Advice for Dating Intimacy
A Note from MarriageHeat
As the author rightly states, courting couples are often curious about what they’re allowed to do in regard to sexual activity, or what’s appropriate at each stage of their relationship. And as we all know, there are a wide variety of opinions on the matter, ranging from “Don’t even kiss until you’re married” all the way to “Sex before marriage is totally fine.” Those of us who lead and run MarriageHeat have our own opinions too, but we try not to make any official stance on the matter overly concrete, because, while the Bible does give us certain principles we can apply to the matter, it does not give us a specific list of acceptable and unacceptable activities for pre-marriage couples.
So today we’re publishing a view toward the less restrictive side of the spectrum. We do not endorse this particular stance, or any other (except the general idea that sex belongs in marriage), but we’re hoping that HappyHubs’ thoughts can help facilitate a thoughtful conversation on the matter. This topic has been discussed before on MarriageHeat, but it has been a little while, and because it’s a topic that almost all dating couples are interested in, we think it’s a topic that’s worth revisiting!
So please join the discussion! Where do you think the boundary is between appropriate and inappropriate sexual activity during the various pre-marriage phases of a relationship, and why? Are your reasons mainly based on practical consequences, impacts on the relationship, scientific research, biblical principles and commands, personal preferences, or something else? Let us all know, so the whole community can benefit from the exchange of ideas!
**********
A perennial question for Christian singles and dating couples waiting for marriage to have sex seems to be some form of “But what can we do?” These are my thoughts, as a married man, on the matter.
My short answer is, whatever the two of you are comfortable with at the level you are at in your relationship. Only the pair of you will best know what that is. My advice would be to not move too fast physically, as you will run out of new physical stuff to do as your relationship progresses. Give room for growth.
Practically, I’d say keep stuff with genitals for marriage or at least engagement. Short of that, make sure you are kissing a lot! There was a whole generational movement against passionate kissing, or kissing at all, before marriage, and that’s frankly nonsense. No shade to couples who want to do that, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
Now, kissing is the minimum I recommend. Let’s face it—there’s physical, sensual, and sexual aspects to dating. You’re looking for someone you can be sexy with the rest of your life! You SHOULD feel sexual feelings toward each other. And as long as it’s encouraging mutual appreciation of each other and not selfish self-gratification, it’s appropriate to stir up those feelings toward someone you are assessing for marriage. Let them know they are sexy, and how they make you feel!
I think it’s time that some segments of Christianity break out of their prudishness or squeamishness about sexual feelings between an unmarried couple. All couples feel those desires—or at least, they should! It’s normal! So I would encourage exploring those feelings while maintaining married sex as the goal you both are working towards.
Thus, in addition to kissing, I’d say that a couple should consider getting more physically frisky! Of course, make sure you have consent. Consent is sexy! But, presuming that you each have that consent, I think it’s important for a man and woman to know that they have good physical chemistry and can please each other. If his ass looks great in those jeans, let him know with a well-placed hand. If you’ve appreciated how her dress highlights her ass and boobs, go ahead and cop a feel.
If it’s going well, hands could start slipping under fabric. If it’s really going well, fabric might start coming off! It’s great if she knows he can pleasure her breasts. Frankly, I’d think a serious couple would be all over each other. If they’ve progressed to where marriage is increasingly likely, I’d expect that they’ll be desperate to find time to be alone together so all those irritating clothes can come off.
As for what point to escalate to the next step, each couple has to decide for themselves. Maybe one couple doesn’t want to tongue kiss until they’re exclusive. That sounds like a good idea to me. But maybe a woman is fine with her date taking her dress off after a date or two if she likes him, or giving him a stroke or two down there to show how she likes his tongue in her mouth. That seems to be moving fast to me, but that’s something she has to know and decide for herself. Knowing ahead of time what limits you have allows you to have that exploration without compromising the absolute boundaries and no-gos.
I hope that’s helpful for any singles reading this.
As my parents taught me, pussy and penis for self and spouse, so absolutely no sexual contact of the others genitals until married.
That does leave the possibility of non sexual genital contact, but unless a doctor, I don't see a reason why that would be happening.
So no oral or masturbating each other.
If just casually dating, should touch no more than you would in public, can hold hands, dance, a simple kiss, no making out or feeling the other up.
If serious dating, talking about marriage, as sex is part of marriage, should be talking about that, should also be masturbating. I think it wrong if you're not masturbating – but apart from each other. Although I don't think there anything wrong in seeing each other masturbating, it is an area of temptation, hold off.
I do think you can help each other become horny, you can feel each other – above the waist (e.g. her breasts). The boyfriend can let his girlfriend see the bulge of his erection. The girlfriend can let him see down her top and up her skirt/dress with her legs apart. Sexual arousal and masturbation can be encouraged, but the masturbation should not be done together. You can after the event show the other that you have cum, the semen, the sticky cummy knickers, whatever.
As you can feel her breasts, you can make out.
(Girls, I encourage you to not wear a bra.)
When engaged.
As above.
Must be encouraging masturbation. I and some others have said, if you're not masturbating yourself regularly, you are not ready for marriage – I stand by that.
There is danger in seeing each other masturbate, doing so requires discernment, if you fear that you will go further than watching each other – masturbate apart. Also seek advise of others, don't put yourselves in a position of scandal.
The primary reason to masturbate yourselves, is not for the preparation of sex, but to honour God, Glorify God in your bodies (1 Cor 6:20), offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God, Rom 12:1.
Be pure: https://marriageheat.com/2024/06/02/masturbation-as-sexual-purity/
Sarah K
Regarding the bra: she has to decide which is more fun, making out with no bra to start, or him removing it! And the teasing glimpses down her top can be made more interesting by her sometimes wearing a bra, sometimes not.
The masturbation focus you give is interesting. If a couple have hang ups there that could help them work through it.
Also, I think you neglect the power of giving attention to his and her bottom, hehe. I'm a butt man. Same as feeling up her chest, when you make out you each can feel the other's butt to get each other horny.
RamblingWriter, when you get to the point that masturbation should be encouraged – hands on butts and her chest – I think acceptable.
My thoughts, honestly, just do as you please.
I think focus here is maybe little bit skewed. Children who are becoming adults and who are moving into the world of relationships should be educated by their parents on the consequences of sex (pregnancy, STD's, etc). They should full-well know what may result from these actions.
If the couple is thus wise, then I say anything is on the table. I agree with OP that the people must be comfortable with decision on what is right or not, but this must not be based on some foreign idea of purity. I mean like this, if one thinks that touching or fingering is ok before marriage but not sex because that keeps one pure, then there is big double-standard there. So if you're going to squeeze boobs then you may as well go all the way.
The part about consent is a little redundant if we are talking about serious couple here. Consent usually is spoken of in context of casual encounters and I don't think any here are pursuing such encounters.
