There were of course lessons on premarital sex and immorality
Be cautious here. Many lessons on this matter are simply a reinforcement of the fetishization of virginity.
It makes sense to restrain my desire, because it allows me to have a much more meaningful relationship.
Make sure you don't confuse "restrain" with "suppress" or "repress". Meaningful relationships and love in general are based on several things: Trust, passion, intimacy, and respect. All aspects must exist in a manner that is suitable for both partners or the relationship will crumble. Finding that suitable harmony takes effort, time, and practice.
I have a lot of problems when religion uses spirituality to control sexuality in a manner that pays only lip service to respect while repressing passion when its goal is a veiled attempt to reinforce duty; often in a sexist manner, to boot.
for a while there, I was considering joining Adult Friend-Finder, if just to have a little fling with someone.
When you say or think of, "little fling," what aspects of that idea appeal to you most?
Be cautious here. Many lessons on this matter are simply a reinforcement of the fetishization of virginity.
I don't think it was virginity the sermon was so focused on rather than the emphasis of a relationship based on mutual respect/character vs a relationship based on sex. The sermon didn't discuss premarital sex other than a passing mention about immorality, but I'm not Christian so that's not my standard. I also don't think love always has to be expressed physically anyway--they always say the most enduring marriages are the ones where a person has married their best friend, and you don't always have sex with your best friend.
Maybe at one point organized religion used virginity as a weapon to oppress women (God knows organized religions are still doing that today) but it also makes sense to place a value on sex, an act that is about as physically intimate as it can get. Why not make it the pinnacle of emotional intimacy as well, instead of something that's done routinely? Unless you're REALLY trying for that illegitimate baby...I see too many 14 yr olds on their 2nd or 3rd abortion to say that teaching abstinence is a waste of time. Abstinence education plus family planning clinics, that I can support.
And when I say "fling," I mean TEH SMEX (woohoo!)without having to learn names of course.
"I don't think it was virginity the sermon was so focused on rather than the emphasis of a relationship based on mutual respect/character vs a relationship based on sex."
"I also don't think love always has to be expressed physically anyway--they always say the most enduring marriages are the ones where a person has married their best friend, and you don't always have sex with your best friend."
"it also makes sense to place a value on sex, an act that is about as physically intimate as it can get. Why not make it the pinnacle of emotional intimacy as well, instead of something that's done routinely?"
It's these three quotes that worry me the most, actually. You've drawn these divisions in between concepts with words such as "vs", "don't", and "instead of".
I'm worried that you believe these mutual divisions exist... That sex in a relationship comes at a cost of respect. That close friendship precludes physical expression. That emotional intimacy implies scarcity.
These divisions, if you believe them, combined with a fear of making a mistake or being hurt will drive a wedge into any partnership that you may seek... Or that may be seeking you.
"And when I say "fling," I mean TEH SMEX (woohoo!)without having to learn names of course."
We'll go with that. Why does not having to learn names seem appealing in a sexual fling?
The fling thing without names is purely a reference to the cliche empty one-night standers depicted on TV...and usually done by characters who are pretty damaged to begin with. And it's tempting to get sex without consequences.
I think I make the division because I'm often not sure what a person wants from me. I've run into people whose one goal is to charm me into bed. I've run into people who don't, but never stuck around long enough to find out what they want in the end. And most of all, I don't know what I want out of a relationship since all I've done is date. So I'm defining things for myself, and the one thing I know for SURE is I don't want physical intimacy early in a relationship (as in on the first/second/tenth date). I'm also reminding myself what I want in a partner, and it's not always a hot bod (although very preferable) or the ability to make me laugh (also very preferable) It keeps me on my toes so I don't send out the wrong signals to the wrong people...like I keep doing...Know your boundaries and stick to them, one very wise person said.
Be cautious here. Many lessons on this matter are simply a reinforcement of the fetishization of virginity.
It makes sense to restrain my desire, because it allows me to have a much more meaningful relationship.
Make sure you don't confuse "restrain" with "suppress" or "repress". Meaningful relationships and love in general are based on several things: Trust, passion, intimacy, and respect. All aspects must exist in a manner that is suitable for both partners or the relationship will crumble. Finding that suitable harmony takes effort, time, and practice.
I have a lot of problems when religion uses spirituality to control sexuality in a manner that pays only lip service to respect while repressing passion when its goal is a veiled attempt to reinforce duty; often in a sexist manner, to boot.
for a while there, I was considering joining Adult Friend-Finder, if just to have a little fling with someone.
When you say or think of, "little fling," what aspects of that idea appeal to you most?
Reply
I don't think it was virginity the sermon was so focused on rather than the emphasis of a relationship based on mutual respect/character vs a relationship based on sex. The sermon didn't discuss premarital sex other than a passing mention about immorality, but I'm not Christian so that's not my standard. I also don't think love always has to be expressed physically anyway--they always say the most enduring marriages are the ones where a person has married their best friend, and you don't always have sex with your best friend.
Maybe at one point organized religion used virginity as a weapon to oppress women (God knows organized religions are still doing that today) but it also makes sense to place a value on sex, an act that is about as physically intimate as it can get. Why not make it the pinnacle of emotional intimacy as well, instead of something that's done routinely? Unless you're REALLY trying for that illegitimate baby...I see too many 14 yr olds on their 2nd or 3rd abortion to say that teaching abstinence is a waste of time. Abstinence education plus family planning clinics, that I can support.
And when I say "fling," I mean TEH SMEX (woohoo!)without having to learn names of course.
Reply
"I also don't think love always has to be expressed physically anyway--they always say the most enduring marriages are the ones where a person has married their best friend, and you don't always have sex with your best friend."
"it also makes sense to place a value on sex, an act that is about as physically intimate as it can get. Why not make it the pinnacle of emotional intimacy as well, instead of something that's done routinely?"
It's these three quotes that worry me the most, actually. You've drawn these divisions in between concepts with words such as "vs", "don't", and "instead of".
I'm worried that you believe these mutual divisions exist... That sex in a relationship comes at a cost of respect. That close friendship precludes physical expression. That emotional intimacy implies scarcity.
These divisions, if you believe them, combined with a fear of making a mistake or being hurt will drive a wedge into any partnership that you may seek... Or that may be seeking you.
"And when I say "fling," I mean TEH SMEX (woohoo!)without having to learn names of course."
We'll go with that. Why does not having to learn names seem appealing in a sexual fling?
Reply
I think I make the division because I'm often not sure what a person wants from me. I've run into people whose one goal is to charm me into bed. I've run into people who don't, but never stuck around long enough to find out what they want in the end. And most of all, I don't know what I want out of a relationship since all I've done is date. So I'm defining things for myself, and the one thing I know for SURE is I don't want physical intimacy early in a relationship (as in on the first/second/tenth date). I'm also reminding myself what I want in a partner, and it's not always a hot bod (although very preferable) or the ability to make me laugh (also very preferable) It keeps me on my toes so I don't send out the wrong signals to the wrong people...like I keep doing...Know your boundaries and stick to them, one very wise person said.
Reply
Leave a comment