Confessions of Someone Who Didn’t Wait

I read with interest the post called “Glorious Nipples: My introduction,” which described some premarital sexual activity between a couple that later married and saved actual intercourse for the wedding night. As a teenager, my girlfriend and I eventually got physical, with her becoming pregnant shortly after we began having sex. We married for a decade. It was rough, and we have now been divorced for nearly six years. To this day, she is the only woman I have dated or had sex with.

The reason I mention all of that is because I was raised in extremely conservative Christian circles. In fact, we were often accused of being Mennonites or Amish. Growing up, the extent of marriage and relationship advice was pretty much, “Don’t touch each other while dating; if you have sex before marriage, you are used up and worthless; and, if you are physical before marriage, you will have a very unhappy and unfulfilled marriage.”

My marriage seemed like the perfect embodiment of God’s retribution for having “bumped our bits” before marriage. It was bad in so many ways, though I would wager it was mostly for reasons entirely unrelated to the simple act of premarital sex. (Fortunately, I eventually came to know and understand God in a way I hadn’t in years past and do not view Him as the spiteful, vengeful deity intent on punishing me like I had been taught.)

I often dream of marrying the woman God intends for me to marry. I fantasize about a relationship in which God restores the years the locusts have eaten. And, I am tremendously fearful of doing things wrong a second time around.

The idea of abstaining from all physical contact so as to freshly unwrap the divine gifts from our Heavenly Father on our wedding night is a huge turn-on. On the flip side, fantasies of bringing a girlfriend to orgasm before marriage, or even recalling the activities of my youth, can be pretty hot as well.

Perhaps my ramblings could best be boiled down to this:
— I have been guilty of stepping outside God’s plan, and I do not want to do that again. I am acutely aware of the consequences for doing so and the shame, pain, and heartache that can arise from doing so.
— I am equally aware that many things I was taught as steadfast moral issues while growing up are actually nowhere in the Bible. (That’s one of the most awesome things about having a truly personal relationship with Christ – He will reveal Himself as HE wants you to know Him, not as MAN wants you to know Him!)

So, are the premarital activities described in the first segment of the Glorious Nipple’s story legitimately Biblically-permissible, so long as you simply “don’t park your Batmobile in the Bat Cave?” Can unmarried couples still engage in sexual exploration, release, and passion without sinning or jeopardizing a future in a God-focused marriage?

Click on a heart to thank the author of this story!

Average rating / 5. Vote count:

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

We are sorry that this post was not one of your favorites!

Help us understand why.

36 replies
  1. CrazyHappyLoved says:

    We've been having a conversation similar to this on the post "Does 'Body Count' Matter?" Some say the OT prohibitions against sex before marriage are not binding, and I have to agree, but only to a point. Yes, Christ nailed the Law to the Cross and took our punishment for all the ways we fall short of God's glorious plan for us, but that doesn't mean we can't know his will for us by wisely observing how he instructed his people back then. Here's something I said over there:

    The way I look at it is this: If God made a rule for the Hebrews to do something a certain way, I believe he had a good reason for it. God said the daughters among his people should be virgins until they marry. Some will say it was because of the financial rights of the father and the right of the husband to know that his heir was of his own progeny… and that those are social issues with which we need not concern ourselves in this day and age.

    But Paul teaches in 2 Timothy that "All scripture is God-breathed and is useful for instruction, for conviction, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, fully equipped for every good work."

    I firmly believe that the Prime Directive of the entire Word of God can be summed up in one word: Love. Jesus said it thus: Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind and your neighbor as yourself. Is it loving to have sex with someone that I have not committed myself to for life? To accept from someone a gift that they can never then give to the one who will love them that way? Is it loving to myself to cheapen the sexual experience by spreading myself around? (I did, and their low value of me—that I wasn't worthy of commitment, not worth marrying—lowered my value in my own estimation.)