I think Christians must stop thinking about themselves as special in this regard of needing to act differently in this realm of sexual activity. Sure, we are different in that we obey laws which prohibit adultery (oath-breaking), but we are otherwise the same as everyone else. It is ironic that the Christian is so consumed in keeping this pure image by abstaining or moderating sexual activity before marriage, as if to be some mark of who he is as a believer, that he neglects everything else. A Christian is marked by his belief, that there is no death and Jesus showed us this by rising Himself. We are marked by knowing that invisible world acts upon the physical and that this was by God's design. We are marked by taking a stand against tyranny, both in physical form and spiritual, just as Jesus did in His rebuttals of the pretenders and in His whipping of the merchants. This is who we are, or who we are supposed to be. If we are using this sexual abstinence idea as our mark, we are going to perpetually fail.
I think the author mentioned consent because, sadly, some people think they're entitled to a handful without bothering. Yes, more a problem with casual dating.
A thought-provoking topic, certainly for me! Having been raised in the "nothing except holding hands before marriage" mindset, I have done much study of Scripture to see what is and isn't permitted; I wanted God's Word as my guide, not man's invented standards. Like MH said at the start of this post, there aren't a lot of concrete commands about this. Yes, fornication is forbidden, but I know there is controversy about even what that actually is. I know that culture and context also play into it. Marriage, betrothal, and rules for sex have looked different across eras and cultures. From what I understand, ancient Israelites viewed it as, "If you have sex, you're married!" which is why a man who slept with a virgin had to pay the bride price. Sex WAS the wedding ceremony that bound them together. Some people believe that can still be practiced today. I understand that there are more civil and legal things that play into marriage today, especially in America, so there usually needs to be some form of legal wedding. That's a bit off topic! Anyhow, my personal stance in pre-marriage relationships is to adhere to the heart of God and pursue principles of purity, unselfishness, and healthy, marriage-focused sexuality. I want to wait to kiss a guy until I am established in a relationship and feel pretty sure he is the one for me. I am open to mutual masturbation over the phone if we were engaged. I believe in discussing our sexuality and everything that goes with it. But for myself, I really want the fun of giving and receiving all the intimate stuff on the wedding night and honeymoon. To me, it's just really special and sexy to save some things and feel the liberation to go all in. Other people have different boundaries, and that is fine. Biblically, it is not possible to draw a hard line for everyone universally on this subject. I think God is looking at our hearts and our intentions. If those are in alignment with His Spirit, the actions should follow, as best as Christians still living in these flesh bodies can do.
I agree, it's nice to leave some things to the honeymoon. A couple should agree on what those are
No – there is little in scripture as to the "how far" question. That is because during the entire time the bible was being written marriages were arranged by the parents, usually a few years pre-puberty and consummated in the early teens. So no real need for such guidance.
Growing up I did not date at all in high school and very little in college. Not much was said by my parents or the congregations I attended before college. However, my college congregation had a LOT to say about it; including the idea that any sexual feelings thoughts or curiosity before you say I DO was sinful lust and adultery in the heart. Masturbation (even the temptation) was considered demonic possession.
I came to my own conclusions (and lied to the congregation's inquisitors) about all that. When I got engaged, we did fool around some. Yes we fondled each others genitals. Had the pastor or elders found out, our engagement would have been canceled and possibly one of us moved to another part of the country.
As I grew older and we have had our problems (many stemming from such vehement anti-sex attitudes) my own attitude and understanding has changed a lot. A lot more liberal or permissive that it was when I was 20.
(BTW LLL, there NEVER was an attitude in Judaism, even in the ancient world, that sex = married)
Some years ago I came across Dr James Dobson's list of growing intimacy. I am not sure whether he came up with it himself or it was taken from his medical and psychological training and texts. That list is this:
Stage one is called EYE TO BODY
Stage two is called EYE TO EYE
Stage three is called VOICE TO VOICE
Stage four is called HAND TO HAND
Stage five is called HAND TO SHOULDER
Stage six is called HAND TO WAIST
Stage seven is called FACE TO FACE
Stage eight is called HAND TO HEAD
================================== marriage
Stage nine is HAND TO BODY
Stage ten is MOUTH TO BREAST
Stage eleven is TOUCHING BELOW THE WAIST
Stage twelve is SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
What bothers me about this list is that the early stages can take months or years to get to the next step, and yet the last 4 are all done in a few hours. That seems totally unworkable. IMO there should be a step where you see each other naked. I would put ENGAGEMENT where the the marriage line is and move MARRIAGE a step or 2 lower. Maybe 3.
Just my 2 cents worth.
First of all, it's not a sin to have sex before marriage. This has been taught for centuries but it's not all the way true and I think that there are far too many couples who slipped up before they said their vows who feel self-condemnation on this front. There was never any law in the old testament condemning unmarried couples to death, rather they were commanded to marry. I do think I believe that sex = marriage, which is something most people have forgotten with how they carry on with each other.
With any sexual activity, it depends a lot on who you're doing it with. Is this the person you will eventually marry? And how do you know unless you get married? I guess I'd rather do less than more before marriage myself and I'd want a woman who felt the same way. Having people who go from person to person doing everything but intercourse before marriage, I don't know how I feel about that and don't know if I'd want a woman that was OK with that.
I'm not overly fond of wedding ceremonies, because so many people make it all about the ceremony, when the marriage is everything that comes after. I also think a common law marriage is entirely legitimate; it's not as if Adam & Eve or those who came after them had a ceremony or a piece of paper from the government. But on the whole the level of intimacy should reflect the level of commitment.
Finally, another who has dug a bit deeper than the church theology.
I agree with most of what you say, except that sex does not equal marriage. Sex was a completing act for a marriage, yes, but it didn't signify that a marriage took place. Marriage happens when vow is made. Biggest way we see this is in the bridal price that had to be paid, it was constructed on a portion of the groom's wages and was basically a means of showing that he could take care of the woman he was marrying.
We also have the tolerated industry of prostitution in the Biblical days, which can be seen in a few instances such as the dispute over the baby in Solomon's days. If prostitution was allowed, then we must conclude that sex cannot equal marriage as all the men would be married to prostitutes.
But I enjoyed reading comment!
I think the thing is that Hebrew society was polygamous which is something modern people forget about. So in the old testament it would be alright for a man to sleep with a (assumedly Hebrew) prostitute whereas a woman should have had one lover, her husband. Offensive to feminist Western culture perhaps, but there it is. I think when we get to the new testament Paul has problems with it, probably because the Christians weren't in the midst of the people of God but pagans, and their prostitutes were offering sex as a form of worship to pagan gods.
Still, when Jesus was talking about divorce with the Pharisees in Matthew 19 I think he's laying out that sex = marriage, so I'm not referring to traditional practices throughout history but the words of Jesus. It's the "one flesh" that happens that binds two people together. And if He's referring back to the Garden of Eden as the template for marriage, all the traditional trappings of "marriage" are just so many man-made rituals. Not wrong perhaps, but it's not what counts.
Part of what makes Christians different from others is in our sexual practices, because they show allegiance to the true God, or to a different god. Some promoted homosexuality, and also transvestitism, bestiality, and all manner of other perversions. So it's probably easiest to say "no sex before marriage" to make sure people don't go too far that direction, it's just more nuanced than that.
