Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    I'm really struggling to compose any sort of response to this because everything you've said seems to lack any consideration for context... I'll have a go anyway but if I get another senseless reply, I just won't bother, sorry.

    (Original post by Cherry82)
    Mind me, I would like to use your own quotes also to explain my proposition. Initially, I was not taking our whole conversation seriously and I will admit, I did reply at times recklessly. However now I believe it is time to actually break down everything to thoroughly explain what I believe and my own statements.

    'Okay, before I go into this, I'd just like to say: you assumed a lot in that post. I didn't say anything about sex being natural or not. I replied to one specific part of your post, which I put in bold. :/

    Why I began speaking about sex and it being natural is because human/animal instincts are natural and as you had stated- sex is an instinct therefore it is natural. I was not saying that you had said any thing about sex being natural or not...in fact I was going speaking purely off the fact that you had touched on instincts then derived into sub topics where I had shared my own opinions. Moreover I was trying to say, so what if wanting sex is instinctual? What are you trying to say with this point?
    Not much, actually. You haven't taken into consideration the context in which I said that. You claimed in a previous post that not wanting to have sex was natural; I contradicted that. Now you're asking me 'so what?' Well, nothing. You made an incorrect statement and I corrected it. There's nothing more to it.

    This is what my original complaint was in the post that you've replied to: you seem to be replying to your own thoughts rather than mine. I really have no idea where all this stuff about instinct and its relationship to nature is coming from. I wrote two lines on the subject and you seem to have written an essay about it like a student of literature might. :/

    I am saying does that mean that because it is instinctual we should not have boundaries and just give into these wants or 'needs'. I was saying just because something is instinctual does not mean that we give into it without thinking or making rational decisions. Fear and anger are emotions that go under the category of human instincts. But even when these instincts set in, we overcome them, deciding how we use these instincts.
    Again, I haven't the faintest clue who you're talking to and what you're talking about. No, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't have boundaries and give in to wants. But did I say anything about that? No. But just to be clear: an instinct is a pattern of behaviour normally motivated by emotions such as fear and anger. Fear and anger aren't themselves instincts. So if you were a deer and you were approached by a lion, fear would be the stimulus and running away would be the instinct. Fear itself is not an instinct in that example. Anyhoo, no idea why you brought it up...

    An example is feeling anxious and fearful because of upcoming, intensive exam- we prepare for the exam and have hopes of doing well though we never do actually have a clue to what will exactly appear on it. Although people may be afraid of sitting the exam, they study and still sit the exam conquering the fear felt prior to the exam. Why people do this is because they know it will affect their future outcomes one way or another- whether affecting their places at university or needing certain amount of grades to enter their desired university.
    I have absolutely no idea what this has to do with anything previously discussed. :/ Sorry if I'm being dense here but it really doesn't make any sense to me. It's possible to overcome instinctual behaviour. That's no great secret and nor have I said anywhere that it isn't possible.

    Another example is when your loved one makes you angry. I would not lash out and punch my younger brother when he does something to anger me but rather I would take into account that sometimes he does not know better and I will speak to him about how I feel so that we could sort out what went wrong without violence as I love him. A better outcome would come out of us communicating through calmly speaking than us fighting and me punching him- I do not want to hurt him. You see, we make decisions and overcome our instincts and initial reactions because we know it will bring the better, it will bring a better out come and it avoids other people getting hurt.
    Yet another word salad the purpose of which I can't fathom. I don't know what your point is - I never said instincts can't be overcome and I never said that we shouldn't. Also, 'better' is subjective - you may see rational discussion over violence as a better way of doing things (and I would agree with you there) but there is no objective reason why that's a better way of resolving things than violence. Sure, less people get hurt, which makes it subjectively better to talk about it than be violent but the point is that it's only better if that's your objective, hence it is subjective. There's no objective reason to ensure that less people get hurt unless, as you do, you believe in an objective morality written by a god. I have my own reasons.

    But again, I digress. That had almost nothing to do with anything discussed beforehand but I didn't want to leave it unanswered at the risk of looking like I don't have a response.

    These emotions are instinctual- please research this. Research lists of human instincts, any thing and you'll see that these are indeed instinctual.
    I'll say it again: emotions are not instinctual. An instinct is a behaviour, not an emotion. An emotion triggers an instinct. See lion and deer example above.

    I won't be researching it because I don't see what these have to do with the matter at hand.

    'Unfortunately for you, we are. We may have developed brains big enough to think but we are just 'sexified, sex crazed mammals.' Whether that aggravates you has no bearing on whether it's true or not. Nature exists independent of the feelings of humans.'

    Even if we are, and so? What does this mean? Even if we are sex crazed mammals does that mean we should just have sex without making rational decisions? I do not understand your own proposition to be honest.
    Perhaps deliberately. You've failed to look at the context of that. That wasn't an open-ended question, it was a statement. You said that we weren't 'sexified, sex crazed mammals' and I said that we are and explained why that's the case. I don't see why you've inserted questions like 'so?' and 'what does this mean?' in here - I didn't just make the statement out of thin air, it was in response to something you said. :/

    But just in case you're wondering, here are some answers I haven't thought too much about: 1. So nothing. You made a statement, I contradicted it. 2. It doesn't mean anything more than what I've said. I don't see why it needs to mean anything. 3. No, it doesn't mean that. I didn't say it. You assumed that and are on the brink of putting words in my mouth.

    I mean if we just went off those basis, not saying you claimed this, but going solely on the basis of us being sexually driven does that mean we should just have sex without really giving it a thought since we are sex crazed mammals.
    I think I'm beginning to see the problem. I hinted at it earlier: you seem to think that if something is natural, then it must be 'good' or 'better' than something that's unnatural. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the impression I'm getting from you. I made a statement about nature; this does not mean that I'm advocating that that is what we should be doing. I don't see why else you'd think that unless you automatically thought of any statement about nature as also necessarily being an advocacy of that behaviour.

    I think there would be many problems with that. We're already dealing with over population, I do not think we need more people added to the equation. If everyone just gave in to having sex with whoever, I know me personally I would have sex with all of the guys I had found attractive which were many.
    There are all sorts of interesting reasons why the human population is increasing (higher standards of sanitation and living, intelligence, better, science-based healthcare) and why this is similar to a train that is almost impossible to halt (the need for economic growth, which requires a workforce).

    But honestly, this is the sort of non-argument that gets thrown around a lot. Would not having sex for purposes other than procreation be more effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy - and hence slowing, by a very small amount, the rate of population growth - than condoms, which are about 97 percent (don't quote me on this)? Yes. But if we were to look at the cost:benefit ratio of this choice, simply having sex with a condom is far better than not having sex at all. Sexually repressed individuals are, in my view, also the ones with the unhealthiest attitude when it comes to sex (the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church comes to mind). Abstinence is the worst way to plug that 3 percent gap - the morning after pill or abortion sound like much more plausible solutions.

    Not only would this open me up to a higher risk of pregnancy but it will also open me to a higher risk of STIs. (Not all a curable so no thank you)
    As another person has pointed out, it's impossible to be sure of this. You hope your future spouse, whose existence you seem to think is certain, will be loyal to you but there is no guarantee of that. You'll have to face the fact that anytime you have sex with someone, within wedlock or outside of it, there is no guarantee that you won't get STIs. To pretend otherwise is to lie to yourself.

    In addition, can I just say this: if your reasons are religious, then this sounds more or less like a secondary reason to support an existing viewpoint. It's been my experience with a lot of religious people that, instead of looking at the evidence and coming to a view based on that evidence, they will first form a view, often based on their religion, and then look for evidence to support it. That is what I think you're doing with the whole STI thing. I could be wrong but I don't think I am in this instance.

    People easily forget that jealousy is also a human instinct. People want monogamous relationships that rely on loyalty.
    Speak for yourself. You certainly don't speak for those in open and polyamorous relationships.

    Humans have emotions. If we were in a perfect world where everyone was emotionless- we could get away with living that way. It would be ok to just go loose and have sex with whoever and whenever we want. But there are consequences for the actions we make whether good or bad.
    Good and bad are subjective concepts.

    Again, If I said to myself because we are sexually driven, it's ok for me to have a one night stand with a complete stranger, I would have to deal with consequences later on. As I know how I am naturally, I am a sensitive being and I catch feelings easily therefore having a night one stand with a complete stranger who feels otherwise would not be a wise decision because I would only get hurt.
    Fair enough.

