Wait for sex and marriage? Evangelicals conflicted

There are 82 comments on the Seattle Post-Intelligencer story from Aug 9, 2009, titled Wait for sex and marriage? Evangelicals conflicted. In it, Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

The Wa y it is

Chico, CA

#29 Aug 11, 2009
seymour wrote:
<quoted text>

A whole lot of traditional attitudes about sex and marriage can be explained by there being no reliable way to prevent conception or STDs.
Thanks for your comment. I take a little different view. A whole lot of traditional attitudes about sex and marriage can be explained be the inability to discuss conception and STD's with the kids. Remember TV up until the 1970's? Husbands and wives were not allowed to be shown in the same bed.

I wonder how many teen STD's and mistake conceptions in history could have been prevented if their experiences were not encountered for the first time by blind experimentation and accident.

Look at the Netherlands and statistics. It speaks volumes about the truth.
free your mind

United States

#30 Aug 11, 2009
sex is the BOMB diggitty!! i was once watching a National Geographic documentary about sex in all species including humans, it stated that human testicles are to big for their body and therefore is an indication that the human species has not evolved to be monogamous, much like dogs who testicles are clearly bigger then they need to be. oddly enough gorillas are monogamous animals an have fairly small testicles when you compare them to the size of their body. and in at this site ( http://news.softpedia.com/news/Monogamy-is-an... ) it stated that monogamy in the animal kingdom is an oddity that all 3-5% of animals have a life mate. now here comes the rational for monogamy, it does help to prevent STD's (if both partners are monogamous), also as one grows with there partner sex becomes a much more enjoyable experience, and as one post previously expressed one may be comfortable sniffing their mates butt. so if you don't understand, my only reason for a monogamous relationship would be to have enjoyable intimate sex. otherwise as studies have suggested, random one night sex is natural to 95% of the species on this planet. they only one's complaining about it are the Catholic priests who don't get "any" (that's an exception quote), and the other religions who preach monogamy and just like their wives to lay on their back so they can do 2-3 rapid pumps for "procreation." got something to say to you bible thumps, put the book down take your lady to an adult store, pick up a movie, and i guarantee you will have one of the best sex night you could ever think of. damn can't wait till tomorrow to get my freaky sex on.
The Way it Is

Chico, CA

#33 Aug 12, 2009
free your mind wrote:
so if you don't understand, my only reason for a monogamous relationship would be to have enjoyable intimate sex. otherwise as studies have suggested, random one night sex is natural to 95% of the species on this planet.
I'm not sure you're correct about the reason for marriage being enjoyable intimate sex. Monogamy in humans trancends the animal kingdom and has more to do with the social consequences of children being born without support structure (family and community) and innate population control. If everyone were screwing around with one-night stands..who would take care of all the unexpected babies? And you have to remember, marriage evolved long before contraception was widely available. So marriage actually was a response to internal threats to culture that coul dresult from a band of unwanted children, with hungry mouths, taxing the resources of the rest who are able to keep their little testicles in their trousers.

You have to think beyond your immediate libido!

But yes..sex is the BOMB.
seymour

New Zealand

#34 Aug 12, 2009
Big Hoss wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. If god didnt want people to have sex for anything but procreation, he should have thought twice before he made it feel good. Period.
But if it didn't feel good, why would we do it? When anthropological field work began about 100 years ago, tribal communities were found that did not know that vaginal led to conception. We humans had to figure that out. But the we survived as a species because it was fun.

Before 1900, a lot of women died giving birth. That helps explain why a lot of girls in Catholic countries opted to become nuns. The thrill of sex encouraged it to go on despite the dangers of childbirth.
humm

El Paso, TX

#35 Aug 12, 2009
It comes down to this. If you wait for sex after marriage and then sleep with only your spouse then that cuts out the risk of stds. It works for me and my spouse 37 yrs +
The Way It Is

Chico, CA

#36 Aug 12, 2009
seymour wrote:
<quoted text>
But if it didn't feel good, why would we do it?
Ask cats. Male cats have sharp recurved barbs on their penises that lock (and tear) into the female tissues. Cats do not ahve orgasms. Yet cats reproduce...alot.

People have orgasms, they do not have sharp recurved damaging barbs on the penis...but we have (most of us at least)...intellect and rationality.

If cat sex was all pleasure and no pain, and without intellect and foresight, what would the world's feline population be?