The very chapter that speaks of the difference between rape and consensual pre-marital sex (Deuteronomy 22) also says, only a few verses previously, that a woman who is found by her husband not to be a virgin when he marries her has "committed a disgraceful sin" worthy of death. Now of course, to be "found" so, her sexual partner had to not have been him, and the only thing "provable" in that regard is PIV sex. But this underscores the idea that, until he marries her, she still has the potential to be another man's wife. But the next paragraph says that to sleep with someone's betrothed is to sleep with his wife, so I can see why some would begin to build a sexual relation during that phase. As much as a good marriage — and good sex! — depends on trust, one should be as sure as possible that both are committed before beginning that journey.
I think the world is a very different place than it was when Moses wrote, but God doesn't change. His best for us is that we wait for marriage for full-on sex; and I say that with the hindsight of someone who didn't. But He also offers us forgiveness where we have fallen short and redeems our past, so we need not begin a marriage with the burden of guilt, either.
Thank you, CHL! Sometimes I feel like one of the few people defending a traditional and biblical sexual ethic against the modern tide of excessively liberal ideas, so your biblically-based and rational points are a breath of fresh air. You've always been an articulate voice in alignment with MH's pro-marriage mission, and I'm glad to see you're still visiting here! 🙂
Those on here that think sex before marriage is not a sin need to read their Bibles a bit better. Genesis 38:24 (ESV) About three months later Judah was told, “Tamar your daughter-in-law has been immoral. Moreover, she is pregnant by immorality.” And Judah said, “Bring her out, and let her be burned.” Looking into a Strong's Concordance, Bible dictionary, or just checking different translations reveals that all adultery is fornication, but (as in this verse) not all fornication is adultery. Prostitution is blatant fornication for those who are single. The understanding of biblical immorality includes both the married sin (adultery) & the single sin (fornication/immorality). God's idea for sex is marriage. And, we weak minded sinners of modern day really cannot change that. If we are trying to justify intercourse before marriage God would say check your idolatry at the door. Because that is what it is. Letting an idol, not God, dictate to you what is okay to do. God is eternal, this modern day BS is tiring. God doesn't answer to 2026 antics anymore than He answered to Adam & Eve, & they just ate a piece of fruit. Our eternal God is modern day before we ever existed. If your logic held water we should rip out our vocal cords & only communicate through social media, then.
Those that think dating should be filled with all kinds of sexual exploration are forgetting that sex was given exclusively to the married couple, by God, & had a first priority of procreation attached to it. I am all for getting a real grasp on the sexual mind of the individual, but the sexual prepping of the potential spouse is basically absent in the Bible. Not that people had no experiences, temptations, or sins previous to marriage. But, the way some are telling it on here we are not to have patience, or self control. How many things in life do we have to wait for before we do it. I don't know, maybe, everything! Or, how about MOST things! Try your logic out on a police officer when drinking underage, driving at age 10, or working without being hired. I get it, I was not a virgin when I married. But, I know the temptation of this [sinful] Godless world I live in, too. We talk about the confusion, options, & everybody's take on this subject but what about Truth's opinion? Where is God while we are deciphering what is ok, or not? God has plenty to say of the weak minded christian & falling away. The OT called them the simple minded. Satan & this world loves to lead people by the nose. Like cattle with a ring in our noses we get pulled wherever they please to take us.
There is more to dating than sex. Paul said if you're aflame for sex, get married. But, he also told people stay single, or betrothed. There was no in between. Our lazy tech saturated, industrialized, evolved modern day living has skewed our perspective. Sex is meant for the marriage to explore. Marriage happened when puberty struck & husband & wife had waaaay more to do, in their daily grind, than drive to ihop. But, just because we don't live like pioneers anymore does not change the priority of sex. Our modern day has severely damaged our brains. Instead of thinking more about sex we need to be thinking more about ministry that serves the less fortunate & help people up to a better responsibility than playing video games. I am not saying sex doesn't have its place, because it does. Yet, the betrothed, or single person, in God's eyes, has a responsibility to find & make God their first love. Church isn't just on Sundays.
Single people can & should know all about themselves. Sex & all other stuff. But, the two are to become one. That means together (once they become one) they learn how to dance the dance of sex exploration. Saving yourself means sex exploration starts at marriage. Before that there is a world of living to do; like learning to save your money by cooking at home, doing laundry, car repair, socializing with friends/family. The older are to teach the younger how to be self sufficient & less dependent on the world for all their economy & charity. Our skills have fallen off. The only skill that counts now is entertainment.
To the single person, I say, listen to God alone. Everyone else is just like you. We all mess up trying to justify sin & laziness. Sexually, do what keeps you patient & self controlled to not commit any sexual immorality. The act of sex has a before, during, & after. So, stay away from whatever starts you down that path. God definitely draws the line at premarital intercourse. But, there are other things that are just as sexual. So, ask yourself two questions.
1. Would I want my son or daughter giving/receiving oral, hand jobs, anal, heavy petting, or an orgasm to/from another before the they are committed in covenant marriage? (seeing how many people are just out to have sex in the moment then move on to the next person because inexperience doesn't know that a young male body doesn't have to be in love to empty his full testicles into any girl that comes along)
2. Would I be ok if my spouse gave or received an orgasm to/from a person outside our marriage as long as it wasn't from intercourse?
Answer those 2 questions & you have your answer to this post's question of what a single person can do sexually, before marriage.
Speaking about reading one's Bible better, I must point out that you have cherry picked the Tamar verse to illustrate a point non-existent in that story.
While you have a right to your view on marriage and sex, at least justify it properly.
Verses about Tamar illustrate something wholly different. Tamar was pregnant by Judah himself. Judah slept with her, thinking that she was a prostitute of a temple (this is idolatrous as it's seen as worship to another entity). Although, she wasn't a temple prostitute, she disguised herself as such and offered her "services" to him, in order that she may bear the family a legitimate heir. She did this because Judah would not offer her to his son to bear the heir. Thus, she was doing her best to follow the tradition to bear a child for the family. When Judah found out, he immediately admitted he was in the wrong and called Tamar righteous for following their code when he did not. All that this story illustrates is moral hypocrisy and that temple prostitution is wrong. It says nothing of pre-marital sex and nothing of regular prostitution.
There is also case of what one man commented above, of a wife being found to not be a virgin at the wedding night. Problem here is not so much that she had sex but that she sold what was not hers to give. Her father owned her virginity and sold it to the man. The man bought it and found that she was damaged goods. In this society, it is considered theft. We do not live in Levitical society any more, and even then, Levtical society was only for the Chosen, not the gentile nations. Many of us come from "gentile nations" and the only law that was prescribed us after belief in Christ are the 10 Commandments. Adultery does not include pre-marital sex in this regard, only oath-breaking.
Do not make your own laws or by-laws.
It's important to remember that, while this story about Tamar and Judah gives us important historical context, BehindTheCurtain is correct that its primary purpose is not to teach about morality (although I think we can get some general ideas from it).