    So even if the "value" of the bride price isn't an issue anymore, self-worth is. For my daughters, I want them to know they are worth waiting for and committing to. For my son, I want him to protect the self-worth of any girl he has an interest in, even if she's not the one his heart desires. And for all three, I hope they get to first experience the sheer beauty of the sexual union with a spouse who loves them second only to the Lord.

    • elventurist says:

      @CHL, excellent, and I strongly agree with you! Culture and history aside, I believe it is God's plan and desire that sex be shared only between a husband and wife.

      Like so many things in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, I view sex as the metaphorical or tangible representation of something much greater and deeper. (Yes, I see the pun, too, you degenerates 😂 ) It is the physical manifestation of the union God desires with us, His bride – a union, the sampling of which, He has also imparted to us, His creation. The primary purpose of sex is not pleasure; it's foremost function is not procreation or physical release – it is spiritual and emotional bonding betwixt husband and wife, God's earthly example of His marriage to us. The vulnerability, the total surrender to another, the enthusiasm, the passion, the placing of another's desires above yours, are all designed to build what God intended as an inseverable bond.

      Society and even much of the church and purity culture movement would have me believe that I, as a man, am not supposed to be wired to think that way, but, oh well. I'm not trying to over-spiritualize sex, it's just the longer I live the more I see and understand the true complexity and unfathomable genius of God's design.

      All that being said, and with the understanding that intercourse is to be reserved for marriage, my question is, rather, where do we draw the line before marriage? What is permissible in God's eyes? I've known couples who didn't so much as hold hands before they said "I do." I've known other couples who did everything except put the penis in the vagina so that they could technically remain virgins until their wedding night.

      So, what is appropriate and God-approved physical contact before marriage? Is dry humping (as described in the story referenced) okay? Is petting and fondling permissible as well? What about oral sex?

      I can attest that once physical contact begins, it can be a slippery slope. However, I also believe the slippery slope argument to be a logical fallacy that often doesn't lead to any productive outcome. I can't help but wonder if things progress more rapidly towards premarital sex for Christian couples due to feelings of guilt for other sexual acts in which they may have engaged. It's sort of like, "Well, we're already sinning, why not just go all the way?" Whereas, if certain things are permissible, the attitude may instead be, "I am going to eat you out to a downright lovely orgasm. You're gonna enjoy it, I'm gonna enjoy it, and then we shall bid adieux for the night, continuing to save the most sacred of pleasures for marriage."

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      I think the fact that we even have questions about it attests to the lack of "right and wrong" line-drawing in the Bible when it comes to sexual activity that doesn't include intercourse. That being the case, we should only draw those lines for ourselves and not others, based on our self-examination and (dare I say it) fear level that we might do something we'd regret. I, for one, understand the betrothal period historically to be one of getting to know one another and developing emotional bonds in preparation for the wedding night. It may have been permissible to explore one another's body since betrothal was considered the first phase of marriage. These are just my thoughts on how God's people might have looked on it, but barring clear teaching in the scripture and given a commitment to marriage, I believe more allowances were made. It may explain the different levels of punishment for the "same" offense given in the OT laws.

      As WaitingHardly pointed out, the Song of Solomon does seem to describe sexual activity (but not intercourse) between the beloveds prior to the wedding, though we can't be sure of the timing.

    • SecondMarge says:

      Really the sex is procreation argument? I thought that one died 100 years ago. So never get married or have sex if you don’t want children? Slippery slope? Touch her nipple and the dominoes fall until you put your seed in her? I think we are far past debating if touching and “dry humping” are allowed because of course they are.
      Sex is a holy act? Sex outside of marriage is a sin? This is the fall back position. But why is it a sin and what is a sin? Because 2000 plus years ago conditions and survival rate for a mother and child was low but higher with the father present and protecting and providing. And sins with the whip of hell and carrot of heaven were Gods tool to get mankind to stop at the stop sign. Sex is pleasurable so we will do it and therefore keep the population going.

