Wait for sex and marriage? Evangelicals conflicted

Aug 9, 2009 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Seattle Post-Intelligencer

When Margie and Stephen Zumbrun were battling the urge to have premarital sex, a pastor counseled them to control themselves.

Comments
1 - 20 of 82 Comments Last updated Sep 4, 2009
First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Dr Ron Gerughty

Missoula, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Aug 9, 2009
 
The vast array of advisors on sexual behavior need to wake up to the fact that until the Inversion co-opted woman's sexuality (about 5000 years ago) and extinguished the female sex paradigm, taking with it millennia of mate assessment and male transformation, our Pleistocene ancestral women had sex many times daily with many men and women. Marriage and pair bonding are not innate,evolutionary, or immutable, but rather patriarchal creations designed to harnass woman's sexuality. The truth of the matter lies with woman's inherent desire to find emotional affinity among the various potential mates; therefore, "premarital" sexual activity (not sexual intercourse) is as natural as breathing. The drive, however, is not for procreation, but for assessment and subsequent transformation. For more, see www.esybron.org
seymour

New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Aug 9, 2009
 
To marry the year you graduate from college is not too young. If you agree, there is no dilemma.

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Aug 10, 2009
 
Big Hoss wrote:
<quoted text>
English please.
its simple, both men and women at one time used sexual acts(not intercourse)and other factors to determine compatability(SP?).
El Guapo

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Aug 10, 2009
 
Dr Ron Gerughty wrote:
The vast array of advisors on sexual behavior need to wake up to the fact that until the Inversion co-opted woman's sexuality (about 5000 years ago) and extinguished the female sex paradigm, taking with it millennia of mate assessment and male transformation, our Pleistocene ancestral women had sex many times daily with many men and women. Marriage and pair bonding are not innate,evolutionary, or immutable, but rather patriarchal creations designed to harnass woman's sexuality. The truth of the matter lies with woman's inherent desire to find emotional affinity among the various potential mates; therefore, "premarital" sexual activity (not sexual intercourse) is as natural as breathing. The drive, however, is not for procreation, but for assessment and subsequent transformation. For more, see www.esybron.org
All of your mambo jumbo cannot ignore the roadside littered with the broken lives of the women who longed for assessment and subsequent transformation and resulted in nothing more than sex toys for men who only used them and descarted them for greener and more "virgin" pastures.
Yes, sexual activity is as natural as breathing, but our ability to see treat sex as a beautiful expression of love between a man and a woman is what seperates us from dogs who find it quite natural going around and smelling each other's butts.

“Monogamy Rocks”

Since: Nov 08

CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Aug 10, 2009
 
What a bunch silly drivel thinly masked in faux-academic jargon (i.e. they use big words so it must be true…LOL)

Monogamy…(pair bonding.. marriage, etc.) for all of its challenges,“is” an evolutionary attribute. In that, cultures that ascribed to this type of social arrangement, generally faired better… over time… than societies that did not…and thus had greater population growth.
What Not

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Aug 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Check out the documentary: "Sex Drugs and Democracy". Compare the sex-education of the Netherlands with that of the USA. There, kids in early elementary school are taught comprehensive sex education, including "taboo" issues like pre-marital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, contraception, etc.

Then a comparison is presented regarding the statistics of teen pregnancy and teen STD's of the Netherlands versus the good old USA.

Guess what? The USA is left in the dust as losers in this argument.

Get it out in the open early, so it doesn't rot in the dark later.
Remo

Vacaville, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Aug 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

The way god had originally made us all, was to be married off in between the ages of 15 and 20. As was praticed back in say the 1800's. But today, is a little different. Some teens just don't have the control they used to. Part of this has to do with the enviroment teens are raised in.All over t.v. and billboards, all you see is woman shown in sexuall ways, making it s.eeem like what were here for is sex. And even though thing used to be the way they were in the 1800's, we have had a vast ammount of medical advances scince then. And sex before marrige may not be a goo thing, for the risk of becoming pregnant. Which at a young age, can severly damage a girls body and growth patterns

“Son of Abraham”

Since: Aug 07

Natural Deviant

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Aug 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

What a total joke seeing Bible-thumpers have the highest divorce rate and out-of-wedlock birthrate.
Join Free
Braddock