While I agree this story of Tamar isn't a very strong verse to make the case against extra-marital sex, it also does not necessarily mean Tamar was faultless. Notice that Judah doesn't say that Tamar is righteous, only that she is MORE righteous than himself. I checked every translation I'm familiar with, and ALL of them acknowledge that point in the wording (ASV, ESV, ISV, KJV, LSB, NASB, NKJV, and YLT). Since Judah caused the pregnancy, he has no grounds to judge Tamar, because he realizes HE sinned against Tamar by not providing a husband for her, as was his duty, and as he had told her he would do for her. His own failing put her in a desperate situation and drove her to do this, so he is responsible. However, this statement doesn't necessarily clear Tamar of wrongdoing, it only means that Judah is taking responsibility and acknowledging that his own wrongdoing was worse.
But of course, what we can learn about morality from this is limited, because neither Judah nor anyone else in this story has the final say on morality, because none of them speak in the capacity of prophets of God.
On the point about pre-marital sex being regarded as theft, while it may sound plausible, it does not fit with the rest of Old Testament Mosaic Law. If we take the hypothetical cases for theft and sexual immorality outlined in the Mosaic Law, the prescribed penalties are very different (multiplied repayment or slavery for theft, and death for certain sexual sins, including pre-marriage promiscuity). So while theft may be a part of it, there's definitely something much more than just theft going on here, and to reduce it to only an issue of theft is untenable and misleading.
Mosaic Law never prescribes the death penalty for mere theft. It prescribes a repayment of anywhere between 2-5 times the amount stolen, depending on the circumstances, and requires the thief to be sold as a slave if he cannot pay that amount (Exodus 22:1-4). In contrast, a woman failing to be a virgin at marriage (meaning she had promiscuous sex) was punishable by death (Deuteronomy 22:13-21, especially 20-21). A situation that would be more akin to theft is found a few verses later in Deuteronomy 22:28-29, where a man takes an unbetrothed woman against her will (which, by all indicators, sounds like a case of rape). In that case, he has to pay a fine to the woman's father, because he took her without paying the customary bride price. And because he "violated" her, and no other man would want to marry her, the man who wronged her is forced to marry her and provide for her for the rest of her life.
In Deuteronomy 22 I think the girl would have been executed for practicing deception to her father and husband-to-be. But also she would have had to displease her husband first as well. From the wording there I think it's entirely possible that there could have been non-virgins that married and their husbands were happy with them.
@Faith-Manages
I see the plausibility in that too, but again, I don't think it ultimately makes sense.
First, I don't believe there's any other place in Mosaic Law where the death penalty is prescribed for a similar kind of deception, so we have no other context or precedent (that I'm aware of) for that idea. On a cursory search, the only place I found where someone could be put to death for lying was in Deuteronomy 19:18-19, where someone could be put to death if they were a false witness seeking to wrongly inflict the death penalty on someone else. Given that deception on the woman's part is never mentioned in the Deuteronomy 22 passage and is only implied, there's very little evidence to support the idea that deception is a significant factor in warranting the death penalty, either in this passage or anywhere else in the Bible. That suggests this is a human idea brought to the text (eisegetically), rather than letting the text itself determine the meaning (exegetically).
Second, the rationale for the death penalty in this situation is given at the end of the section in verse 21, and is not related to deception at all. It says, "…the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house" (ESV). The whoring is the reason given, not any form of deception.
Third, I think the phrase "displease her husband" is being taken in too general a sense. The passage opens this way: (13) "If any man takes a wife and goes in to her and then hates her (14) and accuses her of misconduct and brings a bad name upon her, saying, 'I took this woman, and when I came near her, I did not find in her evidence of virginity,'…" (ESV). The way I understand it, the sequence goes like this: a man marries a wife, comes to her to consummate the sexual union, and then is displeased with her because he finds a reason to believe she is not a virgin. Given that the context of the passage deals with various issues of sexual morality, it makes the most sense to read it as though the man's displeasure is due to his new wife's perceived lack of sexual purity. I'm admittedly less confident in this third point than the first two, as I'm not a scholar in the grammar of ancient Hebrew, believe it or not, haha! But using context clues, this is what makes the most sense to me.
I do agree that it's possible some men might have married non-virgins and not made any issue of it (either because they didn't realize she wasn't a virgin, or because they didn't care, or because they wanted to protect her from the law's penalty). But I'm not sure that this hypothetical possibility helps us with the issues being discussed here.
BTC, thank you. You are correct. But, I was not using the scripture for that reason. Only trying to prove single people having sex before marriage is immoral sin, if prostitution is immoral sin. I was just using the fact that prostitution is called immorality to make this connection. That is all. Judah & Tamar have nothing to do with my point. Regardless, of their issues prostitution is immoral, it is another type of fornication. And, fornication is a sin whether it is done in temple worship, or in the Jewish culture without it being attached to a false god. My point is that single people sin when committing an immoral act, LIKE prostitution does.
Deuteronomy 23:17-18 (ESV) 17 “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, and none of the sons of Israel shall be a cult prostitute. 18 You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God in payment for any vow, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God."
Bible characters & false god worship aside. I used prostitution because I figured it would be an easy connection to the immorality of fornicating. Judah did not say Tamar was pregnant from false god worship, but from immortality. But, since that was not simple enough, or maybe too simple…
Fornication between unmarried couples carried a penalty requiring a dowry of 50 shekels of silver. A silver shekel was worth what an unskilled laborer could earn in 40 days of work. The required dowry price would be roughly what an unskilled laborer could earn in seven years (assuming he had to live on some of his earnings). In addition, he was required to marry the woman with whom he had sex with no allowance for a future divorce unless her father objected to the marriage (Deuteronomy 22:28-29; Exodus 22:16-17). This sin would also require a guilt-offering to be made.
There is more in the OT about adultery, & not as much about sex before married, of two unwed people. I estimate that is because marriage sex was the standard you did not mess with. It would've been highly understood why God did not need an 11th commandment, Thou shalt not fornicate, because marriage was sex. Period. The commandment, Thou shalt not commit adultery, is in this context. That sex is not a thing outside of marriage. And, if it is a thing it is sin.
Thanks for clarifying your point, SCMM. That helps me better understand why you used that passage as a reference.
However, now I'm curious where you got the information on the value of the silver shekels. From a cursory search, it seems like many sources agree there isn't a very clearly discernible value, but the estimates are FAR lower than 40 days of wages. Most sources I see seem to be claiming between 1 and 4, with only one saying it could be up to a month's wage.
PP, you have good points in your explanations, and out of all the translations you've used, most credible is probably Young's.
But we still have this problem, each so called promiscuous act described in your above examples has the sin of theft attached to it, as these are not ordinary examples of promiscuity as there is money involved. Thus, we cannot conclude that the sin being punished here is the promiscuous act itself, as we read about other places in the Bible where extra-marital encounter is not punished with death (Tamar, Sampson, the two prostitutes before Solomon).
Furthermore, consider that the rapist is not necessaryily punished with death, only that he must pay. So, are we to assume that God is saying that extra-marital acts are worthy of death, only in women, and not in the man's case as long as he pays the father for raping his daughter and taking her virginity that he owned?
I find this a bit strange…
SCMM,
It is good that you mention cult-prostitution, there in the Tamar case, as this is the most accurate understanding of the word used there, "zanah". This is thus, idolatrous behaviour and was punishable by death.