    'Nature exists independent of the feelings of humans'? What!! Feelings and emotions co-exist with human instincts, there are instinctual. [b]This I know- please do your research and tell me what you had read. Seriously.
    What've I said that's difficult to understand? I know you're a Christian and everything but there's no rational reason to suppose that nature - the physical, material world, that is - gives a damn what humans think. It is cold and emotionless and cares not for the feelings of any group of apes. I don't see why you need me to do research to know this. All this nonsense about emotions and instincts, as I've said all along, has nothing to do with what I said. When I say 'nature' I mean the physical world, not emotions and human instincts.

    Overall though, even if we are as you have stated, sexual driven so what? What are you trying to say or justify?
    Nothing. It was a response to something you said. I don't know why you think I'm trying to justify anything with it. It's a mere statement of fact in response to a statement of non-fact.

    'Other animals have the power to make decisions too. They just have different wants (namely to survive and pass on their genes) to most humans. I don't agree with your anthropocentrism - we are nothing more than clusters of space dust on a slightly larger cluster of space dust. It scares some people because they're scared by the lack of 'meaning' - whatever that is - but that is the way it is, as far as we can tell at the present time. Sure, we're smarter than some of the other space dust but that doesn't translate to a higher 'amazement factor', if you'll pardon the expression.'

    Well that is great. Well I see human beings more than 'clusters of space'. I have love and care for human beings and animals. We have relationships, we laugh, cry, think, create, love, hate. We are more than just 'clusters of space'. We are made up of 'clusters of space' but we have more to us as see the world we've also created. More so as a Christian too (though I hate labels as I have repeatedly stated but wanting to be politically correct) I see human beings more than what you have stated. This is my own views not yours whether you or any one else likes it or not. I believe in the physical and the spiritual!
    Good for you. Not sure why you think laughing, crying, thinking, creating, loving and hating can't be done by mere space dust but whatever.

    'I'm sorry, but what? We would definitely (continue to) survive if we acted purely on our instincts. Of course, life would generally be boring if we did, because there's not much excitement in our instincts anyway.'

    Ok before I even touch on this point, what do you mean by if we 'acted purely on our instincts' and please give examples. Preferably ones relating to our main topic of discussion. What I had meant previously, I am very certain could be entirely different from what you mean or are trying to state.
    The consistent problem with the post I'm replying to is that you seem to not remember much from earlier parts of the discussion. It doesn't mean anything more than it says, it's not trying to justify anything, it's not advocating that you live life in manners x, y, z or anything else. It was a response to something that you said ('we couldn't survive if we acted purely on our instincts'), not a standalone statement by me. I take it that you meant human instinct as it exists to procreate and survive long enough to do so and, in response to that, I said that we could survive if that were true, as we did for much of our early history when most humans existed as hunter-gatherers.

    'In most cases, people are following tradition. From a young age, most people are brought up to think that there is a 'normal' path through life, namely getting a good education, a good job, getting married, raising kids and then retiring. There is some overlap with religion in the sense that most people follow the religion of their parents anyway so, in those cases, both religion and tradition are at play. I personally see this as putting children in a mind prison of sorts.'

    I agree with you on the comments about tradition. But please note, there are christians who do not fit this category. Me including. I am not someone who became Christian because of their parents. I disagree with this as I believe your relationship with God is personal- it is between you and God not you, your parents, who ever and God. You can't inherit a relationship but make one.
    Tell that to the billions of people who have inherited a relationship with god(s). You're the exception, not the rule. :/

    People of today 'inherit' there parent's religion rather than thinking independently and analysing why they believe in something. I know many people who call themselves Christians and Muslims because of their parents which I am against.
    Actually, this current age is the most enlightened one to date when it comes to not following what your parents follow so we're improving in that respect.

    'I'm sorry, but this is simply not right. Wanting to have sex is natural; not wanting to have sex is an anomaly in nature. What I think people often do is confuse the words 'natural' and 'good' or 'morally right.' To say that something isn't natural isn't to say that it's bad or objectionable. In fact, to appeal to nature in arguing for or against a proposition is a recognised fallacy. So when I say that not wanting to have sex is unnatural (or at least not very common in nature), that is no insult to asexuals or anybody else who doesn't want to have sex.'

    Ok, Would you mind providing a source that I could read that claims this? It is not that I am trying to disagree with you but I am interested. Please provide a reliable source that proves this to be true. I will read it and I will be thankful too as I would learn something new.
    What kind of source are you after? Are you seriously asking me to prove that animals have an instinct to procreate and, wherever we look in nature, they do so if possible? I really don't know what you're asking for here. I haven't stated anything so new or controversial that it requires a source. A quick Google search on animal behaviour should be sufficient.

    'Neither normal nor natural, actually. But acceptable and not 'wrong' in any sense of the word. You don't need to be doing what's natural to be lovely. All in all, I think you're being quite romantic in your outlook (no offence intended). There's little to no reason to think that there is much meaning of the kind you like to see in human lives.'

    Fine. Maybe I did not use the correct wordings appropriate for certain situations and areas. But all I was trying to say, which you had said for me, is that being Asexual is perfectly ok.
    I agree. I apologise for the length of this post; I realise you've written another reply but I'll get to it tomorrow. It takes a lot of time to write these essays.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Hi,
    I'm a Christian who believes in no sex before marriage. My beliefs and life decision in this isnt popular amongst my peers, with many of them making nasty comments such as calling me "frigid" and putting pressure on me. Its also very unpopular with guys; my ex cheated on me and was horrible to me because i woukd not sleep with him.

    I am beginning to feel lonely and like I wont find anyone accepting of my beliefs. So i wondered, if you are a Christian on TSR, how highly do you regard your virginity? Is my belief an old fashioned Christian belief that doesnt fit society? What should I do generally? Any advice would be appreciated.

    Thanks x
    Meet a man at church


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Hi,
    I'm a Christian who believes in no sex before marriage. My beliefs and life decision in this isnt popular amongst my peers, with many of them making nasty comments such as calling me "frigid" and putting pressure on me. Its also very unpopular with guys; my ex cheated on me and was horrible to me because i woukd not sleep with him.

    I am beginning to feel lonely and like I wont find anyone accepting of my beliefs. So i wondered, if you are a Christian on TSR, how highly do you regard your virginity? Is my belief an old fashioned Christian belief that doesnt fit society? What should I do generally? Any advice would be appreciated.

    Thanks x
    I think you just met the wrong guy.

    It depends on what the individual wants and if it doesn't match, then you will probably find somebody else who is more accepting of your situation.

    Don't feel pressured to do anything that you don't want to do.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    18
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Cherry82)
    Ok. I have realised that I am spending way too much time that I do not even have, on this topic. I have close to 14 exams coming up in May/June so I need to focus on studying and learning material. My wish is that more of those who actually identity themselves as Christians or better off are actually Christians answer your questions OP. As I am sure I will receive many responses later on, I will try to reply to all them individually but not as soon as possible. I can not afford to spend so much time on this yet, not when I have other priorities sitting, waiting for me to attend to on the table lol. God bless you all, especially you OP. My love goes out to you. It is ok to be different and things will be ok. Yes, many people are deciding not to wait. In fact, it is normal to have sex outside of marriage as normal means 'conforming to a standard; usual, typical, or expected'. But this does not mean that is it right either or the correct way to approach things. Not everything that is 'normal' is right and it depends on what individuals mean by 'right' and 'wrong'. I would like to say to you, you define what is morally right or wrong. I wish you the best with everything and please know, you're not the only one waiting. I and others are too (male and female!)

    Lol you essentially dismiss people from being catholic or Christian because they hold different views from you. As if yours is the only view that is considered Christian.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by anonymouspie227)
    Lol you essentially dismiss people from being catholic or Christian because they hold different views from you. As if yours is the only view that is considered Christian.
    Nothing new really. It's called the no true Scotsman fallacy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymouspie227)
    Lol you essentially dismiss people from being catholic or Christian because they hold different views from you. As if yours is the only view that is considered Christian.
    Sigh. Simply no. Please re-read what I had stated. I think you have not only misunderstood me but missed the message I was trying to state...
    But if you did not understand what I was trying to say, please tell me so that I can elaborate on points further.

