Sathfilms


A pefect partner exists – an assumption often made?
May 25, 2007, 5:07 pm
Filed under: Love, Morality, Religion, Spirituality, TS

Sex before Marriage – Right or Wrong? « How bout a lil chillaxin?

I’m thinking about this in an Australian context because that’s where I live. The linked post asks a question that I think used to be far more important in Australian society some years back, however I haven’t really heard many people talk about it of late, although I acknowledge that there are sections of society that preach that sex before marriage is bad. It should probably be noted that the times that I’ve ever heard this topic being brought up, were with regards to religion, but obviously the topic can be discussed separate to religion also. Yet, I’m more interested in the assumption made in this argument/exploration/questioning/question, that a “perfect mate” exists somewhere out there.

The two comments left so far on the original blog-post are quite valid. The first comment seems to be from a point of view that sex before marriage is bad. If you’re comparing this question about sex to that of the theory of communism, it’s like you’re saying it would be great if we could hold on until marriage, but it’s not going to happen because society makes it difficult. It’s an amusing analogy but if you truly believe it’s not ”applicable” I don’t see why you would also say in theory it would be the best gift to your spouse, when you seem to also suggest in your comment, that you don’t think sex before marriage is a big deal. Perhaps being a virgin is a great gift to your future spouse, but then, the spouse will only truly care if they actually agree that sex before marriage is bad but inevitable. The second comment that people should all have a knowledge of the dangers etc is extremely true and I think schools in Australia, and definitely the one I went to, make sure that people are educated about the potential consequences of sex.

The original post reads: But I also believe that giving you[r] pure body to your new spouse is the greatest gift you could possibly give them. It says that “I knew I would find the perfect mate some day and I saved myself for you”. That is so much better than, “I got tired of waiting so I gave it away to three other guys before I met you”. “ Now, I was discussing this with a friend and a couple of thoughts came to me. Let’s assume for a second that sex is more than a bodily function. So, the quote above is only true if you believe that there is a “perfect mate”and that you can only love one person in your life. I don’t think I believe that, but it’d be interesting to hear people’s thoughts on that.

Secondly, there is the problem of marriage, children and divorce. To state the obvious, part of a healthy intimate relationship, is sex. A lot of people increasingly move in with each other and live life together for a long time before marrying and having children. This way, they can see whether they are truly compatible with each other; and they get a glimpse of whether the relationship will last. Wouldn’t that be better than rushing into a marriage, having children, only to then realise you’re not really happy with your partner? Of course, it should be noted that people do get married and both people haven’t had premarital sex, and they live on for decades being happy with each other, but at the same time, the opposite has often been true and then the kids are in the middle struggling. Marriage usually means a lot of commitment (although it seems marriages are getting shorter and shorter) and perhaps people should try and be more certain, especially before having kids.

I also think that previous relationships become irrelevant. You might say, “I got tired of waiting so I gave it away to three other guys before I met you,” but what if you truly had feelings for those people – what if you thought you loved them? I think far more people would be against a blog-post with the heading “random sex before marriage – right or wrong?” I really think things like “perfect mate” are far too ideal especially since you’re implying that one would actually know if and when they found such a person.

“God’s will sometimes doesn’t have the power to stop raging hormones or a deep love for someone.” – Raging hormones aside, I’m wondering how different your definition of “deep love” is to your definition of “perfect mate.” 

“So..  is it right or is it wrong?” – I don’t personally see it as an issue. It shouldn’t make a difference. I guess it would, if your religious views tell you otherwise. I think in some ways when you decide to settle down with someone for whatever reasons, your previous relationships, and the sex, become irrelevant. Unless the person you’re with is a virgin, they wouldn’t really be jealous of your previous experiences unless you keep referring to those times in your past. However, “right or wrong” really depends on the value one places on sex and virginity. Yes, I think right and wrong are relative, because I do not believe in an absolute truth that is present in a text. Would you be like “oh my god, wow, you saved yourself for me?” if the person you were with said that they’d abstained from sex until they found you? I personally wouldn’t care, but I’m sure there are people out there who would say that one shouldn’t have sex unless they are perfectly sure that they have found “the one” and obviously, for those people sex before marriage would be bad, and the “gift” you speak of, would be great.