I must vehemently disagree with your understanding of adultery, however. You are adding to the law by extending it's coverage to areas it doesn't cover and you do this with very bad reasoning.
Jesus explains adultery in context of the 10th Commandment which deals with coveting another man's property, which includes his woman/women. Thus, it is theft issue and an issue of oath-breaking. Nowhere does this verse refer to unmarried persons. If it did, then we must conclude that we cannot desire single people as single people ourselves, and thus, we cannot get married in the first place.
PP, my apologies to the accuracy of the amounts. That portion (just that paragraph) was taken (should have used quotes, but didn't) from,
[…]
I was not as interested with the amounts, just that the sin did register as a sin. Again, my apologies.
[From MH: As a policy, we try to minimize links to outside sources. However, the recommended resource can be easily found by looking for "La Vista Church of Christ fornication old testament" in your search engine of choice. It appears that two articles both contain this claim, dated July 14, 2020, and January 16, 2025.]
I understand, thank you for the clarification on the source! No need to apologize, I was simply wanting to make sure we're working with the most accurate and reasonable information we can! 🙂
The Bible, God's Word, needs to be our authority on this issue. 1 Thessalonians 4:3-5: "It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable." The term "fornication" or "sexual immorality" (porneia in Greek) used in the New Testament covers all sexual activity outside of marriage. Our culture seems to have lost its ability of any self control and treating each other holy and honorably.
Amen.
BTC
1. I was not equating adultery & fornication (sex between 2 single people). They are not the same. I was not adding to the law. They are both as distinct as God describes them. I was only making a point as to why God may be more disciplining, more adamant, or more descriptive of adultery & not as much over fornication. I was only saying that, imo, that God would not need to give equal treatment to them if the overall gist of human existence was to only have sex as a married couple. I estimate the cultural understanding was that sex was marriage, & marriage was sex (marriage & sex were two sides of the same coin). This was God's standard. But, people sin (we try & split the coin). So, we do have some handling of fornication, by God, but with less handling than He does adultery.
2. The theft issue is at human level. At God's level all sin is counterfeit righteousness. Satan comes to kill, steal, & destroy. So, at the God level sin is all theft, highjacking, & corruption of God's good. But, at our human level God divides the sin into departments. Greed with money, lust with sex, gluttony with food, adultery with sex outside your marriage, etc. God, in the Bible, will call taking another man's wife coveting, but He will also call it immoral, adultery, or an abomination. These would all be describing the same thing. Like sexual immorality is likened to idolatry, & prostitution, as is at the heart of all sin, spiritually, before God that is what sin is. Yet, some of Israel's whoring was spiritual, physical, economical, & worldly as it played out. Judah did not say Tamar was pregnant by theft. That does not mean your point is not valid. Yet, it does not mean the theft (coveting) is void of sexual sin. Stealing a wife was not the same as stealing some shoes. They may both come from coveting, but the carrying out the sin is way different. Different sins have different meanings, & different consequences.
3. God's different handling of fornication & adultery does not allow for single people to have sex. This is why there are at least some laws that govern virginity, taking slave wives, & different laws for different incidents of rape. Why would Job vow to not gaze upon a virgin/maiden if virginity were not both a virtue & temptation, back then? To say that adultery laws have no nod to single people staying virgins til marriage, would then say that rape laws have no means to support virginity, marriage, or adultery laws. God gave sexual attraction before marriage, so I do not deny that single people get aroused. Yet, this arousal, that God gives us, does not happen from day one. Arousal, associated with attraction, & sex, generally does not happen til the double digit years. Generally, when puberty hits. God's plan was for us to marry, or be of marriage age, when the body is capable of producing a baby. Humanity has slowly pushed that age to well into the 20s by now. In Bible times children came of age, adulthood, in their early teens. Now, we have pushed childhood til 18ish. Since we humans have pushed adulthood to the 20s & puberty still starts around 12, we now have an epidemic of single people having sex. Huh, go figure. Sin has wrecked God's plan. If we are contemplating single people having sex as that plan, it is sin's further influence over us, not God's. To say single people having sex is ok, by God, is to put cultural sin pressures above God. Rather, we are called to believe we can do God's will through Jesus, who strengthens us. That is where we are to start. Young kids should be taught that they can wait & why it is in their best interest.
Single people should be preparing for marriage. Another skill that has fallen off. Can they have any kind of sexual activity? Masturbation is not a sin. Nudity (appropriate) is not a sin. What would be a sin is what gives in to the sin.
Ask yourself, would I rather my spouse have been naked & masturbating with as many dates as they had, or just start all that together exclusively in marriage where we can learn sex together? I believe that the marriage is the beginning of the two as one sex relationship. Before, that, there is no other person designated by God as a sex partner. Before marriage the single person can, maybe should, do the single person sexuality that is about their own individual body. Parents, older experienced family, that know better, are to help by discussing, sharing experiences, & possibly using incidental nudity, & animal breeding as teaching lessons. I realize that potential married couples might want to make out, be naked with each other, or masturbate in front of each other. I would not suggest any behavior that will tempt a person to have sex. Yet, older more experienced couples might be able to not have sex while doing things other rookies should not. But, I do believe originally God meant for the wrapped gift to be alluring, then waiting til the marriage to unwrap it & let all the fun begin from that point on.
If we disagree on this we disagree. But, even Song of Solomon says to not “stir up or awaken love until it desires/pleases.” This means not to force love before it is the right time. Plus, there is the concept of clean & unclean, pure & impure, in contrast to other nations & those occupying the promised land. Their impurities surely included all kinds of sin sex practices, not just adultery, that God told them not to do.
Last point, why would God approve of a practice that leaves the relationship, & individual, open to all kinds of problems, back doors, & loopholes? Single people having sex is not the image of God & His people. It is not a safe, secure, transaction. It is not a covenant agreement, like marriage. It is actually, the sin that opens nations up to worse & worse sexual sin. Regardless, of whether we want to see it. There has to be a cut off. There has to be a start. God says, it is when the two become one.
Amen! Well said!
SCMM,
Fornication is not about two single people having sex, it's about temple prostitution, and thus it is about idolatry.
Thing is, you have made all sorts of inferences about pre-marital sex and you then call it law by sneaking it in to other laws. My argument is that there is no law stating that pre-marital sex is wrong. You must remember, the whole law is built around the idea of theft. Even idolatry is theft, as you are taking away from God what is supposed to be His, that is, worship of the Divine. Like it or not, law structure around marriage was that women were property and to take from another man was theft. This is essence of adultery and it is why Jesus explained it using law against coveting property.
Marriage is also no guarantee of righteous behaviour. The amount of emphasis that people place on marriage as the sex-license seems to cheapen it for me. That is main view of Christians when viewing marriage whether it is admitted or not. Sex is a consummation act of marriage yes, but sex definitely does not equal marriage. Marriage is equalled by a promise that is made.
And remember, virginity was bought for only one purpose: the proof that any children that follow will be yours. This was very important for purposes of lineage, especially in an era where there was no form of DNA testing.