      Is there value in waiting? To some. Should we take the decision lightly? No. Will our life be better based on waiting or not? Clearly not. Is it some glorious spiritual act? Birds do it, bees do it.

      Interesting to me is that despite the vast majority of people having sex before marriage, we have sex much later in life than in the time the Bible was written to help mankind. But man not God has pushed marriage to much later in life. What once was marriage right after our hormones drove our desire is now wait until educated and you have a good job.

      Virginity until 13 is one thing, until 26 is another. Does God want us to wait until marriage? Form your own opinion, I believe we have to decide if the reasons to wait still exist and they do not.

      Making sex in marriage as pleasurable as possible is the purpose MH helps us fulfill.

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      I would argue that marriage is defined by the act of having sex. "And the two shall become one flesh." And if you believe the Bible, marriage (and therefore sex) *is* an analogy instituted by God for the union between Christ and the Church. We are to be devoted to One only, just as we are to be married to (and have sex with) one only. That was the plan, but mankind chose our own way instead, hence all the rulemaking. Were there practical reasons for reserving sex to a devoted couple whose union was sanctioned by their families? Sure. Do modern times negate all those practicalities? I'd say not. Yet the practicalities don't negate the spiritual meaning behind the commitment to unity with One lover meant to be represented there.

    • Frankie says:

      CrazyHappyLoved – we agree with you. elventurist – one additional comment. It is sad when premarital sex starts a marriage in a difficult situation. One bad decision doesn't condemn a marriage to failure. A couple we know "had" to get married because she was pregnant. They committed to making their marriage work and it did. A few years ago, they celebrated their 50th.

    • elventurist says:

      @SecondMarge – As I said, I wasn't trying to over-spiritualize sex, though I do believe God's intention for it contains a strong a spiritual element and great symbolism. As MH pointed out in another comment, I was not saying that sex was for procreation or even simply for pleasure, though both are most definitely also functions of sex. (My reason for even mentioning "procreation-only" was because that is an argument I've heard from many in Christendom, particularly within the more conservative circles in which I was raised.)

      You mentioned that, "Birds do it, bees do it," and that is true. Yet, out of all of God's creation, we humans are the only ones called to a higher purpose. In the book "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis, he explores the topic of creation, free will, and the fall of man. (Highly, highly recommend reading it!) I find his views on creation, particularly the creation of man, to be absolutely fascinating and a perfectly logical bridge to span the gulf between science/evolution and typical 6-day creation belief held by most Christians. He posits that man was no different from the "birds and the bees" and the mammals that roamed the earth until God imparted to him cognition, free will, and a soul, thereby giving the "breath of life" to mankind and setting him apart from all the rest of creation. Did man still eat and drink and procreate like the rest of creation? Absolutely, but his purpose for existence was completely different. This, I believe, ties in with the purpose of sex – not simply for procreating, not simply for pleasure, but to also symbolize something much greater.

      (And, NO, I am not starting a debate, let alone an argument, on creation.)

    • MarriageHeat says:

      Waiting, remember that discussion posts are for talking about these hard questions, what we believe, and why. You may understand the scriptures differently than we do, but your stating so calmly and reasonably can still add greatly to the conversation.

  2. kdm1984 says:

    Good discussion. I was raised in what I thought was a conservative Christian environment, but which wasn't actually that conservative (I'm almost 37 now, and I have much more knowledge of what conservative views actually are). My parents never gave any moral advice on sex. They didn't teach that I had to wait before marriage, and when I asked them if viewing porn was a sin, they said that's something I needed to decide for myself. I did have premarital relations with my beloved many years before our marriage. Like my parents, he doesn't view such a thing as sin. He's the only one I've ever been with, but I wish my parents had been more knowledgeable about conservative interpretive norms of the Bible more when I was growing up. I still have a lot of trouble fitting into conservative Christian communities now because my parents were so lax.

