Monogamy? Promiscuity?

[godwillnspire]

 So, yesterday, I was struggling with the concept of monogamy.  It is so great a sacrifice to restrain yourself, sexually, until you find someone you're ready to commit to, for life.  Twenty-three years of being a virgin was coming to surface, and I honestly made up my mind to explore Free Love, if things don't work out with Keilah.

I found this

Comments

[lhynard]

I linked over here after you left that nice compliment for me on triphicus's journal. I hope you do not mind my posting, as I do not know you apart from her and essius' journal.

a few thoughts...Wouldn't it be more egalitarian to share love freely?
I think I see what you are asking. And the answer -- to a certain point only -- is yes, it would be better to share love with all.

Note that this does not mean that it would be better to share sex with all.

What you are asking/hoping for is what I believe we will all experience in the New Creation after the Resurrection -- what is lamely called "Heaven" by most Christians.

In "Heaven", there will be no sin, there will be no jealousy. In a jealousy-free environment -- and with infinite time -- it will be possible to be completely intimate (I am not speaking of sex, but of intimacy of knowing fully another person.) with everyone.

Such intimacy is a beautiful thing. It is becoming one. Jesus' will for His followers was for us to "become one as He and the Father are one." (John 17)

However, we know from Jesus' words in the Gospels that there will be no marriage at the Resurrection. Instead, we will be like the angels -- who do not have sex. There will be no need for sex in the afterlife, because there will be no death. And there will be no need for the intimacy that comes from sex, because the other restraints to intimacy will be gone.

But there will still be love.

In college, I "fell in love" with the personalities of so many of my Christian sisters. I longed to get to know all of them intimately. But such intimacy is not possible in this world with more than one person because of jealousy, because of hurt, because of fear. (I did not pursue a relationship with any of them.)

Sexual intimacy is about knowing the very personal, usually hidden parts of another, feeling how their very body responds to emotion. It is sharing the most personal parts of us with another. To feel comfortable doing this, most people need to feel trust, protection, safety, and -- most of all love.

Yes, I think it is in fact possible to have sex without this trust, protection, and safety, but we call this "fucking" -- forgive my language, but it is really the only word that works here. Fucking is not intimate, and it is not about "sharing love". Love is always about putting the other first.

I believe that God gave us marriage, in part, to give us a taste of the kind of intimacy that will only be possible for everyone in the New Creation. To try and establish that early would be to act as if there is no sin in the world.

But this is a selfish thought, because even if you were so sanctified that you could spill your soul and body into another without any jealousy, how could you guarantee that she would not be hurt by the idea of you being with another? Is it worth the risk to hurt other people in your quest to "share the love"? Is this really putting the other first?

Unfortunately, I was not a virgin when I married my wife. This has caused great hurt to her even after two years of marriage.It is so great a sacrifice to restrain yourself, sexually, until you find someone you're ready to commit to, for life.
That you began with this line may perhaps be an indication of what is really at issue here -- impatience. (Again, I don't know you, but as we are brothers in the Christ, I feel I can speak. If I am wrong, you of course can ignore it.) Is it really a sacrifice to not have sex? Sure, it can be hard to resist physical urges, but are you actually giving anything up by not having sex? I don't think so. Human beings do not need to have sex, despite what modern psychologists may tell you. Human beings just desire to have sex. In fact, there are many people who cannot have sex. They are still human; they still have fulfilling lives.

Not to "advertise" my own blog, but I think this entry of mine may be helpful for you to read. I discuss Jesus' instructions on marriage/sex to the disciples. If you ignore my words, at least read the whole passage in Matthew 19 in context.

http://lhynard.livejournal.com/323933.html

[godwillnspire]

You said, "However, we know from Jesus' words in the Gospels that there will be no marriage at the Resurrection. Instead, we will be like the angels -- who do not have sex. There will be no need for sex in the afterlife, because there will be no death. And there will be no need for the intimacy that comes from sex, because the other restraints to intimacy will be gone."

But I ask- for what reason should it believed angels don't have sex? And although there will be no death in the afterlife, who's to say there won't still be a mandate form God to procreate? I see no reason to doubt that procreation was instituted before the expulsion from the Garden. And if "restraints to intimacy will be gone," then won't physical and sexual intimacy thrive?