BTC
"Fornication is not about two single people having sex, it's about temple prostitution, and thus it is about idolatry." REPLY-It would include that, but would not exclude adultery. And, if adultery is fornication, so is sex between singles. Fornication is not a literal word in scripture, yet the details play out in implied indirect ways. Such as purity, & virginity laws. These have no context to temple prostitution, nor idolatry, [except] in figurative application of idolatry in the original definition of the words scripture is written in. Plus, the fact that adultery was the sin of preference for Israel points to how little single people sex happened. Just by the fact that single people sex is mentioned the least, if at all, only means it happened the least, or not at all. The varied rape laws in the OT also witness to how Israel saw single people sex. There was no casual single people sex happening like America today. Single people sex was seen as rape, or in the very least against the will of God, the woman, her family, & community. Lev 21:1-3 is one type of law that proves this, notice the virgin sister had no husband, nothing is said of casual, betrothed, intercourse of her as a single person. This is because Israel got the memo, they knew single people sex was a sin. They lived this fact & need not to have revisited it like adultery.
"Thing is, you have made all sorts of inferences about pre-marital sex and you then call it law by sneaking it in to other laws." REPLY-I have done no such thing. I have only connected God's handling of one subject to the handling of another. Such as commandment no. 1 is connected to commandments 2-10, because it is all God. No law acts independent of other laws. They are all connected & support one another somehow. Maybe slightly, or hugely.
"My argument is that there is no law stating that pre-marital sex is wrong." REPLY-You are correct that there is no explicit law (thou shalt not) against single people sex. Yet, As I stated above & in past replies to this post there is mighty implication that all intercourse is to be in the confines of the married couple. But, that is OT. What does the NT say, since Jesus has now come & fulfilled the law, & nailed it to a tree. The authority of Christ & His Apostles shed much light on the OT.
1.Matthew 15:19 (ESV) "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander."- notice adultery, sexual immorality, & theft are different distinct evils?
Hebrews 13:4 (ESV) "Let marriage be held in honor among all, and let the marriage bed be undefiled, for God will judge the sexually immoral and adulterous."-is another NT verse showing the distinct difference between sexual immorality & adultery.
1 Corinthians 7:1-2 (ESV) "1 Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband."- The first part explains single men & women should not have sexual relations. But, if that is what they want, he instructs them to get married, in the second part (by having a wife, aka. marriage). This verse is in the context of single people & betrothed people, who have not had sex yet, or are currently not having sex (the whole chapter of 1 Cor 7). Marriage & marriage sex is shown to be the cure for the single & betrothed persons ailing over sex, among other marital issues. Nowhere, in this chapter, are the single, or betrothed, people given allowance, or approval, for sexual intercourse, but are told if they are ablaze with passion for sex, get married. However, some will say Paul is speaking from his opinion. True, in some places. But, he is not speaking absent from Jesus. His words still come as authority. In this chapter he is only speaking on opinion of two righteous things, marriage & single living. Of which, neither are sins. The sex part is applied to both of these two issues. Married, have sex. Single, stay single (& [by implication] don't have sex). Singles that want sex, get married. Also, Paul is not making things up out of his desires, thin air, or as if he is God. He is an apostle, ambassador, of Jesus. Speaking for Jesus. His words would have every bit of OT to them that fit rightly into the NT gospel of Jesus. So, basically, the NT is the law that states pre-marital sex is wrong. And, this is the new living covenant that replaces the old dead covenant. Jesus is the unveiled living covenant, Moses was the veiled dying covenant. That is law.
"You must remember, the whole law is built around the idea of theft. Even idolatry is theft, as you are taking away from God what is supposed to be His, that is, worship of the Divine." REPLY-I would agree with you here. I believe I have been saying what I said in this context. But, let me point out, again, that God, Himself, differentiates what specifically the theft (sin is). Yet, once we get into the details & differences, it is God that emphasizes these differences not us. He is the one that hovers over adultery, immorality, greed, theft, lust, etc. So, much so, that we can see in major ways God does not call it all theft. He calls it by the certain act. For instance:
Deuteronomy 5:4-21 (The 10 Commandments)
v6 “‘I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery."
Comm. 1.v7 “‘You shall have no other gods before me."
Comm. 2.v8 “‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 9 You shall not bow down to them or serve them,"
Comm. 7.v18 “‘And you shall not commit adultery."
Comm. 8.v19 “‘And you shall not steal."
Comm. 10.v21 “‘And you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. And you shall not desire your neighbor’s house, his field, or his male servant, or his female servant, his ox, or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s." Notice that covet & desire are synonymous, here? You state that covet is about theft, implying they are the same. Coveting is desiring. Like NT lust is desire. But, covet & lust determines the sin aspect to these desires. It is these desires that cause the heart to take, through illegal means, such as theft of a pair of shoes, or adultery of another person's spouse. In this sense, not all coveting is theft. As God dictates.
Though all sin is illegal counterfeit & stealing from God. He clearly calls out sin for what the action is without stating or emphasizing theft at all. Including, here in the 10 Commandments differentiating between idolatry, adultery, stealing (literal theft), & coveting. It would be nonsense for God to repeat 10 times thou shalt not commit theft. One, that's not what He means, & two, why repeat Himself, especially when (as you imply) we all know it is all theft? Like acrylic paint is different from oil paint, different sins may still be illegal theft of God's good, but they are not the same thing. In the 10 Commandments, alone, stealing is not coveting. Adultery is not idolatry. They are all sin. They are all the devil manipulating God's good. But, they are different. Carrying different laws, different behavior, & different discipline.
"Like it or not, law structure around marriage was that women were property and to take from another man was theft. This is essence of adultery and it is why Jesus explained it using law against coveting property."REPLY-No where in the Bible does it say the woman is man's property. No christian should ever take Bible teaching to mean this. This is a fallacy & a sin. It is largely the world that preaches this against the church. People can twist the scriptures like the phrase "his wife" is found some 107 times in the OT. Yet, "her husband" is found some 45 times, in the OT. "Her children" is found some 11 times. The point is the relationships of people are GIVEN, not taken. Man does not take a wife as property. The taking is the sin. Adultery takes another man's wife for WIFE SEX, when she is not his to do that with. This applies the same if a wife takes another woman's husband, today. Man is given his wife, by God. Like she is given HER husband, by God. This is what creation shows. Children are both the husband's & the wife's. God made us all HIS. Yet, all these relationships have free will in us. We choose. His & hers implies ownership, but not in a master slave, or bought & paid for possession. It is about mutual agreement that the 2 become one flesh. They both are the other's. Israel's culture was much more different than other nations. NT, again, sheds light on this when christian husbands are to give up themselves, & love their wife as we love ourself. Abraham was told to listen to his wife concerning Hagar being cast out. Queens are mentioned in Israel, too (not that any were worth noting). But, ultimately, God created man for His direct purpose. Then, woman was created for God indirectly through man. Before the fall (sin) woman was seen more clearly as a tandem worker with man, in God's plan. After, sin changed all that & now our relationship is strained, at best. Hierarchy has always been there, but now needs stated more to keep sin at bay. Still, this is not bought & paid for possession. It is given as God created. Even with sin, we still relate best to one another within the boundaries God's given good.