    • elventurist says:

      @kdm1984 – Um, no, you were definitely not raised in a CONSERVATIVE Christian environment 😅 If you want to hear about conservative, I've got some stories. ("Dancing with one's wife in the privacy of their home with the blinds closed MAY be okay, so long as it doesn't raise any 'undue desires.'" Yeah.
      And a favorite of mine – "The reason we have to cover our elbows is because they look like breasts and may cause men to become aroused.") I mean, my parents weren't nearly as conservative as some and definitely weren't prudish about marital sex, and they've even apologized to me for some of the teaching and preaching I was subjected to growing up. My parents didn't espouse things like the notion that spouses shouldn't arouse each other or that elbows looked like breasts or that looking at a girl equalled lust, but there were many teachers, preachers, and leaders with whom I came in contact who did hold and preach such beliefs. So, yes, there are Christians out there who are far more conservative than you can probably imagine.

  3. Waiting Hardly says:

    Okay, emboldened by MH’s thoughtful answer I will proceed.
    When we look up the definition of fornication in its original usage it means sex with a prostitute. A fairly good case could be made for it being sex with a idol temple prostitute. It does not mean, as some dictionaries have tried to assert, all sex outside of marriage. What was wanted was for daughters to be virgins so they would fetch a higher monetary bride price. If someone violated a virgin (not as rape) he had to pay her father the bride price to make up for it. Hoping you’re not in a situation where you would be buying a wife lol.
    So sex, according to the context of the Bible, was that which would deprive a woman of virginity by intercourse. It it makes babies, it’s sex. Anything else, including oral stimulation and masturbation (solo or mutual), is not sex in the biblical sense.
    As an example, take a look at the God-breathed Scripture called Song of Songs, or Song of Solomon. In spite of attempts to allegorize this book, it is nonetheless ancient written erotica. It describes things like oral stimulation and sexual contact before the wedding night, which I think doesn’t happen until near the middle of the book.
    What the Bible condemns is cult prostitution, homosexual male penetration, bestiality, incest, and sex with the spouse of another man. As long as you are not doing those, I would say the Bible speaks in an approving manner of physical expressions of love. We should avoid speaking about sexual intercourse or bodies like a commodity we give to the most worthy bidder, as that is dehumanizing.
    I realize many will disagree, and that’s okay. One book I highly recommend, although I disagree with the author’s views on remarriage, is “Sex In The Bible: the untold truth” by Evan Turner. Very grounded in scripture but still short and free in the e-book version.

  4. sarah k says:

    I am Lisa, Sarah k's 23 y.o. daughter. How far may we go in touching each other when dating? It has always been the rule in our house that sexual contact of genitals is for self and spouse. Beyond that other touch is permitted unless it will tempt you to go further, which means no mutual masturbation, no oral sex. Making out and breast play allowed and can masturbate together if not exposing genitals to each other – which suits me well as I like making myself cum in my underwear and seeing a guy shoot off in his 🙂 .

    • sarah k says:

      I want to add the three Ms of preparing for a date.
      Masturbate
      Masturbate
      Masturbate.

      When my kids are preparing to go out, standard practice is for me to ask them when they last masturbated themselves to orgasm. This prompts them to think about the situation they may be getting themselves into. That may mean them spending an extra 10-15 minutes in their room, bathroom, or wherever. Deliberately lowering their sexual tension will help reduce temptation with other people.
      Good to see them taking responsibility for their sexual purity.

    • elventurist says:

      @Lisa – I'm not sure who Sarah K is, though, judging by the screen name, I'm assuming she is a member of this site. Do you share an account on an erotic website with your mother? Now THAT is a family with some open communication 🤣

      Judging from the fact that your mother is a member of this Christian site, I'm assuming that you were raised in a Christian home. As such, am I understanding correctly that your parents not only permitted but condoned things like breast play, dry humping, and masturbating together with a guy/boyfriend so long as genitals weren't exposed? So, basically, you were free to strip down, hang out with a guy, and engage in sexual play, so long as you kept your panties on and didn't touch each other below the waist?

