virgins wear white at their wedding" was still a thing. 

Well, my sister married in a white dress while carrying around a 2yo daughter and a clearly visible baby bump, in a rural area of one of the more conservative states of Germany, and I still didn't notice anyone objecting. ;)

[Moblin Major General]

I live in the South, probably the most religious area in all of the US. That's still very much a thing, and of course I would accept her wearing what she wants to, but I don't want both my grandmothers talking shit about her wearing white and her not being a virgin. Granted, they might not live to see my wedding, as I have never dated anyone ever, not even in middle school.

[SullyMcGully]

6 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...so in that hypothetical, to have any kind of working relationship, your partner would have to explicitly tell you they now view their active sexual history as a "mistake" they have come to regret, and for which they are seeking forgiveness? 

But if they had no regrets and just had a live-and-let-live attitude about it--i.e. if they aren't bothered that you want to wait until marriage, you shouldn't be bothered that they were sexually active with prior partners--there's no way that could work for you? You're too far apart spiritually and ethically to be romantically compatible?  

Even if your personalities and hobbies synced up perfectly and the physical attraction was there and everything else about the relationship was spot-on?  

Well, honestly, if I'm going to acknowledge that the healthiest sexual relationships are built on commitment and exclusivity, then I'm going to have to acknowledge that any previous relationship my partner or I may have had (which, judging by the fact that it is not currently ongoing, was not built on commitment and exclusivity) was a risk, and, potentially, a mistake.

I don't believe being in the same place with hobbies and such or being physically attracted to the other person are the qualifiers for a good marriage. In a long-lasting marriage, the partners should grow together, not spread apart. I personally think that it is more important that a couple work towards the same goal than start from the same place. So basically, instead of it being all about "we're in the right place now to be in love with each other and get married" it's more like "Are we going the same place? Are our goals compatible? If I put the other person in this relationship before me, will I be able to live with that? What will I have to sacrifice for their good?"

If there's anything I know for a psychological truth, it is that people change. In a spouse, you would want someone you can change along with, not someone you loved only for how they were at a particular point in your life.

That's just my two cents. I'm not a marriage expert, so don't take it too seriously.

[JimmyBeans]

10 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

...so in that hypothetical, to have any kind of working relationship, your partner would have to explicitly tell you they now view their active sexual history as a "mistake" they have come to regret, and for which they are seeking forgiveness? 

But if they had no regrets and just had a live-and-let-live attitude about it--i.e. if they aren't bothered that you want to wait until marriage, you shouldn't be bothered that they were sexually active with prior partners--there's no way that could work for you? You're too far apart spiritually and ethically to be romantically compatible?  

Even if your personalities and hobbies synced up perfectly and the physical attraction was there and everything else about the relationship was spot-on?  

Let me clarify "Eternal Goals" for you real quick as that was vague on my part. I would want to marry someone who wants to get sealed in the temple as much as I do, and to be worthy to get into the temple you need a recommend from a bishop and as sex outside or marriage is a sin she would need to repent to get that recommend.

This doesn't mean I would just flat out dump her though, but if she was willing to work with me towards those goals I would be still more than willing to marry, The point is it would not be fair for me to make her lie to herself that her past actions were a mistake when she truly doesn't believe they were, but that can be changed over time, and If I saw it as something that could be achievable I would be more than willing to try.

I'm not looking for someone who follows the standards as much as I do, I wan't someone who shares the same goals with me so it might be hard to answer that last part depending on her goals because I would never get serious with anyone who didn't share my goals in the first place. Don't take that to harsh though, as even if that lady wasn't baptized but had the same goals as me it could work out.

[Res]

Incidentally the Western white wedding dress was not popular until one was worn by Queen Victoria, and the symbolism of purity is a modern attachment to the color. In prior centuries people had largely worn their best dresses, whatever color they were, as new dresses were expensive and would have been worn again and again. 