    In conclusion, all I was stating is that any one can call themselves a 'Christian' but calling yourself a Christian does not necessarily mean that you are.
    Like I had said before, this is not directly aimed at you as you had claimed are no longer Catholic. But you did list all the religious practices that you had went through previously. I was saying you do not have to do that to emphasise that you were actually once a strong believer in the church because it does not mean anything. I know many 'Christians' who have been baptised, had holy communion, confirmation and even serve in the Catholic church yet they do not believe in God, I heard someone literally state 'I do not believe in all of this sh*t' yet she had fulfilled all of these religious practices. All I am saying is that being a 'Christian' or a 'Catholic' is merely a title in today's society.

    Many people believe that you inherit faith or that you are Christian because of your parents but it does not work that way. Jesus asked for individuals, real relationships that are personal. That's all I was trying to say.
    And to add on to that- if any 'Christian' teaching does not correspond and go with the bible- it is no biblical, 'Christian' teaching. An interpretation of the bible is not always 'Christian'. When I was agnostic, I knew too many Christians that had not even read the bible or at least chapters of it. This is not to sound stereotypical but most were indeed Catholics and I do not blame them. Sermons are so systematic, it's the same old format. Apart from that, the only reason why I like Catholic churches is because the bread and wine is offered every week unlike Pentecostal churches were is it every month. But it saddens me that it is not emphasised in Catholic churches to read the bible independently and study it. I can not believe in something I have not read, no thank you.

    But to end here with my statement, what truly matters is having a relationship with Jesus Christ. A person saying they were once a Christian does not mean any thing but rather, did you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? I'm not saying this to sound patronising but to make a serious point. Moreover, I am truly interested in hearing other people's experiences and opinions even if I agree or disagree.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Cherry82)
    Sigh. Simply no. Please re-read what I had stated. I think you have not only misunderstood me but missed the message I was trying to state...
    But if you did not understand what I was trying to say, please tell me so that I can elaborate on points further.

    In conclusion, all I was stating is that any one can call themselves a 'Christian' but calling yourself a Christian does not necessarily mean that you are.
    Like I had said before, this is not directly aimed at you as you had claimed are no longer Catholic. But you did list all the religious practices that you had went through previously. I was saying you do not have to do that to emphasise that you were actually once a strong believer in the church because it does not mean anything. I know many 'Christians' who have been baptised, had holy communion, confirmation and even serve in the Catholic church yet they do not believe in God, I heard someone literally state 'I do not believe in all of this sh*t' yet she had fulfilled all of these religious practices. All I am saying is that being a 'Christian' or a 'Catholic' is merely a title in today's society.

    Many people believe that you inherit faith or that you are Christian because of your parents but it does not work that way. Jesus asked for individuals, real relationships that are personal. That's all I was trying to say.
    And to add on to that- if any 'Christian' teaching does not correspond and go with the bible- it is no biblical, 'Christian' teaching. An interpretation of the bible is not always 'Christian'. When I was agnostic, I knew too many Christians that had not even read the bible or at least chapters of it. This is not to sound stereotypical but most were indeed Catholics and I do not blame them. Sermons are so systematic, it's the same old format. Apart from that, the only reason why I like Catholic churches is because the bread and wine is offered every week unlike Pentecostal churches were is it every month. But it saddens me that it is not emphasised in Catholic churches to read the bible independently and study it. I can not believe in something I have not read, no thank you.

    But to end here with my statement, what truly matters is having a relationship with Jesus Christ. A person saying they were once a Christian does not mean any thing but rather, did you have a relationship with Jesus Christ? I'm not saying this to sound patronising but to make a serious point. Moreover, I am truly interested in hearing other people's experiences and opinions even if I agree or disagree.
    You've said nothing that disproves what anonymouspie227 said about you. You're still saying that somebody who calls themselves Christian is not necessarily so, and that you need to have a relationship with Jesus to be one - this is what she called you out on. Who are you to say that a personal relationship with Jesus is needed to make a 'true' Christian?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Hi, I'm a Christian who believes in no sex before marriage.
    Same
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    My beliefs and life decision in this isn't popular amongst my peers,
    me neither
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    with many of them making nasty comments such as calling me "frigid" and putting pressure on me.
    I don't get that. Something is wrong there, but it's not your views at fault.
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Its also very unpopular with guys;
    Now I haven't had that problem because I am one.
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    My ex cheated on me and was horrible to me because I would not sleep with him.
    Well that's him at fault not you. He wan't right for you.
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    I am beginning to feel lonely and like I wont find anyone accepting of my beliefs.
    Hi there, make new friends, not potential boyfs, just friends.
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    So i wondered, if you are a Christian on TSR, how highly do you regard your virginity?
    I like it as it is. (Intact)
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Is my belief an old fashioned Christian belief that doesn't fit society?
    Yes, but that's OK.
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    What should I do generally?
    Don't change you views, just change your circulation to people you get on with.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    'I think I'm beginning to see the problem. I hinted at it earlier: you seem to think that if something is natural, then it must be 'good' or 'better' than something that's unnatural. Correct me if I'm wrong but that's the impression I'm getting from you. I made a statement about nature; this does not mean that I'm advocating that that is what we should be doing. I don't see why else you'd think that unless you automatically thought of any statement about nature as also necessarily being an advocacy of that behaviour.'

    Basically this.
    I decided not to comment on your paragraphs prior to this one because it was straight to the point and clearly explained what I had thought initially and insinuated. I guess I was wrong and I apologise for that. As I am used to hearing 'because something is instinctive or natural, let's go haywire with it' so had thought that was why you were trying to explain that sex is an instinct etc. But I was wrong as you have explained why you had actually stated so and so. One thing though, would you mind explaining what you had meant by 'lack any consideration for context'? I cannot successful comment on that yet until I have understood what you had meant.

    'There are all sorts of interesting reasons why the human population is increasing (higher standards of sanitation and living, intelligence, better, science-based healthcare) and why this is similar to a train that is almost impossible to halt (the need for economic growth, which requires a workforce).'

    Yes, I know and I am fully aware of that.
    However, then at that time, I was speaking in the basis of thinking you had tried to insinuate that because something is natural or instinctive, it should be done freely without second of thought and securing no boundaries. As I now know that this was wrong, of course I do not think this any more. But when I had made that comment, this came to mind and I had made links with your other comment- 'we would definitely (continue to) survive if we acted purely on our instincts.' So baring that in mind, I was saying that if everyone who has sexual desires and this sexual instinct, just gave in and had no boundaries because sex is instinctive, we would have major problems. You do know that not all countries provide free condoms, great, free healthcare and not all countries have the funding to teach sex education in schools. I am speaking about the worldwide not just about the UK.
    We are very privileged in the UK, in Europe in general. Many other countries and continents are not! LEDC countries already suffer from high population rates due to reasons such as limited access to family planning services and education about contraception. Now on top of that, imagine if everyone was just giving in into their sexual instincts. This would be a problem. Considering these countries too, a rise in infections and diseases will increase, maybe not in the UK but it will in many countries such as Congo. That was what I was trying to say previously, way before. I hope you understand me better now.


    'But honestly, this is the sort of non-argument that gets thrown around a lot. Would not having sex for purposes other than procreation be more effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy - and hence slowing, by a very small amount, the rate of population growth - than condoms, which are about 97 percent (don't quote me on this)? Yes. But if we were to look at the cost:benefit ratio of this choice, simply having sex with a condom is far better than not having sex at all. Sexually repressed individuals are, in my view, also the ones with the unhealthiest attitude when it comes to sex (the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church comes to mind). Abstinence is the worst way to plug that 3 percent gap - the morning after pill or abortion sound like much more plausible solutions.'

    'Cost benefit'? Would you mind further explaining what you had meant by that statement please? And sexually repressed, really? Lol by the way, how did I know that you were going to address the Catholic church scandal? My, I can't any more. Well as someone who is not sexually active and won't be until they are married- I do not feel as if I am repressing anything but instead empowering and conquering something. I am taking control over my own sexuality and how I would like it to be expressed. I know what I would like in terms of relationships and sex even though I am inexperienced.