"Marriage is also no guarantee of righteous behaviour."REPLY- Agreed.
"The amount of emphasis that people place on marriage as the sex-license seems to cheapen it for me."REPLY-For me it puts the premium on marriage. Marriage is the highest human standard. Which means marriage sex is the same premium. Single people sex cheapens this.
"That is main view of Christians when viewing marriage whether it is admitted or not. Sex is a consummation act of marriage yes, but sex definitely does not equal marriage. Marriage is equalled by a promise that is made." REPLY-Ok, I can work with that, I think. But, I don't see christians equating marriage & sex. But, I've tried to show that sex is only allowed in marriage, not the same as marriage. If this is what you mean by us equating sex & marriage, then yes that is what we mean. But, literally, at your words, that is not what we say, or mean. Literally, we are only saying sex is only allowed in marriage. The two are not equal. Just like skin & bones are not equal, but you need both to have a body. You need marriage & sex to be approved of by God.
"And remember, virginity was bought for only one purpose: the proof that any children that follow will be yours. This was very important for purposes of lineage, especially in an era where there was no form of DNA testing." But, now, since we have DNA testing we can give single people permission to have sex? This goes back to my first reply to this post. Culture does not change what is sin into righteousness. We have Jesus now, does that mean we can participate in false god worship orgies? Actually, marrying within your own belief system, in the OT, was more important than virginity, for lineage sake. God explicitly told Israel to marry within their own tribes, for the sake of curtailing false god worship (turning Israel to other gods). Not, saying virginity did not help support God's will. It is all connected. Yet, there is no support to say virginity laws had anything to do with single people sex. But, preserving virginity would play into lineage security by keeping unwed virgins from getting pregnant, especially by a person who worshipped another false god.
All in all, we have a whole Bible that gives explicit & implicit teaching on immorality, adultery, marriage, single living. All of it points to sex in marriage only. However, if there is as much explicit & implicit teaching that single people sex is righteous (not a sin) then I will gladly promote that. But, there is nothing that does that. Nowhere does the Bible give words that promotes single people sex as righteous, like it does marriage sex.
(my last entry here, thanks for the good debate, appreciate you)
We waited for everything until marriage. Being each other's first is a gift like no other. Premarital sex is a huge sin and we knew going in we would court not date. We courted with marriage in mind and set boundaries. We were always in public spaces even when engaged.
Sex bonds people and has consequences when it's used incorrectly before marriage.
Now with the whole casual dating stuff waiting is harder than ever even in Christian communities.
My husband and I also had good role models we learned from. My parents waited and his parents waited too. We were both homeschooled and went to Christian College that supported our values too.
We both grew up in church and I remember the talks with my parents about how important it was to wait for my spouse.
Everyone has different ideas but for us it was 100 important to save ourselves only for each other. We grew together as a couple and with nothing to compare it to it makes it even better. Everything was worth the wait.
1,000% amen! Exactly what God intends. Yet, we play the cards we are dealt, totally agree. Thanks for your reply, a great value of experience. Only if all had the same structure, understanding, & commitment you had/have. Would truly be the blessing you speak of for all.
I also know kissing can lead to other things. Especially when alone. When we were married on our wedding night it was so hard not to stop and advance to intercourse.
This is a topic that probably ought to be discussed more in churches and not relegated to quiet corners of the internet imho. While I will admit that it is a bit difficult to fully deduce from Scripture how a man should manage his relationship with a woman he is attracted to, I do have some opinions that I believe have some wisdom to them.
I personally believe that a man ought not take what might belong to another man in the future. I don’t think any sexual acts should be done between to people who do not have full intention of marriage. Biblically speaking when a man takes a woman in that way, he is then responsible to take her as his wife forever, under most circumstances. And in a practical sense as well, why would I want to do those things with a woman I didn’t want to keep for the rest of my life?
This might make me sound like a prude, but I assure you that I am not lol
I appreciate the discussion and the ideas, so thank you to HappyHubs for bringing up this ever-relevant topic again.
I hold more more conservative boundaries, both in my moral views and in my personal preference. However, I do agree with much of what you say. I recognize the dangers and damage caused by Purity Culture, but there's a baby that shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater. As individual Christians, and as a church together, we should be much better at acknowledging and appreciating the normalcy and the goodness of sexual attraction and sexual feelings between the sexes, especially between a man and woman who are actively pursuing a romantic relationship. We are sexual beings even before we are married. We should acknowledge that sexual desire is a significant component in most people's desire to find a partner and get married! That's part of God's good design, and we shouldn't feel even the slightest bit of shame or embarrassment about it. Couples shouldn't be afraid of their sexuality. They should speak openly about it, and tell each other how much they desire each other.
However, while the acknowledgement and expression of those desires should be done openly and without shame, acting upon those desires should wait. Until a couple is married, I don't think they should go nearly as far as suggested in this post.
I base my view on the generalized foundation that sex outside of marriage is wrong. I've had to defend that view a number of times recently, which has given me a concise summary of why I believe that. Here are the main points in summary:
– Genesis 2:24-25 says that man and wife come together to be one flesh. Not just any man and woman, but a man and his WIFE—his partner for life, committed to one another in covenant.
– Deuteronomy 22:13-21 prescribes severe punishments when pre-marriage promiscuity is discovered, or when false accusations of such are made. 22:21 also says, about a woman who was not a virgin at marriage, that "she has done an outrageous thing in Israel by whoring in her father's house." That statement condemns unmarried sex pretty harshly.
– In 1 Corinthians 7:2, Paul says that the way to avoid sexual temptation is to have a spouse—presumably because they're the only one who can fulfill your sexual desires in a morally acceptable way. There's no suggestion that those desires can be met in an acceptable way in any relationship other than marriage.
– In the same chapter, in verse 36, it's clear once again that the solution for strong sexual desire is marriage. People with such desire should marry, not just go ahead and have sex with someone they're not married to.
– The Bible gives zero—ZERO—positive or accepting references to sex outside of marriage. All references are either negative, or portrayed in a neutral sense as a matter of factual narrative.
– Marriage is representative of the relationship between Christ and the Church (Ephesians 5:32, in the broader context of 5:22-33). Sex is the pinnacle of intimacy in that relationship, and removing it from its proper place defaces the work of art that is meant to represent Christ and the Church. Our love is supposed to be toward Christ and Christ alone, in his New Covenant with us. Because marriage mirrors this, that means we should only share our closest and most intimate relations with ONE person—the one with whom we have a life-long covenant.
And that's just the biblical side of things! What about the practical impacts? Risk of STDs, pregnancy and children without two committed parents, comparisons to previous partners, wondering about previous partners, jealousy of previous partners, guilt, deeper heartbreak upon breakup due to the greater loss of intimacy, and all kinds of other baggage. While these are not themselves moral indicators, willfully exposing yourself and a person you claim to love to those consequences is a clear violation of the basic principle that we are to love one another and do what is best for them. Each person must love their dating partner enough to realize that, until the very moment they're married, there's a chance they would be having sex with a person who is meant to be someone else's spouse. That is DEEPLY disrespectful and unloving toward the person who is currently your partner, toward the person who they will eventually marry, and toward the loving God who designed the gifts of marriage and sex in the first place.