      I'm not asking in judgement or condemnation, just genuinely surprised coming from my conservative upbringing. What are Sarah's thoughts or feedback for these rules? What did your church or larger Christian circle teach about such things?

    • naturalman says:

      That's interesting. I suppose I had no idea that women had a "thing" for men having an orgasm in their underwear. I myself have had a kink or fetish if you will about women playing in their underwear, and the resulting orgasm, the wetness and so on, but hadn't known that was a thing for women when it came to men. (no pun intended)

    • SecondMarge says:

      First I have heard of that kink. But I’m certain there are many more I don’t need to know about or to wash his undies.

    • sarah k says:

      From Lisa. Sarah K is my mother.
      I say no to dry humping. Even masturbating together when on a date I would not encourage. But sometimes you get really horny and just have to 'get off'. It's that, or the pressure to sin by fornication is difficult to resist. Sometimes we're just not in a place to nip into the bathroom or somewhere to rub one out.
      The question is, what is permissible for Christians? I don't believe masturbating together is a sin.
      Is it wise? That depends on the circumstance.
      Have I done so?
      Mum has strongly suggested that I masturbate myself as part of preparing for going out on dates. It has been very beneficial to reduce the libido when potentially getting into compromising situations.
      To repeat, there is a difference between 'can', and 'should'. Prevention is better – the three Ms -masturbate, masturbate, masturbate yourself.

    • elventurist says:

      @Sarah – Interesting. I'm legitimately not saying that in a condescension at all, it's good advice. Coming from an upbringing where we were taught as adolescents and teenagers that masturbation was a sin punishable by Hell, I just find it intriguing. Again, that's a lot of open communication 😄

      As teenagers, we were taught the importance of setting boundaries in a relationship – when is it okay to hold hands, when is it okay to put your arm around her, when is it okay to kiss, etc.? (And, there were many who advocated waiting to kiss until standing at the marriage altar.) It was almost like, "First date, before you even pray over dinner, you gotta determine whether it's six weeks or six months before you can touch her hand." There was little to no positive acknowledgement of our sexuality but rather an outright condemnation of it. We were bad, we were evil, and if we didn't bend over backwards to follow the "rules of dating," we were sure to slip right into immorality, losing our purity, and being used up pieces of garbage (Anyone familiar with the lollipop analogy? Yeah, that's a personal favorite.). Did young people always follow the rules? Heck, no, which, I believe, led to a lot of secret guilt and shame that subsequently drove people even further down the wrong path. When you tell teenagers that their sexuality makes them evil and that they can't get to heaven if they masturbate or even become aroused by the opposite sex, what you're left with is generations of young people simply going through the motions of Christianity while feeling completely defeated and demoralized. It is truly heartbreaking and maddening to see people who are on fire to serve God feel like they cannot have a relationship with Him because of the very gift He instilled in them.

      With that in mind, I can see how having open communication, not only between parents and children but also between dating partners, would be incredible. Looking back, had we had the liberty to say, "Okay, you're making me wicked horny right now. I'm gonna go rub one out quick, and I'll be right back," I think it may have made a tremendous difference for many, instead of having to pretend like sexual feelings didn't exist lest you be condemned.

      Or, perhaps that is the norm for most Christian couples, I don't know. That's why I'm asking questions.

    • elventurist says:

      @Lisa – Definitely agree on the difference between "can" and "should." My personality type prefers everything in black and white – too many shades of gray, and I start to get paranoid. I guess my original question was more about the baseline "can," with the understanding that, as TruthSeeker described, we go from there to determine the "should."

  5. TruthSeeker says:

    I have so many thoughts on this topic, but until I can write more extensively, here's a key thought: There are ABSOLUTELY things that are wrong that are not explicitly condemned in the Bible.