    But, I want to empower not get overpowered and simply just saying that because sex is instinctive I should not wait until marriage will be a sort of defeat. I want to have self control and make the right decisions (decisions I agree with and would not feel that I would later on regret.) This is simply a decision I, me, myself made not something my parents told me that I had to do. So I do not feel that I am repressing anything. Also this is not going to be a lifelong, celibacy pledge that priests and nuns make but a decision that is temporary. I plan on getting married and even if I did not get married and died a virgin, who gives a damn? I would not feel that I have lacked any thing to be honest. My life at the moment is great though I have my own daily problems as everyone else does. Do not get me wrong, I think sex is amazing and I am looking forward to it but I do not think that it is something I would have to do- it is entirely my own decision regardless of instincts.


    'As another person has pointed out, it's impossible to be sure of this. You hope your future spouse, whose existence you seem to think is certain, will be loyal to you but there is no guarantee of that. You'll have to face the fact that anytime you have sex with someone, within wedlock or outside of it, there is no guarantee that you won't get STIs. To pretend otherwise is to lie to yourself.'

    Of course I could never be sure of this.
    I could wait for many years and still get a STI once married. I am aware that my husband could not be a virgin, may have had partners before me and that he could cheat on me. Of course I would not wish it but I know this is a possibility. But that is him, what I can control as in the actions I make and what I do with my own body, I will control. It would not make sense for me to say because my husband could give me a STI, I should put my own self in a situation that raises the risks of developing a STI. And like I had stated, this could happen to any one. Even you and the other person stating this.

    And I am not certain about him being loyal as he is human and humans can be unpredictable and make mistakes. But in order for me to marry any man, I will have to have faith in him and trust him to be honest with me. I will never marry a guy I can not trust. This is not me saying that I am certain that he would not cheat on me and if I did say this previously, I take it back as it is inaccurate but that if someone was to be my husband, trust would be a key, fundamental factor.


    'In addition, can I just say this: if your reasons are religious, then this sounds more or less like a secondary reason to support an existing viewpoint. It's been my experience with a lot of religious people that, instead of looking at the evidence and coming to a view based on that evidence, they will first form a view, often based on their religion, and then look for evidence to support it. That is what I think you're doing with the whole STI thing. I could be wrong but I don't think I am in this instance.'

    As a Christian, my reasons are both religious and non religious.
    And again like I had said, so what?
    Of course as a Christian I will consider God first. I believe God is what matters the most out of all of this because I believe in a God- I am not hiding it. But I have other reasons too that hold major importance to me. So I am failing to understand your point. Again so what? What evidence? Oh my goodness, what evidence claiming that not waiting until marriage is best? You have to be more clear with your statements. What evidence?
    Yea. I think you are wrong in saying so, that was not what I was trying to do. I simply just stated the reasons to why I am waiting until marriage to have sex, nothing more.

    'Speak for yourself. You certainly don't speak for those in open and polyamorous relationships.'

    Well they are not the majority are they? I was speaking about the majority not about minorities. Compare the two.

    'Good and bad are subjective concepts.'

    I know.

    'What've I said that's difficult to understand? I know you're a Christian and everything but there's no rational reason to suppose that nature - the physical, material world, that is - gives a damn what humans think. It is cold and emotionless and cares not for the feelings of any group of apes. I don't see why you need me to do research to know this. All this nonsense about emotions and instincts, as I've said all along, has nothing to do with what I said. When I say 'nature' I mean the physical world, not emotions and human instincts.'

    'no rational reason to suppose that nature'. Oh come on.
    Look, with all due respect- I do not need atheists to lecture me on what is rational or not. Yes, you believe that God is non existent and to believe he is existent is irrational- THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
    In addition, the other reasons I had stated, even to a non religious, hardcore atheist he/she would not exactly categorise those other reasons as 'irrational'. You are simply making person opinions. We both are. These are not facts. There are no scientific facts that prove the existence of a God. There are no scientific facts that prove the NON existence of a God. Science deals with the physical only, it can not dwell past the physical realm. This is impossible. It's impossible to measure the spiritual with scientific measures. Someone could say not believing in a God is irrational and that we all should be agnostics because neither groups are certain of the truth. This topic area is also subjective. I do not even want to dive into that. I am not here to debate with you to whether a God exists or not, I am simply telling you that I believe in a God and yes this has influenced my decisions, including the one to wait until marriage. End of.


    'The consistent problem with the post I'm replying to is that you seem to not remember much from earlier parts of the discussion. It doesn't mean anything more than it says, it's not trying to justify anything, it's not advocating that you live life in manners x, y, z or anything else. It was a response to something that you said ('we couldn't survive if we acted purely on our instincts', not a standalone statement by me. I take it that you meant human instinct as it exists to procreate and survive long enough to do so and, in response to that, I said that we could survive if that were true, as we did for much of our early history when most humans existed as hunter-gatherers.'

    Ok.

    'What kind of source are you after? Are you seriously asking me to prove that animals have an instinct to procreate and, wherever we look in nature, they do so if possible? I really don't know what you're asking for here. I haven't stated anything so new or controversial that it requires a source. A quick Google search on animal behaviour should be sufficient.'

    A source that proves or claims Asexuality is unnatural. One I can read.
    Remember, you had said 'not wanting to have sex is an anomaly in nature' and Asexuals do not desire sex. They can have sex if they wanted to but they lack sexual desire. Instead you had stated- 'neither normal nor natural, actually. But acceptable and not wrong in any sense of the word'. So does this mean that you view Asexuality as an 'anomaly' and therefore unnatural? If so I would like a source that proves this to be true. That was what I was simply asking for.

    'I agree. I apologise for the length of this post; I realise you've written another reply but I'll get to it tomorrow. It takes a lot of time to write these essays.'

    Likewise here.
    I had another response posted previously typed up for you but it's ok. I'm sure most of us on TSR are busy students so our priorities must come first.
    • #4
    #4

    (Original post by Anonymous)
    Hi,
    I'm a Christian who believes in no sex before marriage. My beliefs and life decision in this isnt popular amongst my peers, with many of them making nasty comments such as calling me "frigid" and putting pressure on me. Its also very unpopular with guys; my ex cheated on me and was horrible to me because i woukd not sleep with him.

    I am beginning to feel lonely and like I wont find anyone accepting of my beliefs. So i wondered, if you are a Christian on TSR, how highly do you regard your virginity? Is my belief an old fashioned Christian belief that doesnt fit society? What should I do generally? Any advice would be appreciated.

    Thanks x
    I am a christian. I DON'T believe in sex before marriage. You will find someone that believes the same. Just keep holding on, God would provide you with a worthy person. Please don't lose your virginity before marriage, ignore what people on her or in real life that tells you to lose your virginity. Most are not bible following Christians, are atheists, so they won't understand.

    Pray and ask God for the man you want and He shall provide you with one. God's time is the best. Don't rush; keep serving God and enjoy your life. Isaiah 40 vs 31 "But they that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk, and not faint"
    • #4
    #4

    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Okay, before I go into this, I'd just like to say: you assumed a lot in that post. I didn't say anything about sex being natural or not. I replied to one specific part of your post, which I put in bold. :/



    I didn't claim any of that, nor did I label or objectify you.



    Unfortunately for you, we are. We may have developed brains big enough to think but we are just 'sexified, sex crazed mammals.' Whether that aggravates you has no bearing on whether it's true or not. Nature exists independent of the feelings of humans.



    Other animals have the power to make decisions too. They just have different wants (namely to survive and pass on their genes) to most humans. I don't agree with your anthropocentrism - we are nothing more than clusters of space dust on a slightly larger cluster of space dust. It scares some people because they're scared by the lack of 'meaning' - whatever that is - but that is the way it is, as far as we can tell at the present time. Sure, we're smarter than some of the other space dust but that doesn't translate to a higher 'amazement factor', if you'll pardon the expression.



    I'm sorry, but what? We would definitely (continue to) survive if we acted purely on our instincts. Of course, life would generally be boring if we did, because there's not much excitement in our instincts anyway.



    In most cases, people are following tradition. From a young age, most people are brought up to think that there is a 'normal' path through life, namely getting a good education, a good job, getting married, raising kids and then retiring. There is some overlap with religion in the sense that most people follow the religion of their parents anyway so, in those cases, both religion and tradition are at play. I personally see this as putting children in a mind prison of sorts.