Going back to sex being an impulse: It’s not, not for everyone, not even for all teenagers. I, personally, can take or leave sex. I enjoy it but if someone asked me to remain celibate for a year I’d have no problem refraining. And even if it is an impulse, it’s not necessarily one that ‘ought’ to be curbed. Any shame, stigma or other negative associations with sex nearly all (I would say all, but I’m sure there’s an exception or two) come from religion, and for many people sex is ‘just’ another regular activity. 

Also @Shoblongoo I got married for visa reasons, too! I’d also be happy to have remained cohabiting otherwise. 

[Shoblongoo]

13 hours ago, Res said:

And even if it is an impulse, it’s not necessarily one that ‘ought’ to be curbed. 

 

13 hours ago, Res said:

for many people sex is ‘just’ another regular activity. 

Yeah; for me, that's what it really comes down to. When you don't subscribe to any religious philosophy or moral code that puts sex on some special, spiritual pedestal--there's nothing regrettable or shameful about it. Its just a thing to do. 

__________

...now there's still some clear moral imperatives to control yourself and not behave like an animal...

1) "No means no." Willing partners only; do not involve anyone who does not wish to be involved.

2) If you're in a committed relationship with someone with the express understanding that the relationship is exclusive and that breaking exclusivity would be extremely hurtful to your partner--don't cheat. Be good to your partner and honor your commitment. 

3)  Don't use people or play them false--Like if you know someone is looking for a serious relationship and you're just looking for a casual fling, don't make empty promises about where you see things going just to get them into bed. Never misrepresent your intentions or put your partner in a position where they walk away from an encounter feeling "used." Sex should be a mutually enjoyable and exciting for all parties involved; if you're getting your pleasure from giving someone else a negative experience and that doesn't bother you, you're an asshole. 

Promiscuity is not the complete abandonment of ethics and standards; the application of the moral directive "...do no harm..." is just a purely humanistic one.

Where the totality of "harm" to be avoided is wronging a fellow human-being. And purported harms of a more esoteric or spiritual nature are non-factors. 

...if that makes any sense at all to the religiously-minded...

Edited March 20, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Moblin Major General]

It makes sense, but I don't know how many virgins know that any unwanted sexual encounter, even one they end up conceding to, constitutes rape. And the "use" thing is also a part of it when someone who isn't a virgin considers bedding a virgin a "conquest." Many religious people in my vein consider sex both a pinnacle, and also not. I get that humans are biologically animals, but in many ways, we can rise above our instincts. Anyone who has casual sex for procreation is either desperate to have a child, or wants to ruin someone's everything. The former has any number of alternative (though many are rather expensive), the latter is a genuinely evil thing to do. Also, the concept of legitimacy isn't a concern nowadays, as governments force the noncustodial parent to care for their children in some capacity. No one can be considered the classic definition of bastard anymore, at least not in the first world. When you have to be provided for no matter your parentage, there isn't as much room for de jure discrimination.

[Shoblongoo]

1 hour ago, Hylian Air Force said:

 I don't know how many virgins know that any unwanted sexual encounter, even one they end up conceding to, constitutes rape.

Weak resistance is not consent. 

Shame on us as a society if that isn't common knowledge 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Excellen Browning]

48 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

Weak resistance is not consent. 

Shame on us as a society if that isn't common knowledge 

Out of interest, what makes something a rape, legally?(or how do you prove something was a rape?) I always assumed a clear "no" or other strong resistance, but I'm curious to know.

[SullyMcGully]

I think I can agree with you from a social and legal perspective, Shoblongoo. But on a personal level, I just think a multitude of partners without any sort of commitment would just make sex cheaper, like how a government can cause inflation by printing too much money. It's not just a religious belief, I know too many people who can back it up from personal experience and I've seen statistics and studies that indicate sexual intimacy has a deeper psychological and emotional effect and is not just a physical thing. That's my personal belief, though, and I don't think others have to believe the same way I do. I just think I'm right.

[Shoblongoo]

36 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

what makes something a rape, legally?

Lack of consent to the sexual encounter. Rape is not the presence of resistance; its the absence of consent.

i.e. If you have sex with someone when they're black-out drunk and they have no idea whats going on. That's a rape.