Strange topic to talk about. Even stranger because I don’t think it’s a big deal and my opinion, it seems, is quite vague and, “do what you want!” I just don’t think people should really care about another’s past relationships when they get into a relationship with that person. If sex is just a bodily function, then no one should care; if it’s an expression of affection, or love, then only if someone has sex with another person while in a relationship, should someone care; if sex means that you have chosen that one mate for ever, well then, it’s time to put on the chastity belt.

It’d be great to hear some thoughts on this.


17 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Hiya, the reason I blogged this question was because I live in a Middle Eastern country. Many of my friends are muslim and obviously they believe that sex before marriage is completely 100% wrong. Just to clarify , I wasn’t taking either side. I can see both sides of the coin. I can’t wait to see people’s thoughts on this.
Thanks for blogging it too. You make some good points and I agree with everything you say. Many of the thoughts on my post were thoughts of my fellow muslim friends and not of myself, but I thought it nice to post both sides of the spectrum to see what people thought.
Nice blog by the way.

Comment by chillaxinleila

Oh my God Arnie, everybody I know must be living in sin and will go straight to hell when they die! I do not know one person who has waited until marriage before having sex. Five of my friends have kids and aren’t married…

Comment by pheona

Are you yelling at me Pheona? Hey, I don’t think anyone is living in sin – I don’t even think “sin” exists. People have to just use their heads. I’m not even convinced that I’ll ever get married, but I definitely want a partner. And Chillaxinleila, I responded to your post since I barely ever hear about the “sex before marriage thing” much especially outside of a religious context. Thinking now, I must say the question isn’t even an issue for me, but I was more interested in the “perfect mate” part of the post which refers to why some people wait till marriage :) So, I might change my post heading. Your post makes more sense now that your mention your location and your friends. I never can remotely agree with religious things that say anything is bad unless there is a very good reason apart from “THIS IS HOW IT MUST BE!” I also found the comment that made the comparison between sex before marriage and communism quite neat, but I still don’t agree with it because it seems to suggest that sex before marriage is bad because there’s an assumption that there is a perfect partner.

Comment by Arnie

Yelling? No. I haven’t worked out how sarcasm works online. It happened in someone elses post too. Is there some kind of emoticon I should be using?

Comment by pheona

I didn’t really believe you were yelling at me, but I was confused and thought the worst! I don’t know about emoticons. I guess you could use a smiley face but it sort of undermines the seriousness in everything else you say – unless you don’t really care :) Maybe it’s partially just the writing style, and the fact that you said, “Oh my God Arnie,” and addressed me directly when I wasn’t saying sex before marriage was bad at all. Addressing me directly is what confused me intially. I guess I would have read it differently if you had said, “Oh my God, everybody I know must be…” because it read like like you were saying “Arnie, what the hell are you talking about!” but maybe you were :) It’s all good. Smiley faces for everyone! :) :) :)

Comment by Arnie

Ha! I was trying to personalise it by interacting with you – the author of the post. ;)

Comment by pheona

Hi Arnie,
you raise a contraversial topic!
It seems most notions of sex before marriage being ‘bad’ are tied to religion. Many religions were ‘invented’ or founded or given to man-kind thousands of years ago. Remember, religion like any other cultural phenomenon is a product of the times when it emerged. What I am trying to say is that the teachings were probably there to help protect people. Either from each other or from themselves.
Some concepts in religion are aligned with fundamentally human qualities. For instance whether you are religious or otherwise, people recognise that it is wrong to lie, cheat or kill.
Other concepts in religion are apt only for the time when it was most developed. This idea of sex before marriage was probably to stop guys knocking up curious teenage girls then leaving them to fend for themselves.
2000 years ago, this could have been disasterous. Poor healthcare could result in the death of the mother, leaving the newborn with no one to look after it.
In this day and age, those concerns are far fewer with support from family networks, government and other institutions. And with people living longer and becoming healthier, the idea of ONE SINGLE mate for life is ludicrous. it works for some, but not all.
You don’t need to be in a marriage to be in love or even to care for a child. And anyway, why would God give us hormones if we weren’t meant to use them?! So I say if you want to have sex before marriage and feel you are with the right person, go for it!