El Paso, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Aug 10, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

If same sex marriage were allowed, evangelicals would have no problem waiting until marriage. But since most evangelicals need to have a marriage cover before they start cruising for gay sex, they necessarily have to wait until they find that special someone who will be naively ignorant of their lifestyle.
seymour

New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Aug 10, 2009
 
Big Hoss wrote:
Did you know that Patsy Cline referred to Elvis Presley as the Big Hoss?
seymour

New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Aug 10, 2009
 
Big Hoss wrote:
<quoted text>
So if teens arent ready for sex like you say, why would they be ready for marriage (which would certainly include sex) just 100 years ago? A lack of control has NOTHING to do with it. The life expectancy has tripled since then, and people are settling down later and living longer. There is nothing wrong with this, it is just progress. Back then, there was a great risk in becoming pregnant because contraception almost didnt exist. Now, it does, and it is readily available. Its all progress, we have moved forward, not backwards.
When my great aunt (born 1876, married 1899) died, I helped empty her apartment. I found condom packaging from around 1910 or 20. But I don't think condoms go back much further than that. And condoms were the ONLY form of "birth control" worth talking about until the pill came along in the 1960s.

Our time is the first time in human history when young women have complete control over their fertility. That this has led to a premarital free-for-all is not surprising, altho' the jury is still out on whether it is a good thing. I am not sure all women are happy to experience orgasm without his having made a commitment. And I won't claim that one night stands add heaps to a man's pleasure either.
seymour

New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Aug 10, 2009
 
Remo wrote:
The way god had originally made us all, was to be married off in between the ages of 15 and 20. As was praticed back in say the 1800's. But today, is a little different. Some teens just don't have the control they used to. Part of this has to do with the enviroment teens are raised in.All over t.v. and billboards, all you see is woman shown in sexuall ways, making it s.eeem like what were here for is sex. And even though thing used to be the way they were in the 1800's, we have had a vast ammount of medical advances scince then. And sex before marrige may not be a goo thing, for the risk of becoming pregnant. Which at a young age, can severly damage a girls body and growth patterns
Historically, men married around 20-25, and a majority of women were married before their 20th birthday. We are not built to delay marriage while also waiting until marriage to have sex. that's why I've grown warmer to marrying at 20-22.

When I was growingup, ads featured so many women lounging in bikinis with come hither smiles that it kept the sex temperature high all the time. Ads are a bit less sexual now (in part because so many creative people in marketing are gay), but R movies have stepped into the breach. Mind you, if they censored Hollywood, then the young would rush to the Internet.
seymour

New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Aug 10, 2009
 
What Not wrote:
Check out the documentary: "Sex Drugs and Democracy". Compare the sex-education of the Netherlands with that of the USA. There, kids in early elementary school are taught comprehensive sex education, including "taboo" issues like pre-marital sex, homosexuality, masturbation, contraception, etc.
Then a comparison is presented regarding the statistics of teen pregnancy and teen STD's of the Netherlands versus the good old USA.
Guess what? The USA is left in the dust as losers in this argument.
Get it out in the open early, so it doesn't rot in the dark later.
Out of wedlock pregnancy rates are high in the UK and New Zealand as well as the USA. Dutch young people seem to be smarter and more careful. Nobody quite knows why. I am not confident that Dutch sexual culture would export easily to the USA. My SO, who lived a while in the Netherlands, thinks that the normalization of masturbation is important. In the Netherlands, masturbation is seen as a nontrivial sexual act, as an accomplishment, as an important form of safe sex to be celebrated. I would be willing to try moving the sexual culture of the English speaking world in that direction, but also believe that doing so would encounter fierce opposition. Mainly from the religious orthodox and the perennial prudes, but also from the many rough men who think that wanking is the mark of a loser.
Mary

Farmington, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Aug 11, 2009
 
Dr Ron Gerughty wrote:
The vast array of advisors on sexual behavior need to wake up to the fact that until the Inversion co-opted woman's sexuality (about 5000 years ago) and extinguished the female sex paradigm, taking with it millennia of mate assessment and male transformation, our Pleistocene ancestral women had sex many times daily with many men and women. Marriage and pair bonding are not innate,evolutionary, or immutable, but rather patriarchal creations designed to harnass woman's sexuality. The truth of the matter lies with woman's inherent desire to find emotional affinity among the various potential mates; therefore, "premarital" sexual activity (not sexual intercourse) is as natural as breathing. The drive, however, is not for procreation, but for assessment and subsequent transformation. For more, see www.esybron.org
I agree. No doubt patriarchal control coupled with religious fanaticism stifles our inate need for bonding with other humans.
Mary