The reason sex between an adult and an underaged person outside of marriage (damn it Kentucky) is always treated as a rape under the criminal code is that the law holds minors lack capacity to consent to sex with adults.   

36 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:

(how do you prove something was a rape) I always assumed a clear "no" or other strong resistance, but I'm curious to know.

...a clear "no" or other strong resistance would be best evidence of a rape, from a prosecutorial standpoint. 

Other common evidence on which a prosecutor could rely would be that the rapist threatened physical violence, and the victim reasonably believed she would be injured or killed if she resisted.  (especially if the rapist was armed or much larger than the victim or had a reputation for violence)  

Evidence that the victim was heavily intoxicated and that the victim's state of intoxication would have been readily apparent to any reasonable observer is likewise usable to build the case. (especially if the rapist is the one who gave the victim the drugs or alcohol)
 

26 minutes ago, SullyMcGully said:

 I just think a multitude of partners without any sort of commitment would just make sex cheaper.

There really is no right or wrong answer here; if that's whats in your heart, that's how you gotta live your life.

I never felt that way. And I personally was glad that when I met the woman I wanted to marry and we were together for the first time--I wasn't an awkward virgin. I had the benefit of experience and I knew exactly how to approach the situation. 

I wouldn't have wanted to do it any other way. 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[SuperIb]

On 3/18/2018 at 11:40 PM, SullyMcGully said:

Read some statistics and they'll scare the heck out of you if you think raising a boy without a father figure will probably turn out better in the end.

...Any specific sources in mind? Just curious. Does this also apply the other way around? (i.e. raising girl w/o mother figure) - Also, based off the quoted bit, I'm assuming you're referring to single mothers?

[Moblin Major General]

24 minutes ago, SuperIb said:

...Any specific sources in mind? Just curious. Does this also apply the other way around? (i.e. raising girl w/o mother figure) - Also, based off the quoted bit, I'm assuming you're referring to single mothers?

I doubt it would go the other way at all. It requires that a father have custody of his daughter without any woman in his life at all besides her. This is a rarity, one that would probably not result in having any children at all.

[Shoblongoo]

24 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

I doubt it would go the other way at all. It requires that a father have custody of his daughter without any woman in his life at all besides her. This is a rarity, one that would probably not result in having any children at all.

...becoming less and less true these days, tbh. We're now seeing more men file for custody after the breakdown of domestic relations, and less willingness on the part of judges to just presume that children belong with their mothers when custody is in dispute. 

I saw single dads back when I was doing family law. Not as common as single mothers, and occurs mostly in cases where the mother is abusive or on drugs or mentally ill. 

But its way more common than you'd think it would be.

From what I've seen, one of the driving factors behind the uptick is the opioid epidemic. Its becoming increasingly common now that you have parents out of the picture because of addiction to heroin. And that daddy has to step in to take sole custody, because mommy is a junky.  

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Shoblongoo

[Jotari]

12 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

...becoming less and less true these days, tbh. We're now seeing more men file for custody after the breakdown of domestic relations, and less willingness on the part of judges to just presume that children belong with their mothers when custody is in dispute. 

I saw single dads back when I was doing family law. Not as common as single mothers, and occurs mostly in cases where the mother is abusive or on drugs or mentally ill. 

But its way more common than you'd think it would be.

From what I've seen, one of the driving factors behind the uptick is the opioid epidemic. Its becoming increasingly common now that you have parents out of the picture because of addiction to heroin. And that daddy has to step in to take sole custody, because mommy is a junky.  

 

I gather in cases where both parents are presented as equally capeable, the woman is practially always going to get the kids though, right?

[SullyMcGully]

6 hours ago, SuperIb said:

...Any specific sources in mind? Just curious. Does this also apply the other way around? (i.e. raising girl w/o mother figure) - Also, based off the quoted bit, I'm assuming you're referring to single mothers?

I was referring to single mothers. Single fathers exist (I know a few personally) but there are certainly less of them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/13/why-dads-matter-according-science/377125001/

There are several studies that show children with fathers are less likely to commit crimes and more likely to hold steady jobs. I don't know about what happens when the genders are reversed, but I doubt that it's any good.  