    More or less agree with this.



    I'm sorry, but this is simply not right. Wanting to have sex is natural; not wanting to have sex is an anomaly in nature. What I think people often do is confuse the words 'natural' and 'good' or 'morally right.' To say that something isn't natural isn't to say that it's bad or objectionable. In fact, to appeal to nature in arguing for or against a proposition is a recognised fallacy. So when I say that not wanting to have sex is unnatural (or at least not very common in nature), that is no insult to asexuals or anybody else who doesn't want to have sex.



    Neither normal nor natural, actually. But acceptable and not 'wrong' in any sense of the word. You don't need to be doing what's natural to be lovely.

    All in all, I think you're being quite romantic in your outlook (no offence intended). There's little to no reason to think that there is much meaning of the kind you like to see in human lives.
    In bold, so we should go and have sex with everyone :rolleyes: Control yourself, you are not an animal that can't control their urge to have sex. Seriously, you should not let sex control you.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    In bold, so we should go and have sex with everyone :rolleyes: Control yourself, you are not an animal that can't control their urge to have sex. Seriously, you should not let sex control you.
    Your use of the anonymous function says something about how much water you think your argument really holds.

    I am an animal, in fact. An animal who doesn't have much time for anthropocentrism. 'Sex' is not a sentient entity that has any control over me. Nor did I say that we cannot control our urge to have sex.

    Full marks for comprehension, then.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Anonymous)
    keep serving God and enjoy your life.
    I'd say it's one or the other in this instance.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cherry82)
    Hey,
    I'm a Christian who believes in not having sex before marriage too .

    "My beliefs and life decision in this isnt popular amongst my peers, with many of them making nasty comments such as calling me "frigid" and putting pressure on me. Its also very unpopular with guys; my ex cheated on me and was horrible to me because i woukd not sleep with him.

    I am beginning to feel lonely and like I wont find anyone accepting of my beliefs. So i wondered, if you are a Christian on TSR, how highly do you regard your virginity? Is my belief an old fashioned Christian belief that doesnt fit society? What should I do generally? Any advice would be appreciated.
    I'm sorry you're experiencing this. Oddly enough, I have not instead it's been the other way round for me."

    I apologise on the behalf of those who treated you this way.
    They were wrong for treating you this way and please do not allow peer pressure alter your views. Many of us are still waiting even though it may not seem like it. Compared to those who are not waiting and who are no longer virgins, we are few but if you consider other Christians, even Muslims, and even some atheists who are deciding to wait- we are actually many. I am waiting and I really could not give a damn if someone calls me prudish or anything because I know why I am waiting. Things like that motivate me even more to keep focused on my views because I know what I stand for and what would be gained. People like to think about now, and how things are now but they do not consider the long term goals or where things could go in years from now. Me waiting until marriage is a promise I made to myself because I see the long term advantages. Just waiting for a few years is nothing compared to having a strong foundation in your marriage for many years, a lifetime. Of course there is more to a marriage than sex but you'll see what I mean by this as I explain along.

    So, I'm going to be 18 in a month and I've said to myself, even once I'm at university- I will not allow what's popular to change my views. Apart from religious reasons, there are numerous reasons why people wait until marriage to have sex. As a Christian, I believe it is the correct way to do things as Yahweh said so. But looking away from Christian views:

    1) Waiting until marriage allows me and my partner to purely focus on getting to know each other and working on our relationship. Allowing us to really focus on more important things such as communication. Without fundamentals such having good communication in a relationship, even where sex is involved, the relationship will not last. I feel that there is more to a relationship than just sex. There's something about it, just focusing on getting to know each other and your personalities- you as individuals without distractions. I love that. If a guy could respect that and want that too, we could build a strong foundation of a relationship, focusing on things outside of physical attraction and this is not just a friendship as some may think but a platonic but romantic relationship where you know if your relationship could truly survive if sex was somehow removed from the equation, I know others may think how could you have a platonic, romantic relationship at first but it's definitely possible. Platonic in the sense that you love each other but you are not having sex but it's still romantic because you're attracted to each other sexually so you find other ways to express that energy such as going out on dates, watching a romantic movie or simply just having a deep chat about each other. Something I find so cute that my grandparents did as they waited, they would do everything with each other to really love each other without wanting something in return, I hope I make sense but my grandpa till the day he died did the things they did before they got married and were having sex lol such as painting my grandmother's nails, cuddling together before they went to sleep and she kissing his forehead.
    That kind of relationship blew me away and it's super rare to find.

    But going back to this subject, I would like to be having sex at 60 lol but I know sometimes, with life, at a point things won't be the same which may have an affect on your sex life. Our bodies change, hormones kick in, libidos change and on a more serious note, God forbid a fatal, life changing incident happened to my husband or me where we couldn't be physically intimate as before, though it would be hard, we wouldn't forget what we first fell in love with. We wouldn't forget that we fell in love with each other before we were having sex. I mean imagine falling in love and your not even having sex yet, it's amazing and it definitely does happen to people. I have always had this saying that sex is the cherry on top while the love, marriage is the cake.
    To love someone unconditionally, regardless of what they can offer you is beyond phenomenal. If any guy could truly wait or wants to wait with me, I know that he truly loves me for me as a person and that he doesn't see me as an object or as if it's his own right to have sex with me.

    2) Sorry one was really long, it had many sub points
    I know we have all the protection in the world and that contraceptives are everywhere to avoid pregnancy. But as a woman who has periods and knows she's fertile, even the most effective contraceptive could not 100% avoid pregnancy.I'm not trying to scare any one out there but it's true. Look at the statistics. No contraceptive out there is 100%, there is 99% meaning there is a 1% chance of pregnancy. So for every 100 women, 1 becomes pregnant. Let's compare that to 1 million so from that
    100, 000 women may have experienced unexpected pregnancies from these contraceptives. I do not know if that would be me or not as accidents happen. The only 100% method is abstinence and as I am not ready to be a mother, I'd rather avoid thinking about the possibilities altogether. I already have a panic attack when I miss my periods maybe to stress, imagine if I became sexually active? No thank you, I do not need more things to worry about.

    3) I don't have to deal with worrying about STIs. Now, if you're talking about infections that are not sexually transmitted, yes even virgins experience this but for me personally, sexually transmitted ones...no. I think it is possible for a virgin to catch a STI but not through intercourse, instead through other means. I know many people have cold sores which are actually a type of herpes and if a guy has a cold sore on his lips then performs oral sex on his girlfriend, she could actually get genital herpes even without having sex. But in my case, I'm saying I love not having to worry about that stuff. Like I have said, I see this as extra baggage and unnecessary worry.

    - This point is more of a religious one but I really do not see sex as just a physical action. I think it's spiritual too. Something so intimate, I've heard a saying claiming it's the highest expression and feeling of high two people who love each other could possibly do together and I agree to some extent. Both bodies coming together physically and spiritually is how I see it. I believe we have energies, this is our spirit so as we are sharing such an vulnerable yet intimate side of us with someone else we say we love, it's like almost transferring some of this energy with someone else. The endearment lovers sometimes use is 'my second haf', this analogy comes into my head when thinking about this topic. I know it may sound wippy crazy to some but I'm starting to understand humans and how we are, it actually makes sense.