Comment by Pei

Great Pei, you pointed out an annoying flaw in my post which sort of suggested that one should be married to have kids. Marriage is a construct that isn’t necessary just like any other religious guideline. I was thinking more towards a child having two parents who are together and happy. That said, perhaps one parent is great… Within my narrow frame, I’ve always thought two parents would be the best for a child, and in that sense it would be great for prospective parents (a couple) to be as sure about each other as they can be before they bring a child into the world – and that’s what I was trying to clumsily say.

The point you make about rules such as “no sex before marriage” were put in place was for our own safety is a good one. Maybe that was the case, but I’d be interested in what a fundamentalist would say to that remark. Perhaps they would agree that it was for our (or someone’s) safety, but then it’s also because of some sort of absolute system of morality that isn’t based in worldly reason. All your points are valid. Hormones are there for a reason, but perhaps to tempt and test us? I doubt it.

People should just use their brains and work out what is the right thing to do in the given situation.”So I say if you want to have sex before marriage and feel you are with the right person, go for it!” Agreed.

Comment by Arnie

I guess ‘fundamental’ christian morality has never come under more attack than in the issue of sex before marriage.

This argument that “love makes it right” is a common one. But love does not imply commitment and sex, as a union of two people has consequences beyond just potential childbirth. Consider this, why is a sexual violation considered the worst in our society? Because it is robbing someone of part of themselves that should be held sacred.

I know how little bible references are valued, and how ‘blindly’ quoting them doesn’t really support a point…but from the bible sex is considered as the union of two beings, into one flesh. When united, these are not meant to be separated and the pain ensuing can be compared to ripping flesh of your body.

Sex is the most intimate expression of love – not just affection. Love in this sense is constant (not wavering despite momentary feelings of anger, boredom etc) – so in this sense it is feasible to have ONE partner throughout your life. Marriage confirms this commitment to love despite the inevitable trials that life brings.

Comment by James

Rape or sexual violation is personal violation. It’s considered the worst because it’s as personal as you can be with someone physically, and there has to be mutual permission for it to occur. It is personal but not necessarily sacred. It is robbing someone of their most personal rights. And, just another note, “love” between two people who are attracted to each other usually implies sex. Commitment is another issue between two people that can be looked at independent of sex, surely.

Your third paragraph is talking about something that is relative, and people can move on after the ripping of flesh and it hurts different people to different extents.

I see your point, and you have the right to have your own opinion. Your last paragraph is just what you, and I’m sure many others, define sex (and love) as. Your view, and a scripture, doesn’t make sex and love what you say it is unfortunately.

Thanks for adding another view to the discussion.

Comment by Arnie

It’s a difficult issue. I mean, maybe it has originated from different religions, but socially, the opinions regarding sex before marriage are quite varied.

Who really has the right to determine that people have to get married. All marriage is is a contract anyway. I definitely does not prove love or commitment!?

Comment by Sarah

Very true Sarah. Marriage itself is something that so many people don’t agree with, or it’s something that isn’t taken so seriously and held as sacred. One just has to look at Hollywood to see that.

How about this: sex before marriage is personal, and it’s up to the people involved. What right does anyone else, or religion, have about it being right or wrong?

Comment by Arnie

Couples in Hollywood don’t represent a normal society. Actors have to act intimately with other actors which don’t happen in normal life. In addition, Hollywood has instant successes and extra ordinary things going on where people struggle to find equilibrium. They I would say fall out side the normal curve in statistical terms.