[SuperIb]

2 hours ago, SullyMcGully said:

I was referring to single mothers. Single fathers exist (I know a few personally) but there are certainly less of them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/06/13/why-dads-matter-according-science/377125001/

There are several studies that show children with fathers are less likely to commit crimes and more likely to hold steady jobs. I don't know about what happens when the genders are reversed, but I doubt that it's any good.  

Oh, thank you~! After reading the article, it doesn't actually seem to be specifically about the impacts of a father than I originally thought, especially towards the end. I think you might have exaggerated the idea of not raising a boy with a father figure a little bit by saying it'll "scare the heck out of you if you think raising a boy without a father figure will probably turn out better in the end" lmao. Either way, interesting article! Thanks for sharing!

Sorry if I worded things weirdly, I just finished working on an essay assignment and my thoughts are kind of jumbled about rn, haha.

[Res]

14 hours ago, Hylian Air Force said:

It makes sense, but I don't know how many virgins know that any unwanted sexual encounter, even one they end up conceding to, constitutes rape.

Not just virgins!

One harm society can do is counsel to people that it is their duty to have sex with their spouse. I have had several friends seek counseling when their marriage was in difficulties only to be told the solution was to submit more often to their husbands. 

And not just married couples - a lot of people in relationships may be pressured to have sex, and not just by their partner - sometimes their peers can exert pressure, too. 

Generally society does a crap job of teaching consent. It begins at an early age, with forcing kids to hug or kiss family members. 

Re. Boys being raised without father figures - there’s so many factors that need to be considered that it’s impossible to make a sweeping statement. As this link says:

The biggest problem with the fatherlessness label is that it oversimplified. It doesn’t reveal why some children in the studies are without a father.  

Was it caused by a divorce?  

Is the mother a widow?  

Did a female couple raise the child?  

These details completely transform study outcomes. For example, boys raised by a mother and stepfather (a two parent home) have the highest negative outcomes, much more than those raised by a single mother. In fact, juvenile delinquency and substance abuse are highest among children raised by parents in hostile marriages (two parent homes).  

High conflict levels at home inherently cause the greatest damage to children’s well being. Consequently, an intensely negative parent relationship can do far more damage than a missing parent.

[Excellen Browning]

11 hours ago, Jotari said:

I gather in cases where both parents are presented as equally capeable, the woman is practially always going to get the kids though, right?

No, or at least not necessarily. This seems to vary per state, but if dad wants shared custody, he can expect to get it.

@Res that article is uhh not good. Like wow what a shocker there are men out there who grew up without father figures and turned out alright. Same with the divorce statistics. Divorce and otherwise unhappy homes producing unhappy kids, I mean who knew? But there are plenty of divorced couples with mom as sole custodian, and plenty who have shared custody, and its rather easy to compare these two groups.

Edited March 21, 2018 by Excellen Browning

[Res]

I’m not sure what you’re saying. ‘Boys need a father figure’ is generally used as a argument to shame people into staying in bad marriages and to denounce non-traditional family setups, i.e. lesbian couples adopting. 

However, I do agree with most of that USAToday article and would place the hierarchy as good father figure > no father figure (although there’s nearly always someone around to act as one - be it a teacher or whatever) > bad father figure.

 

 

[Excellen Browning]

52 minutes ago, Res said:

I’m not sure what you’re saying. ‘Boys need a father figure’ is generally used as a argument to shame people into staying in bad marriages and to denounce non-traditional family setups, i.e. lesbian couples adopting. 

However, I do agree with most of that USAToday article and would place the hierarchy as good father figure > no father figure (although there’s nearly always someone around to act as one - be it a teacher or whatever) > bad father figure.

I'm not saying "boys need a father figure", I'm saying kids in general should be kept from abandonment, and from sole custody by one parent unless there's some good reasons to make it so.

And the other thing I'm saying is that the author of that article should adress the actual issue and not do some cherry picking and declaring it all not as bad "as often portrayed".