    - But overall, there are many more reasons why I am waiting. Not because of the statistics that also claims that those who waited had lower percentages of divorce rates (not surprised) but because of the long term effects and considerations. I know how I want my marriage to be like and how I want my husband to view me.
    At the end of the day, it's your own body and I think it's absurd that others are trying to shame you because of your decisions towards sex. Fair enough, if they or others think it's somehow religion controlling women, ok whatever or that we are prudish good for them, they should just not come at others with such rude approaches. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but being respectful is equally important. I don't agree on premarital sex at all, not even just on a religious bases but my own personal views towards sex. It doesn't mean though that I can therefore judge those or shame those who didn't choose to wait. Either way, I think God's way is always best though But I'm here for you if you ever feel alone or just want to chat about how you feel. Other Christians are here for you too, don't back down- stay strong! We're all in this together and we can do it, regardless of what others are saying on this thread, i.e the comment above- it is possible to wait until marriage and have sex.
    On a side note, I think society is over sexualised any way. The amount of power we've given sex is just beyond me and I'm tired of it. I can't begin to explain how proud I am of the men who are deciding to wait too, even with the social pressures and stereotypes. Guys seem to face more hate than the ladies do when it comes to waiting until marriage. Tim Tebow who is an American, football quaterback is a 28, male virgin and he is hot. He's also dated very beautiful women but still keeps true to his beliefs and morals.
    So there are celebrities who are waiting too who I have not listed, male and female who know what you're going through and may have it harder as they are constantly in the public eye. I was speaking to a few guy friends at Christian Union at school even and these are super cute guys but chose to wait. Sadly they have girlfriends (they are waiting too x):/ I wish I met them earlier lol

    But yea, please don't feel alone. We're a community, there are other Christians on here who are equally here for you! It's a shame not all of us got the chance to reach out to you x :hugs:
    You're bonkers mate. This is why I am very suspicious of Christians..
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Anonymous;[url="tel:59389329")
    59389329[/url]]Hi,
    I'm a Christian who believes in no sex before marriage. My beliefs and life decision in this isnt popular amongst my peers, with many of them making nasty comments such as calling me "frigid" and putting pressure on me. Its also very unpopular with guys; my ex cheated on me and was horrible to me because i woukd not sleep with him.

    I am beginning to feel lonely and like I wont find anyone accepting of my beliefs. So i wondered, if you are a Christian on TSR, how highly do you regard your virginity? Is my belief an old fashioned Christian belief that doesnt fit society? What should I do generally? Any advice would be appreciated.

    Thanks x
    As you allude to this is not a common choice nowadays - if indeed it ever was.

    I guest there might be a few like minded Christian guys if you hunt in the right places. Or maybe you can find someone where the mutual attraction is so strong you want to get married after the third date. Or is there the option to legitimately 'do everything but sex' which will inevitable lead you in to temptation. You can then seek forgiveness and all will be well going forward.

    My, albeit some what un Christian, advice would be not to deny yourself fulfilling relationships and sexual pleasure. There has got to be greater sins.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Cherry82)
    One thing though, would you mind explaining what you had meant by 'lack any consideration for context'? I cannot successful comment on that yet until I have understood what you had meant.
    What I meant by the lack of consideration for context was your repeated use of the question 'so what?' in your previous post, in addition to the other things you'd presumed I meant. I said that because it looked to me to be terribly amnesic on your part to forget that the things I had said to which you replied 'so what?' were responses to things you had said, therefore there was no real response that I could give to 'so what?'

    For example, you stated a few posts back that we could not survive if we acted purely on our instincts. I took the liberty of pointing out that we could, given that that was exactly what the earliest humans had done. Now, for some reason I don't quite understand, you seemed to forget the first bit - that you had said that we couldn't and seemed to respond as if I had uttered the words 'we could survive if we acted purely on our instincts' in isolation, completely removed from any context of the ideas discussed in the previous post. This manifested itself in the form of the question 'so what?' to which my reply was, of course, 'well, nothing.' It was not a standalone point that I had made which needed to have a logical conclusion to sound complete; it was a response to what you had said.

    That is what I meant by your lack of consideration for context, which also occurred in a few other places but I hope this single example shall suffice.

    'There are all sorts of interesting reasons why the human population is increasing (higher standards of sanitation and living, intelligence, better, science-based healthcare) and why this is similar to a train that is almost impossible to halt (the need for economic growth, which requires a workforce).'

    Yes, I know and I am fully aware of that.
    However, then at that time, I was speaking in the basis of thinking you had tried to insinuate that because something is natural or instinctive, it should be done freely without second of thought and securing no boundaries. As I now know that this was wrong, of course I do not think this any more. But when I had made that comment, this came to mind and I had made links with your other comment- 'we would definitely (continue to) survive if we acted purely on our instincts.' So baring that in mind, I was saying that if everyone who has sexual desires and this sexual instinct, just gave in and had no boundaries because sex is instinctive, we would have major problems.
    I think you're slightly misunderstanding me here. Animals, in nature, do not spend all of their time reproducing. There are certain courtship rituals and only those with the genes that code for characteristics that best enable the offspring to survive in a given environment tend to be passed on to the next generation. The bottomline is this: non-human animals don't 'give in and have no boundaries because sex is instinctive.' And nor would (or did) humans if we were at that stage of evolution. They don't have sex for pleasure like most humans do.

    So, yeah, 'acting on our instincts' doesn't equal 'giving in and having no boundaries.'

    You do know that not all countries provide free condoms, great, free healthcare and not all countries have the funding to teach sex education in schools. I am speaking about the worldwide not just about the UK.
    We are very privileged in the UK, in Europe in general. Many other countries and continents are not! LEDC countries already suffer from high population rates due to reasons such as limited access to family planning services and education about contraception.
    Yes, and that's a problem. You did not make any reference to the geographical implications of premarital sex in the post I replied to so I hope I can be forgiven for not being able to read minds. My point was simply to do with pregnancy. You had mentioned in your previous posts the issue of unwanted pregnancies so I thought I'd mention that condoms are something like 97 percent effective and practicing abstinence to boost that to 100 percent was, in my view, not worth the sacrifice (that's what I meant by cost: benefit - more on that later). The provision of family planning services and contraception in LEDCs is a problem, no doubt. But that doesn't have anything to do with what I said.

    Now on top of that, imagine if everyone was just giving in into their sexual instincts. This would be a problem. Considering these countries too, a rise in infections and diseases will increase, maybe not in the UK but it will in many countries such as Congo. That was what I was trying to say previously, way before. I hope you understand me better now.
    You keep asking me to imagine all these scenarios to counter what I say. Why should I imagine these, when I haven't actually said that I favour these scenarios? I can only realistically be held to account for the consequences of the things I advocate if I've advocated them in the first place, which I have not.

    As for 'giving into their sexual instincts', I've addressed that above. If you were referring to all these big societal problems in LEDCs in your previous post, I didn't notice. My apologies.


    'But honestly, this is the sort of non-argument that gets thrown around a lot. Would not having sex for purposes other than procreation be more effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy - and hence slowing, by a very small amount, the rate of population growth - than condoms, which are about 97 percent (don't quote me on this)? Yes. But if we were to look at the cost:benefit ratio of this choice, simply having sex with a condom is far better than not having sex at all. Sexually repressed individuals are, in my view, also the ones with the unhealthiest attitude when it comes to sex (the child abuse scandal in the Catholic Church comes to mind). Abstinence is the worst way to plug that 3 percent gap - the morning after pill or abortion sound like much more plausible solutions.'

    'Cost benefit'? Would you mind further explaining what you had meant by that statement please?
    The cost:benefit ratio of any action is exactly what it says on the tin - a side-by-side comparison of what it would cost to undertake that action and what the expected benefit of doing so would be. My point is this: the psychological cost to the individual of sexually repressing him or herself to be certain that they won't become parents until they want to become parents is too great to justify the meagre ~3 percent increase in effectiveness provided by abstinence compared to condoms. I further explained that, in the ~3 percent of cases where this is not successful, the morning after pill or abortion could satisfactorily do the job of preventing unplanned parenthood and that this way of doing things is far better than repressing one's sexuality entirely in terms of an analysis of the cost and the expected benefit.

    And sexually repressed, really? Lol by the way, how did I know that you were going to address the Catholic church scandal? My, I can't any more. Well as someone who is not sexually active and won't be until they are married- I do not feel as if I am repressing anything but instead empowering and conquering something. I am taking control over my own sexuality and how I would like it to be expressed.
    Well, speak for yourself. The child sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church is only one example and the first one that came to mind. Why do you think the Rotherham child sex abuse scandal happened? Why do you think all those young men who joined ISIS became rapists? It's the same idea - I'm not trying to single out the Catholic Church just because I'm arguing with a Christian. You may see it as something as righteous as 'empowering and conquering something' but that is not the reality that pans out in any of those and numerous other atrocities. Ironically, 'repressing' and 'conquering' are synonyms. Make of that what you will.

    I know what I would like in terms of relationships and sex even though I am inexperienced.
    You are not inexperienced in terms of sex; you are unexperienced. And to suppose that you know what you like sex-wise despite never having had it is a little presumptuous to say the least. It's like a teetotaler saying that, if he did drink, he knows exactly what kind of alcoholic beverage he prefers. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but that's a perfectly sound analogy for what you're claiming.