    The more permissive views on premarital sex (namely that anything short of intercourse is okay, and maybe even intercourse too) seem to be taking overly literal and legalistic interpretations of scripture, suggesting that only what is explicitly stated holds any authority. Here's an example of why that approach is deeply flawed. The Bible never says "Thou shalt not chop off your neighbor's pinky finger," but we would ALL acknowledge that would be deeply wrong! How do we know that? Because we apply broader biblical principles. We're commanded to love, and it's obviously unloving to cause injury to someone. So while "aggressive appendage removal" is not called a sin, it obviously IS one because it violates a broader commandment.

    So even if the Bible never explicitly says "Thou shalt not insert thy erect member into the opening of a woman to whom thou art not married," I believe it violates the principles of love toward one another, and good, wise stewardship of our bodies and hearts (I'd love to elaborate, but I'll save that for another post).

    Overall, I think the mindset of sinful vs. non-sinful is too narrow-minded. More importantly, we should weigh actions in terms of whether they are pleasing or displeasing to God. Are we acting in a way that shows we love him and his ways? Are we acting within or against his design and his will? I argue that his design is very clearly for sex to be within marriage, and no changes in human culture or society can change that reality.

    • elventurist says:

      @TruthSeeker – I agree with your statements on legalism. I have seen repeatedly how people, in an effort to remove themselves from their legalistic upbringing or distinguish themselves from another body of believers, so easily end up adopting beliefs that are just as legalistic, only by a different name.

      My reason for asking these questions isn't out of a desire to find loopholes or base morality on fallacies like, "Well, the Bible doesn't TECHNICALLY forbid that in those words." My desire is to know what God desires and what His plan is, including what He genuinely finds acceptable within relationships.

      It's sort of like bacon. I know people who believe it is wrong to eat pork based on their interpretation of certain scriptures, yet, if taking the entire Bible in context and thoroughly examining it, it becomes quite clear that we are perfectly free to enjoy this absolutely delicious bit of God's creation. Are those who believe it is wrong to consume bacon sinning by not doing so? Absolutely not, but they are missing out on a wonderful joy and pleasure in which they are free to indulge.

      So, is premarital sexual contact a sin, or is it like bacon? (Now I want bacon. Aaaand, now we're thinking about licking warm bacon grease from hardened nipples. Dear Lord, that escalated quickly.)

    • SecondMarge says:

      “ There are ABSOLUTELY things that are wrong that are not explicitly condemned in the Bible.” true and there are many things that are condemned in the Bible that are no longer sins.

      Excellent comments elventruist.

      I suspect that if you surveyed Christians, almost none would consider anything short of premarital intercourse against God’s plan for us. And as we know, their own actions would include premarital sex. The Catholic Church at one time, I believe, even forbade sex after your marriage ended.

      Just because one Christian believes it’s in the Bible, even if he is the Pope does not mean it’s Gods intent for our lives.

    • sarah k says:

      SecondMarge
      "The Catholic Church at one time, I believe, even forbade sex after your marriage ended"
      You make it sound like that is wrong.
      If no longer married, of course you should no longer be having sex with someone else. You're now single – you should just be masturbating.

    • CrazyHappyLoved says:

      Pretty sure Marge meant within a second marriage? Even today, the Catholic Church considers a second marriage adultery unless the first spouse has died or one received an annulment, though there are exceptions granted in "exceptional circumstances." (I'm not Catholic, so don't quote me on this. I just like to Google interesting questions.)

    • elventurist says:

      @SecondMarge – Am I to understand that you're saying you think the majority of Christians believe everything up to the line of actual premarital intercourse to be biblically permissible? Perhaps I've been living in a bubble, but I would disagree, even amongst many mainstream Evangelicals. (Perhaps you're speaking from experience outside the Evangelical world, I don't know.) Then again, I'm only going off what I've read and heard preached and taught, which could be slanted more towards the "better safe than sorry" narrative…and perhaps personal beliefs and individual family rules are different. Again, I don't know. I would feel weird going around polling people on this, and I'm not certain I would always get truly honest answers, but I suppose somebody's gotta do research 😜