Quantum physics suggests you attract what you think – law of attraction. If you think you will have an ideal partner / spouse for life you will. If you expect the worst, don’t be surprised if it shows up. From science to philosophers recommend to visualise what you really want in life. If you worry about something it will show up!

You might want to try it out with simpler things as an experiment. If you master it you have a wish fulfilling tool within yourself!

Comment by Saki

Thanks for another response. Do you have a blog?I agree with your first paragraph, the second paragraph is scary, but I’ve read the some books that talk about quantum physics and seen What the Bleep do we Know? and I can sort of see what it all means about intention impacting results of things that one does not control, however I wish I could truly understand – I wonder if anyone does. It is ideas like this that make me question the idea of a “personal God,” and rather think of some sort of other idea of what a higher (or greater) power could be.

Don’t you think you should be prepared for the worst in any case? I mean, your statements after the first paragraph are quite ideal. What you are proposing is amazingly difficult, so I guess if you find someone who can visualise their intentions without worrying, then perhaps you can see if this happens…

Science of possibilities… so who knows [anything]…

Comment by Arnie

No. I don’t have a blog.

Regarding you comments, generally everyone worries some time or the other. However, one could let the worry go as soon as they realise they are worrying or if someone tells them that they are on a negative analytical path. When the gap is created (when there is no thinking thus no opinion) in that moment one can visualise what one wants. It is like anything else, takes time, practice and effort.

Comment by Saki

I don’t know about what James said about sex being the most intimate form of love. I’m told that that’s how men interprete it anyway. Survivors don’t love their rapeists and I doubt rapists love their prey! Animals don’t have sex upon this basis either. There are couples out there who can’t even perform sex and I doubt that means that they cannot experience the highest form of intimacy. What for the millions on anti-depressants who experience inorgasmia as a side effect? Gosh I’m sure sex with your husband can even be mundane! Sex is an act, a powerfull physical act that affects all living creatures as new life may very well emerge. It’s huge! And when paired with feelings of intense mindfull/spiritual love it’s out of this world. But distinctions must be made. Sex is not always an expression of ‘making love’. It can represent self-gratification, loneliness, neediness, addiction, escape, dominance, violation, druken fun and even 10 year old curiosity just to name a few.

The popular ideals of love that James expressed -Love being constant and unwavering so as to support a lifetime of marriage- feels weak, old, naive and a very missleading argument. Life is not a 24 paged illustrated fairytale. Love is a beautifull word but do we really know what it is and what it feels like? Can we really unitze love so confidently as to know all its properties including its impact upon time? How do we distinguish love between the people we encounter each day? Should we always be ‘in love’ love when married or is it ok just to love the other person enough? Then, how is this love different from any other close relationship that one may have outside of their marriage? Love is not a rational entity therfore how is it that such rational statements are made? That is the beauty of love!

I am really questioning the institution of marriage here as well. Couldn’t it be that there is more than one person to be in love with within a lifetime? How fair is it to promise a lifetime of the unknown to another person? Is this in itself loving? For practicle and economic purposes marriage protects the family unit. It even protects our fear of lonliness by providing a sense of stability, prediction and support. But what happends when we grow into different directions? What are we to make of our promise then?

We live in times of cheap contraception, emerging female independance, a respect and acknowledgment of ones phenomenological experience, quality eduactions and a growing maturity on how to raise children through divorce. These are very different times. Is marriage a flailing institution?

I don’t suggest that we head into some type of hedonic way of life just one where personal inner truth is listened for paramount to any social expectation. I question marriage but that’s not to say that I know that there is no form of love that suits the commitment. And this leads me to a question I have been wondering about for sometime… I recognise that there are some very truely in love couples out there, what is it, what is that one thing that remains constanst in a couples love to get them through 50 years of marital growth?

Comment by Ari

PS- Great website Arni and hope to see you soon!

Comment by Ari




Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>