So, for all those reasons and more, sex outside of marriage is wrong. Now let's continue with the application of that foundational belief to this particular scenario . . .
Intercourse is the clearest off-limits boundary, but I don't believe that's the first point where sexual activity before/outside of marriage becomes sinful. As many MarriageHeat members have affirmed in their stories and comments over the years, PIV intercourse is not the only way to have sex. In other words, it's not the only thing that qualifies as sex. For example, oral and manual stimulation of erogenous zones are just as much part of the sexual relationship as PIV intercourse (though intercourse does still have a special place). I think it would be intellectually dishonest for anyone to say that manual stimulation is lovemaking, and yet also claim it doesn't count as sex for the purposes of pre-marriage sexual boundaries. If you are touching someone with intent to cause sexual arousal and sexual pleasure, that's sex. Plain and simple.
For that reason, the boundary I subscribe to is that any intentional, physical stimulation of erogenous zones should be off-limits before marriage. I can't quote you a Bible verse to support that, but my reasoning is simple: physical stimulation with intent to cause sexual arousal and sexual pleasure is clearly and inseparably a part of the act of sex. And I've already outlined while I believe the act of sex is morally acceptable only in marriage.
Now I want to address some examples in the category of what HappyHubs originally posted. Things like holding hands and kissing don't have to be inherently sexual, but I don't see how groping a breast or a bulge can be anything BUT sexual.
I think it's natural and good for intimacy to increase as commitment increases, but the increase in intimacy should not outpace the increase in commitment. For example, that means deep kissing on a first date feels HIGHLY inappropriate, but a hug and a little hand-holding seems right. For an engaged couple, a few passionate kisses seems appropriate, but deep kissing and groping to the point of full arousal still seems both inappropriate and unwise. While there is an agreement of sorts with engagement, it is completely non-binding, and can be broken off at any time by either partner with minimal consequences and no promises broken, which means in reality, the commitment is still very low, so the sexual intimacy should stay commensurately low. Marriage is where the true bond of commitment is formed, and where intimacy can now be fully released.
I do agree with the statement that it's important have "physical chemistry", although it's a rather vague term. But this feels like an empty argument and an excuse for sexual licentiousness, because there are alternative (and much better) ways to figure out if someone will be a good life partner. Sexual values are VERY important, and they SHOULD be explored long before marriage, but through conversation, not physical action. The argument that physical chemistry or sexual compatibility must be physically tested before making a life-long commitment is fundamentally flawed, because it incorrectly assumes that such things are pre-determined, immutable traits. They are not. Such things are mostly learned over time, and the best and safest place to learn is together, in the safety of a committed relationship—and again, you're not truly committed until you're married. Any major physical compatibility issues (like overall body size differences, or unusual physical proportions of genitals) can be identified and discussed without sexual activity, as can plans for addressing such issues. Physical sexual contact is entirely unnecessary to achieve these things, so they are not valid excuses to get inappropriately sexual before marriage.
If you appreciate how your girlfriend, boyfriend, or fiancé(e) looks, then TELL THEM! Don't just go groping. Honestly, I think most romantic partners (men and women alike) would appreciate it more if you said "Man, your butt looks amazing in those jeans," rather than just grabbing a handful of said butt and jeans. If you're really far along in the relationship, you can add a spicier comment in anticipation of marriage, and the consummation of the sexual side of your relationship. If a couple is a month away from the wedding, I don't think it would be inappropriate to add, "But I think it will look even hotter WITHOUT the jeans."
I'll conclude with this thought: just because the Bible doesn't state explicit boundaries, that doesn't mean those boundaries don't exist. The Bible purposely doesn't outline every single possible detail of every moral question humanity could ever have. As I've stated in other comments, if it tried to do that, it would be MILLIONS of pages long, and no one could ever read it all.
Through relationship with God, we're meant to be transformed in our spirit, our conscience, and our desires, so that we are naturally aligned with God's ways. Because we're not yet perfected, we still need guidance from outside of ourselves, even after we've been regenerated through our faith, which we why we have the Bible. But we're not supposed to have to read a million pages of obscure and hyper-specific rules to understand how God wants us to live.
He gave us intelligence and regenerated spirits to understand patterns, and then gave us principles to live by. He gives us very specific rules on the most important things (Love God with your whole being, love your neighbor as yourself, and the core 10 Commandments against murder, adultery, stealing, etc.). Aside from those important specifics, he gives us PRINCIPLES to live by, which are necessarily less specific, but which guide us on what is right and wrong.
When we are not aligned with God in our hearts, we outright ignore his principles.
When we are PRETENDING to be aligned with God, we try to bend and twist those principles to allow for the sinful behaviors we still desire in the unrepentant and unsanctified parts of our hearts. We disingenuously pretend that a fence isn't actually a fence, simply because it has holes in it.
But if we are properly aligned with God in our hearts, and are continually growing in sanctification, becoming more like God, then we will understand how these principles apply to our lives, and we will understand how God wants us to live, even when the Bible doesn't contain a direct answer to our specific question.
Amen! Well said!
[…]
[Summarized by MH: With our clothes on, I often straddled him, and we did "dry humping" while making out. Sometimes he reached under my bra and under my skirt, fingered me, and talked dirty to me.]
[Edited by MH: You're welcome to share your experiences, especially on discussion posts like this. However, as a matter of honoring marriage as the only proper place for sexual expression, we do ask that any discussions of pre-marital experiences be kept matter-of-fact, and not be eroticized or glorified. Thanks!]
Sorry Sexygirlhorny, I have to agree with MH, him fingering you I believe is part of marital sexual contact, I do see that some comments disagreed, but that is where I stand.
My fiance and I have decided to keep physical touching and relations for our marriage only, but we do currently have phone sex, in which both of us masturbate while talking to each other. It helps us feel intimate with boundaries and I love knowing that we are, let's say, training our bodies for our one another. I can't wait for us to serve each other the way God intended once we are married, and for now I am honored to prepare myself for his sacred gift.
Welcome naughtynubile, I think being engaged, phone sex is okay, others disagree.
If you have been around long enough, you will know I think masturbation is essential to be practising before marriage. I believe it right and good that you and your fiancé are encouraging each other to masturbate yourselves.
You will also see in the stories here about the importance of continuing to masturbate yourself when married. A good healthy marriage has both frigging and fucking.
I think masturbation in preparation for marriage is a secondary reason to masturbate. The primary reason is to God.
"Masturbation is a gift from God. We must honour him, give thanks and offer back to him, and celebrate the gifts of our body and sexuality. We do that by masturbating ourselves, it is between us and him. Our sexuality is for the intimacy and creating of life with our husband. But it is primarily about God, an image of Him (which like all things is a poor image.) Orgasm is a foretaste of the ecstasy we have when we stand before him, that is why it is in marital sex as the uniting of the two bodies images God and has the potential to create new life. But with masturbation, it is between us and him. It is also beautiful and all beauty comes from God. "
https://marriageheat.com/2024/06/02/masturbation-as-sexual-purity/