This is true in the animal kingdom in general. We, and a few primates are unique on our pleasure, monthly cycles, AND RATIONAL RESTRAINT.
free your mind

Aptos, CA

#37 Aug 12, 2009
The Way it Is wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure you're correct about the reason for marriage being enjoyable intimate sex. Monogamy in humans trancends the animal kingdom and has more to do with the social consequences of children being born without support structure (family and community) and innate population control. If everyone were screwing around with one-night stands..who would take care of all the unexpected babies? And you have to remember, marriage evolved long before contraception was widely available. So marriage actually was a response to internal threats to culture that coul dresult from a band of unwanted children, with hungry mouths, taxing the resources of the rest who are able to keep their little testicles in their trousers.
You have to think beyond your immediate libido!
But yes..sex is the BOMB.
well i didn't say marriage, i said monogamy, those are to different terms, monogamy does not mean you have to be married. marriage is a religious control mechanism. having a monogamous relationship does have its benefits in the intimate and sex side. you get to know your partner better and become more comfortable with experimenting with yourselves sexually (if you are creative you can begin to think of some things). sex is a form of bonding when it is a monogamous relationship (as i am sure you understand). random not "controlling your libido" sex is cool to, but not as emotionally gratifying (again my opinion). i am a 30yr old male and have had no problem controlling my libido as i have no children, have practiced safe sex, and at one point was in a monogamous 10 year relationship.

there is a culture in China that i believe refers to relationships as "open relationship." this is based on the idea that women are the matriarch of the family instead of the male being the patriarch. and all males cater to the lives of women. in this culture women and men engage in monogamous relationships and conceive children, but they are never married as the children always stay with the mother at her matriarch's family home. the father is still involved, but lives at his mother's home. now what about having a father? well in this culture the father is still involved, but the responsibility of having a male role model around comes to the mother's brothers, uncles, and cousins. the only reason for the father of the children in their belief is procreation. there are still values believed in this culture the only difference is that the women play the higher role in the family then the men.

Control of your libido is not an issue, if evolution had planned for the human species to control their libido, why would evolution not begin to control how often women menstruate? much like some species that only go into "heat" during mating seasons and then other times of the season have no interest in sex. from what i understand only the species of various apes and humans menstruate between a period of 29-37 days. meaning evolution has designed both species to mate as often as needed and apparently that is fairly often. also many of our social patterns can be seen in apes.

we have ways to control the birth rates, via many medical procedures and contraceptives. so, the issue comes to teaching responsibility, and for bible thumpers and conservatives that deem sex is against "god's" will and try to tell individuals to refrain from it to educate individuals about sex. education goes a long way in the minds of people, as that has been demonstrated by the way society has evolved. the mind is a powerful thing, the sad part is many in society choose to waste its usefulness.
FUndiecheCK

El Paso, TX

#40 Aug 12, 2009
Pastor Ted Haggard says: Evangelicals don't have a problem waiting for sex. Some of us will circle a few times before deciding which male prostitute we want to have meth fueled sex with. Some of us will hang around in the men's bathroom at the airport tapping thier shoes for several hours waiting for a good blow from some young traveler.
Others will wait until their wife goes on vacation before showing their secretary which way their moral compass points.
Common Sense_ Justice

Mertztown, PA

#41 Aug 12, 2009
Would anyone in their right mind buy a pair of shoes without ever bothering to try them on? Would you rather be miserable the rest of your life being legally shackled to a person that is totally incompatible sexually with you, or to do a little pre-marital experimentation, I would choose the latter. I think the religious nuts are probably in the former group, except for 'Humm' from El Paso...
The Way it Is

Chico, CA

#42 Aug 12, 2009
free your mind wrote:
<quoted text>
Control of your libido is not an issue, if evolution had planned for the human species to control their libido, why would evolution not begin to control how often women menstruate?
Becasue of the evolution of awareness, conciousness and intellect. Just because we CAN behave like horny hamsters does not mean we SHOULD. Simple as that.
seymour

New Zealand

#43 Aug 12, 2009
The Way It Is wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask cats. Male cats have sharp recurved barbs on their penises that lock (and tear) into the female tissues. Cats do not ahve orgasms. Yet cats reproduce...alot.
If cat sex was all pleasure and no pain, and without intellect and foresight, what would the world's feline population be?
At least one cat gender enjoys copulation in some way. It's not some sort of chore they do for the perpetuation of cathood.