    But, I want to empower not get overpowered and simply just saying that because sex is instinctive I should not wait until marriage will be a sort of defeat.
    Didn't say that but okay.

    I want to have self control and make the right decisions (decisions I agree with and would not feel that I would later on regret.) This is simply a decision I, me, myself made not something my parents told me that I had to do. So I do not feel that I am repressing anything.
    I think that there's a big flaw in that reasoning. In saying that remaining celibate until marriage is what constitutes 'self-control', you are dismissing the existence of any kind of happy medium. The vast majority of people who have premarital sex are not people who're willing to have sex with anything with a pulse - that's self-control too. Don't pretend like what you're doing is the only thing that counts as 'self-control.' There are plenty of people who have sex before marriage who have and exercise self-control.

    Also: repression is not necessarily non-voluntary. It is possible to repress oneself willingly so the fact that this belief does not derive from your upbringing isn't some sort of irrefutable proof that you're not repressing your sexuality.

    I'll put it this way: if you want to keep referring to it as 'self-control', 'empowering', and 'conquering', go right ahead and do that. But that doesn't change the fact that those who are sexually repressed, by themselves and others alike, are often responsible for the most atrocious sex crimes imaginable and, if for no other reason, that should be an imperative to oppose this sort of nonsense, at least in my view.

    Also this is not going to be a lifelong, celibacy pledge that priests and nuns make but a decision that is temporary. I plan on getting married and even if I did not get married and died a virgin, who gives a damn?
    Certainly not me. I don't care whether anybody has sex or doesn't. That's one peculiarity that I seem to think is fairly rare among people: I do not say that anybody should be shamed for being a virgin or for having sex before marriage. While you may agree with me on that, from your previous posts (and also from the other Christians on this thread), I get the strong impression that you feel somehow superior to those who don't choose a life of premarital celibacy, ostensibly because self-control in sexual matters is a righteous trait in your view - I don't agree that it is. I don't have anything else to say about this.

    I would not feel that I have lacked any thing to be honest. My life at the moment is great though I have my own daily problems as everyone else does. Do not get me wrong, I think sex is amazing and I am looking forward to it but I do not think that it is something I would have to do- it is entirely my own decision regardless of instincts.
    And so it is the decision of a lot of people who do have sex before marriage. Just saying: this 'self-control' thing isn't exclusive to people who don't have sex before marriage - they're making decisions too.

    I also don't think it's possible to think of sex as amazing without having had any. I refer you back to my analogy of the teetotaler: it's comparable to him saying that he thinks champagne is amazing based on the reviews of other people.

    'As another person has pointed out, it's impossible to be sure of this. You hope your future spouse, whose existence you seem to think is certain, will be loyal to you but there is no guarantee of that. You'll have to face the fact that anytime you have sex with someone, within wedlock or outside of it, there is no guarantee that you won't get STIs. To pretend otherwise is to lie to yourself.'

    Of course I could never be sure of this.
    I could wait for many years and still get a STI once married. I am aware that my husband could not be a virgin, may have had partners before me and that he could cheat on me. Of course I would not wish it but I know this is a possibility. But that is him, what I can control as in the actions I make and what I do with my own body, I will control. It would not make sense for me to say because my husband could give me a STI, I should put my own self in a situation that raises the risks of developing a STI. And like I had stated, this could happen to any one. Even you and the other person stating this.
    It could happen to anyone who didn't have themselves and their sex partners tested for STIs prior to having sex for the first time. That's an option too, you know. It's not either premarital celibacy or rampant debauchery.

    And I am not certain about him being loyal as he is human and humans can be unpredictable and make mistakes. But in order for me to marry any man, I will have to have faith in him and trust him to be honest with me. I will never marry a guy I can not trust. This is not me saying that I am certain that he would not cheat on me and if I did say this previously, I take it back as it is inaccurate but that if someone was to be my husband, trust would be a key, fundamental factor.
    Well, fair enough. I suspect we differ in our opinions of that kind of trust as well but hey-ho.

    'In addition, can I just say this: if your reasons are religious, then this sounds more or less like a secondary reason to support an existing viewpoint. It's been my experience with a lot of religious people that, instead of looking at the evidence and coming to a view based on that evidence, they will first form a view, often based on their religion, and then look for evidence to support it. That is what I think you're doing with the whole STI thing. I could be wrong but I don't think I am in this instance.'

    As a Christian, my reasons are both religious and non religious.
    And again like I had said, so what?
    And as I replied, 'well, nothing much.' I'm really starting to hate this semi-rhetorical 'so what?' question. I haven't said anything to merit further inquiry of that kind.

    Of course as a Christian I will consider God first. I believe God is what matters the most out of all of this because I believe in a God- I am not hiding it. But I have other reasons too that hold major importance to me. So I am failing to understand your point. Again so what? What evidence? Oh my goodness, what evidence claiming that not waiting until marriage is best? You have to be more clear with your statements. What evidence?
    You've completely misread what I said. I did not say that not waiting until marriage is best nor that there is any evidence for this. It was a general comment about my experience with religious people and how I've noticed they tend to behave in a debate. The way that this related to what you were doing is as follows: you have a view, a religious one, that you shouldn't have sex before marriage. You've admitted yourself that this comes first and foremost. All the other reasons such as STIs and not wanting to get pregnant at the moment are, as I've said, secondary and I merely suggested that this isn't exactly a new thing that I've seen when debating with religious people. Go back and read that particular paragraph - I've said nothing of the sort that you're implying.

    'Speak for yourself. You certainly don't speak for those in open and polyamorous relationships.'

    Well they are not the majority are they? I was speaking about the majority not about minorities. Compare the two.
    I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt here but you clearly stated that 'people want monogamous relationships based on loyalty', to which responding with 'speak for yourself' was very appropriate, I thought. You didn't say anything about majorities and minorities. You're just moving the goalposts in this case...

    'What've I said that's difficult to understand? I know you're a Christian and everything but there's no rational reason to suppose that nature - the physical, material world, that is - gives a damn what humans think. It is cold and emotionless and cares not for the feelings of any group of apes. I don't see why you need me to do research to know this. All this nonsense about emotions and instincts, as I've said all along, has nothing to do with what I said. When I say 'nature' I mean the physical world, not emotions and human instincts.'

    'no rational reason to suppose that nature'. Oh come on.
    Look, with all due respect- I do not need atheists to lecture me on what is rational or not. Yes, you believe that God is non existent and to believe he is existent is irrational- THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE.
    No, this is not what I believe, in fact. Well done for putting words in my mouth, though. Don't get upset just because your argument is coming undone. I live my life as if there is/are no god(s) - that does not mean that I have a dogmatic belief (of the kind you have in your god) that god definitely does not exist. I merely ask for evidence - that is what discriminates rationality from irrationality - before arriving at your position on this. And no number of upper case letters is going to change that. The other huge problem I'm having arguing with you is that you're prone to simplifying things that are fairly complex, such as my view of god. It's not as simple as saying 'THAT IS WHAT YOU BELIEVE.'

    You may see it as a 'lecture' but what I have said is the truth as far as I understand it. There is no reason to think that there is meaning of the kind religious people believe in - if there are any, please educate me on them. I'm genuinely curious, even though it's got nothing to do with the topic of the thread. You've shown such a strong reaction to being told the obvious that I really want to know now.

    In addition, the other reasons I had stated, even to a non religious, hardcore atheist he/she would not exactly categorise those other reasons as 'irrational'.
    Of course they wouldn't. But what you're doing is using those perfectly rational reasons to justify a view that you hold irrationally (as far as I know - show me the reasons and the evidence and I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong). This is what I'm trying to get you to understand: you have admitted that your religion is the first and foremost reason for your view on premarital sex. But you have also then gone on to insert rational reasons such as the risk of contracting STIs and having an unwanted pregnancy (which, by the way, I did not call irrational). I am merely pointing out that you are misappropriating these reasons because the best solution to them, on balance (see cost:benefit rant above) is not abstinence. These are not the reasons why most Christian denominations oppose premarital sex and I would like you to stop pretending that they are.