  6. Waiting Hardly says:

    As an example, here is the beginning of the Song of Solomon from the 1st edition of the New English Translation (NET), which is very literal and accurate:
    Song of Songs 1:2-4 (NET)
    The Beloved to Her Lover:
    Oh, how I wish you would kiss me passionately!
    For your lovemaking is more delightful than wine.
    The fragrance of your colognes is delightful;
    your name is like the finest perfume.
    No wonder the young women adore you!
    Draw me after you; let us hurry!
    May the king bring me into his bedroom chambers!
    The Maidens to the Lover:
    We will rejoice and delight in you;
    we will praise your love more than wine.
    The Beloved to Her Lover:
    How rightly young women adore you!

    How would she know those things already?

    • SecondMarge says:

      I always enjoy conservative Christian’s pointing to his words. Middle aged man talking about having sex with a pubescent girl to induce her to join his harem of hundreds of wives and even more concubines where they will enjoy girl-girl sex with her. Sounds like an affirmation of waiting until marriage. I only have desire for you, and you and her and you.

  7. Frankie says:

    As we read the comments on this post, it sounds like folks are trying to figure out how close they can crowd the sexual line without going over. It reminds me of the joke about bus driver job applicants bragging how close they could get to the edge of a cliff without going over. The one who got the job was the one who bragged about how far he could stay away from the edge. While it may be exciting to test yourself sexually to see what you can get away with, it becomes harder to stop the further down that slope you go. According to the Bible, the crash at the bottom will be really bad.

  8. Waiting Hardly says:

    @secondmarge it mentions nothing of the harem, and could possibly have been his first wife. The SOS would have a broader application and should be read as it was written – erotica.

  9. naturalman says:

    One thing about this discussion that all commenters seem to be pointing to is that even though Christianity is our faith and we want to live within its values and boundaries, there's a heck of a lot of confusion about what's "canon" vs "culture."

    For instance, SecondMarge points out that people used to get married younger. Which is cultural but is also nature. It would make sense to marry when you're younger and things are "firing on all cylinders" – but on the other hand, could lead to challenges if the partners weren't "mature." And then again, there's people in very conservative churches who marry young but have a legalistic or negative view of hot monogamy. And then again, there were people very culturally conservative who had.. cold polygamy? And now, we have many young people who don't date at all – and many older marrieds who don't have compatible drives or good communication to negotiate a happy medium. And why is something so "natural" so darn complex? (and fascinating?)

    I think we're all trying to work our way back to Eden, so to speak. The fact something so "natural" is also so seemingly "unnatural" for so many to practice is quite the conundrum. We're called to honor God and seek the good – as inherently sexual (some of us hyper sexual!) And practically.. how do we do that?

    Our bodies are good. Sex when used correctly is good. Marriage is good… but…as Seinfeld said:

    "What do we want? Women. How do we get them? We don't know!!"

    • elventurist says:

      [blockquote]"What do we want? Women. How do we get them? We don't know!!"[/blockquote]

      🤣🤣 That's a great quote!

      @naturalman – You make a very valid point. Satan is intent on destroying God's plan by any means necessary, and he doesn't care how he does it. If he can corrupt God's plan by keeping you from having sex with you're spouse, he'll do it. If he can corrupt God's plan by getting you to have sex with everyone's spouse, he'll do it. If he can twist the perception of sex in the mind of a conscientious young person to pervert God's design for marital union and thereby undermine the family unit, he'll do it.

      Satan cares not which end of the spectrum he gets you derailed on. Whether he takes you to Hell in the pew of a church or the bed of a whorehouse, he'll do it.

    • SecondMarge says:

      I guess there are still people out there saying “The Devil made me do it”.

      I use no such excuse for my actions. Nor do I, like a majority of Christians, believe there is actually an entity we call the devil, but it is merely a personification of evil. The acts tempt us, not some creature.

      Good is avoiding actions that harm others. Evil is harming others. No thought police. No slippery slope.

Leave a Reply

Want to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!

Leave a Reply