We humans copulate because we are powerfully drawn to it. I am open to the idea that the orgasm of the human female is unusually intense. Otherwise, sex for humans is fairly similar to sex for other mammals.
seymour

New Zealand

#44 Aug 12, 2009
Common Sense_ Justice wrote:
Would anyone in their right mind buy a pair of shoes without ever bothering to try them on? Would you rather be miserable the rest of your life being legally shackled to a person that is totally incompatible sexually with you, or to do a little pre-marital experimentation, I would choose the latter. I think the religious nuts are probably in the former group, except for 'Humm' from El Paso...
In many human cultures,
"trying each other out for size" was frowned upon or seriously taboo. That did not lead to an orgy of unhappy marriages. I think that randomly matching men and women would generally result in fairly satisfying sex, especially if premarital masturbation is not taboo, and if man and women take some time to get each other juiced up by doing to each other what comes naturally.
seymour

New Zealand

#45 Aug 12, 2009
Big Hoss wrote:
<quoted text>
To pro-create. I am arguing with the bibles view, which says that sex is only for procreation and should not be enjoyed by the woman, and should ONLY be had when the couple plans for a child. Dont you think this is an outdated, extreme view?
But our ancestors bonked even when they did not know that conception was a possible outcome.

The Bible does not limit marital intercourse to procreation. That limitation is a hard line argued by certain Roman Catholic theologians in centuries past. It is emphatically not the Jewish view, nor the view of any mainstream Catholic theologian today.
EngineEar

Chico, CA

#46 Aug 13, 2009
seymour wrote:
<quoted text>
At least one cat gender enjoys copulation in some way. It's not some sort of chore they do for the perpetuation of cathood.
We humans copulate because we are powerfully drawn to it. I am open to the idea that the orgasm of the human female is unusually intense. Otherwise, sex for humans is fairly similar to sex for other mammals.
Do paramecium enjoy pleasure? House MiCE? Bollweevils, Or how about two strains of fungal mycelium? That's all sex amigo.

Buddy, the reproductive urge trancends all phylogenetic relationships.
EngineEar

Chico, CA

#47 Aug 13, 2009
Particularly self-centered HUMANS.
Rob

Saint Louis, MO

#48 Aug 13, 2009
EngineEar wrote:
<quoted text>
Do paramecium enjoy pleasure? House MiCE? Bollweevils, Or how about two strains of fungal mycelium? That's all sex amigo.
Buddy, the reproductive urge trancends all phylogenetic relationships.
we will never know if they enjoy sex. my betting is they enjoy it more than you enjoy life!!:)
EnginEar

Chico, CA

#49 Aug 13, 2009
Rob wrote:
<quoted text>
we will never know if they enjoy sex. my betting is they enjoy it more than you enjoy life!!:)
Guess again you simplistic moron.
Eeeek

United States

#52 Aug 13, 2009
I way WAIT!!!! Wait till you're good and buzzed....then game on. LOL.
Eeeek

United States

#53 Aug 13, 2009
way=say
seymour

New Zealand

#54 Aug 13, 2009
EngineEar wrote:
<quoted text>
Do paramecium enjoy pleasure? House MiCE? Bollweevils, Or how about two strains of fungal mycelium? That's all sex amigo.
Buddy, the reproductive urge trancends all phylogenetic relationships.
From the fact that we enjoy copulation, it is fair comment to say that all our fellow mammals enjoy it too. I do not have a problem with proposing that ALL animals like it.

I agree 100% with your writing "the reproductive urge trancends all phylogenetic relationships." Hence that cannot be taken as a criticism of anything I said.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Purdue University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Education briefs (Mar '11) Aug '14 MaltaMon 16
News Purdue offering veterinary camps at State Fair (Jul '14) Jul '14 Coda1 1
News Carrollton Free Press Standard News | School bo... (Jun '14) Jun '14 Randy Miller 5
News Could This Meat Save Your Life? (May '14) Jun '14 Monique 10
News Odds against accused Purdue shooter's insanity ... (Jun '14) Jun '14 humanSpirit 1
News One Weird Trick to Destroy a Man's Ego (Mar '14) Apr '14 lonniebauk 70
News Local Catholic schools face declining enrollment (Jan '14) Feb '14 Lefty 48
More from around the web