    You are simply making person opinions. We both are. These are not facts. There are no scientific facts that prove the existence of a God. There are no scientific facts that prove the NON existence of a God.
    I'm amazed that you've said the underlined. All manner of theists I've debated with will do everything in their power not to admit that. But anyhow, the best positions, in the circumstances outlined by you (which I agree with) are deism and agnostic atheism. Anything to the extremes such as 'hardcore' atheism or theism is irrational. I strongly suggest you look into deism, since that's the end of the spectrum you seem most comfortable with.

    Science deals with the physical only, it can not dwell past the physical realm. This is impossible. It's impossible to measure the spiritual with scientific measures.
    It's impossible (not strictly so) to know that the spiritual actually exists in the first place, so this is hardly a legitimate complaint.

    Someone could say not believing in a God is irrational and that we all should be agnostics because neither groups are certain of the truth. This topic area is also subjective. I do not even want to dive into that. I am not here to debate with you to whether a God exists or not, I am simply telling you that I believe in a God and yes this has influenced my decisions, including the one to wait until marriage. End of.
    After throwing out all that bait, I don't think you have the right to order me to shut up about this. Here's a standard definition of 'irrational': not logical or reasonable. As both theism and 'hardcore' atheism fit this, they are both irrational. Nothing subjective about that. End of.

    'What kind of source are you after? Are you seriously asking me to prove that animals have an instinct to procreate and, wherever we look in nature, they do so if possible? I really don't know what you're asking for here. I haven't stated anything so new or controversial that it requires a source. A quick Google search on animal behaviour should be sufficient.'

    A source that proves or claims Asexuality is unnatural. One I can read.
    Remember, you had said 'not wanting to have sex is an anomaly in nature' and Asexuals do not desire sex. They can have sex if they wanted to but they lack sexual desire. Instead you had stated- 'neither normal nor natural, actually. But acceptable and not wrong in any sense of the word'. So does this mean that you view Asexuality as an 'anomaly' and therefore unnatural? If so I would like a source that proves this to be true. That was what I was simply asking for.
    Underlined: yes. It's amazing that simply looking around you and noticing the lack of people not interested in sex doesn't provide you with the evidence but here's something I found on Google: http://www.asexuality.org/wiki/index...Animal_Studies.

    I'm also not sure why you're spelling asexuality with a capital A...
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zarek)
    You're bonkers mate. This is why I am very suspicious of Christians..
    'Or maybe you can find someone where the mutual attraction is so strong you want to get married after the third date. Or is there the option to legitimately 'do everything but sex' which will inevitable lead you in to temptation. You can then seek forgiveness and all will be well going forward.My, albeit some what un Christian, advice would be not to deny yourself fulfilling relationships and sexual pleasure. There has got to be greater sins.'
    'You're bonkers mate. This is why I am very suspicious of Christians..'

    I had to edit this comment to this because your comment actually completely supported what I was saying about atheists on here. Full of arrogant sarcasm, intolerance/ inconsiderate to other people's beliefs, believing they can somehow 'enlighten' other Christians. Pfffttt And I am sure Hydeman thumbs up that post of yours. Thank guys and God bless you all
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I find it hilarious that a bunch of atheists are on here thinking that they can somehow 'enlighten' and advice us Christians. Because we believe in a 'figure' and it is 'irrational' we need saving. Oh please.
    Read the title of this thread- Christians On TSR: Advice please?.
    If you are here to simply debate the existence of God and to inform other Christians that doing something because of their belief in a God is irrational, you are very arrogant and conceited. This arrogance is what I cannot take. I did not ask you to analyse my beliefs in a God, thanks for trying but I did not ask you at all to try and show I along with other Christians, what beliefs or decisions are rational or irrational. You will not achieve any thing with this attitude. That arrogant attitude of claiming 'we know better' is bizarre. You have a right to your own opinion and so do I but to actually think that you are trying to somehow enlighten us or to help us think rationally is utter nonsense. Do not approach me with that kind of attitude or I will simply shut you down. I am being completely serious.

    Here is what I am talking about. The funny thing is if I had viewed the title of a thread called 'Atheists on TSR: Advice please?' Before even reading the actual thread and only seeing the title, I would respect that the OP wants responses with atheistic views and that me advising with theistic views would have no effect on the OP because they are indeed an atheist. What confuses me are the atheists who saw this thread's title and thought that they could somehow successful contribute to advising another Christian. If it was the other way round, I would have stayed away because I would know my advice and comments would be influenced by a theistic viewpoint. If you cannot handle people choosing to do or to not do things because of the influence of their beliefs in a God- stay away.
    For me to come along and start saying to atheists, it is irrational what you believe, that for you to do something because you do not believe in a God is even more irrational- this is where that arrogance sets in. Sometimes you just need to step away, not everyone needs your 'saving' or 'enlightenment'. This thread was made for Christians to advice the OP as she wanted support from other Christians. She herself identifies herself as Christian for crying out loud, I really do not know what you were aiming or planning to achieve here.

    So save your high horse comments to yourselves.
    Normally, I would try to be very polite and understanding but as I have analysed these comments, it is evident that some of you are inconsiderate of other people's beliefs and are just being disrespectful. There is a certain way you approach things. But atheists on here only want to debate or want to tell Christians how their beliefs are irrational. If you want to lecture Christians such as me about my beliefs and how you disagree with them, PM me if it is that serious.Have some respect for the OP. I have respect for the OP and I understand that she is going through a lot at the moment so I do not want the focus to move away from her and what is important. I am happy that I had given her the Christian advice and support that she wanted.
    I need to be very straightforward.How I viewed atheists on TSR has completely changed now. Of course not all atheists are the same but the ones on this thread are very typical, readable and predictable. I am waiting for an entirely different, unpredictable atheist to converse with me. Not these ones who throw childish insults, assuming they are the only logical group of beings on this planet.

    I will still reply to the other comments! This just needed to be said.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    .
    Actually, before I reply to this. Though I had said it was ok, no. Could you respond to my other post that you had left unanswered. Thanks. After that I will respond to both.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    You've said nothing that disproves what anonymouspie227 said about you. You're still saying that somebody who calls themselves Christian is not necessarily so, and that you need to have a relationship with Jesus to be one - this is what she called you out on. Who are you to say that a personal relationship with Jesus is needed to make a 'true' Christian?
    Wait you're not a Christian am I right?
    Please, if you are going to speak about Christian practices and beliefs, have at least some sort of knowledge about Christianity. Even if it is a minimal, sufficient amount. I am not saying read the whole bible or join a Christian church, but at least know what you are talking about concerning Christianity for your own credibility. What I had said virtually came from the bible itself. It did not just from a random personal belief or thought but it originated from the bible. If anonymouspie227 was really a Christian, she should have told you that or should have known that at least. I really hope she was not one of those Christians who had not read the bible and just relied on the Catholic church teachings to do that for her. But even those Christians who had not read the bible knew this. These are fundamentals to Christianity. I am truly surprised.

    Bible verses that show and support my statement concerning being a Christian:

    Acts 16:31
    'They replied, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved—you and your household.'

    Matthew 7: 21-24
    “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. On that day many will say to me, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?’23 And then will I declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.’

    Ephesians 2: 8-9
    For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.

    -Here's a link that supplies numerous of biblical verses that fit under the category- 'Relationship with God' (note- they do not have to say the line relationship with God, understand that the bible was translated into English as it was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic (Old testament) and Greek (New testament).

    http://www.openbible.info/topics/relationship_with_god

    So from this, it is clear that just doing 'works' is not enough to be Christian. It is much more complex, deeper and even those who believe they are or were once Christians, are not or where never Christians in the first place by the bible's definition of what a Christian is.

    Like I had stated.
    'Christian' is nothing but a label. It's more about the heart of someone. About having a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Any one can call themselves a Christian and you know that. You are not a Christian because you call yourself a Christian but what makes a Christian is their faith in Jesus Christ. It is the relationship a person has with him, following him and loving him that makes him/her a Christian. Works without faith is useless. Again, only that person would know if it was genuine or not, she doesn't have to list of these religious practices she went through to somehow receive confirmation from others. It's pointless. This is why when I hear that someone was in the church for years, had holy communion etc, I really do not care. Was it all genuine is what I would like to know and if you really did believe. All I am saying is any one can call themselves a Christian in today's world especially. Even you can Hydeman who is an atheist. It's that easy. But actually being one is more than a label and a list of religious practices...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 25, 2015
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.