Farmington, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Aug 11, 2009
 
Rationality on hold wrote:
What a bunch silly drivel thinly masked in faux-academic jargon (i.e. they use big words so it must be true…LOL)
Monogamy…(pair bonding.. marriage, etc.) for all of its challenges,“is” an evolutionary attribute. In that, cultures that ascribed to this type of social arrangement, generally faired better… over time… than societies that did not…and thus had greater population growth.
Monogamy is unnatural and weakens the genetic pool.
seymour

New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Aug 11, 2009
 
Big Hoss wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey if guys and girls didnt like em, they wouldnt happen so much.
One night stands aren't that common once you turn 30 or so. You get feistier and touchier about your being treated right. You come to prefer not getting any to two hours in a motel room with somebody whose last name you never learn.
The Wa y it is

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Aug 11, 2009
 
seymour wrote:
<quoted text>
When my great aunt (born 1876, married 1899) died, I helped empty her apartment. I found condom packaging from around 1910 or 20. But I don't think condoms go back much further than that.
Condoms actually go back to the ancient Greeks. They are as old as sheepskin.
The Wa y it is

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Aug 11, 2009
 

Judged:

1

seymour wrote:
<quoted text>
Out of wedlock pregnancy rates are high in the UK and New Zealand as well as the USA. Dutch young people seem to be smarter and more careful. Nobody quite knows why. I am not confident that Dutch sexual culture would export easily to the USA. My SO, who lived a while in the Netherlands, thinks that the normalization of masturbation is important. In the Netherlands, masturbation is seen as a nontrivial sexual act, as an accomplishment, as an important form of safe sex to be celebrated. I would be willing to try moving the sexual culture of the English speaking world in that direction, but also believe that doing so would encounter fierce opposition. Mainly from the religious orthodox and the perennial prudes, but also from the many rough men who think that wanking is the mark of a loser.
Young Dutch people are educated, in the open, on all aspects of sex, starting in early elementary school.

No mystery there amigo! And contrast their statistics to those of the USA, and specifically, the prudest, most BIBLE-thumper regions in the "heartland". Teen STD's, teen pregnancy, and young single mothers abound under the prude eyes of the "Evangelicals". Holy Smokes Batman...them kids are experimenting, and the parents hide in the pages of their "holy book" and behind the robes of their priests (who are probably boinking the boys).

What a bunch of ignorant fools. Might as well deny the existance of the ocean as deny the urge of folks to twiddle. They are both natural, and are as "God" intended. Otherwise, he's made some kind of mistake...and that can't be now could it..
The Wa y it is

Chico, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Aug 11, 2009
 
Regarding Granny's Rubbers, check this out.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_condo...

People have been aware and smart for centuries. Why can't these "Christians" get with the times?
seymour

New Zealand

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Aug 11, 2009
 
The Wa y it is wrote:
<quoted text>
Condoms actually go back to the ancient Greeks. They are as old as sheepskin.
It was a segment of sheep intestines with one end tied. They were not common. They didn't work very well. They were too dear to use once and discard. So they were reused, and would soon stink and loose flexibility. Condoms weren't much good until they could be mass produced, not before 1890 or so.

A whole lot of traditional attitudes about sex and marriage can be explained by there being no reliable way to prevent conception or STDs.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 5
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Purdue University Discussions

Search the Purdue University Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Purdue offering veterinary camps at State Fair Jul 23 Coda1 1
Carrollton Free Press Standard News | School bo... Jun '14 Randy Miller 5
Could This Meat Save Your Life? Jun '14 Monique 10
Odds against accused Purdue shooter's insanity ... Jun '14 humanSpirit 1
One Weird Trick to Destroy a Man's Ego Apr '14 lonniebauk 73
Education briefs (Mar '11) Mar '14 Bob 20
Local Catholic schools face declining enrollment (Jan '14) Feb '14 Lefty 48
•••
•••