I think you've defined "fucking" well.

You said, "I believe that God gave us marriage, in part, to give us a taste of the kind of intimacy that will only be possible for everyone in the New Creation. To try and establish that early would be to act as if there is no sin in the world."

I think that statement is an appropriate grounding point in the issue.

You said, "But this is a selfish thought, because even if you were so sanctified that you could spill your soul and body into another without any jealousy, how could you guarantee that she would not be hurt by the idea of you being with another? Is it worth the risk to hurt other people in your quest to "share the love"? Is this really putting the other first?"

This is something I've been thinking about constantly over the last few days, and you are right when you propose that grievous relational risk is eminent in polyamory.

You said, "That you began with this line may perhaps be an indication of what is really at issue here -- impatience."

I agree that impatience is a major factor in my exploration of these ideas. Although it doesn't invalidate truths I arrive at, it is an factor in the equation that most be resisted without rest.

You said, "as we are brothers in the Christ, I feel I can speak."

Amen, brother! Loving correction is... loving. Further, by intimately knowing my God, you intimately know what is good for me (not exhaustively, but intimately).

It is a sacrifice to give up my immediate desire for sexual intimacy, because desires can sacrificed just as much as needs can be.

Your blog was interesting and gave due credit to an often passed-over passage.

I constantly remind myself of how wholly satisfying life was before puberty, and how I am overwhelmingly more joyful than despairing, despite the fact that I've never experienced sexual intimacy with another person. Still, there is a hanging desire that wracks me ever so constantly. I've broken the cycle of sexual self-gratification for a little over a year, at one point, but I've failed so miserably to do so again. But I suppose I must press on.

What wins me over the most, right now, is a specific woman I have in mind, who chases away my desire for sexual intimacy with any one else, or with her, prior to marriage ceremony.

Thank you for coming to my journal. You are welcome, friend.

[lhynard]

Sorry for the long delay.

for what reason should it believed angels don't have sex?

Well, the ancient Jews believed that angels could have sex... with humans. But doing such was an extreme act of rebllion against God and one of the main causes of the Flood and of the cleansing of Canaan that occured after the Exodus. (This information is all in the Bible, but is very often overlooked. I mention a little more here and in its comments and links.)

But every angel ever mentioned in the Bible appeared as a male, so unless angels have homosexual sex with each other, this would be unlikely.

Finally, in the context of what Jesus is saying in the passage where he says we will be like angels, it needs to be understood that in the Bible, there was a fundamental link between marriage and sex. To say the angels neither marry or or given in marriage most likely actually means, "Angels don't have sex."And although there will be no death in the afterlife, who's to say there won't still be a mandate form God to procreate? I see no reason to doubt that procreation was instituted before the expulsion from the Garden. And if "restraints to intimacy will be gone," then won't physical and sexual intimacy thrive?
True, it is somewhat of an assumption that procreation will not be mandated. I do agree that there was sex and an order to procreate before the Fall. However, there were only two people then, so there was a need to "fill the earth". I don't think that command was ever meant to be perpetual. But this is an assumption, yes.

As for initmacy, I do not think intimacy depends upon sex.

[godwillnspire]

Your points are considerable, though not quite fatal to mine. There might be female angels that just didn't get described (Peter's wife never gets described, nor does the first woman born (I think...)). Sex between angels and humans being immoral doesn't make sex between angels and angels immoral. Jesus' comparison of the human afterlife to the life of an angel is a pretty strong point, though. There is, however, something to be said about what exactly Jesus was saying in that passage... he was responding to a trap. That we are now a multitude is a reasonable argument for no more procreation, but I think it's just as likely that God wants new life infinitely. You are probably right on all of these points, nonetheless I remain as flexible as I perceive the Scriptures to be.

I will say here that polyamory must be wrong, in the end. Though it holds so many good arguments, monogamy just doesn't mix with anything else, and it is most sure that monogamy is right. It is like trying to mix water and oil... the free love will mix but the monogamy cannot stand it, for to compromise in slight is to compromise in full.

You have treated me well by carrying the conversation further.

[lhynard]

good points above