Sex! Woohoo!

[crazylegsmurphy]

I've heard the car analogy before, and one reason why I think it's a bad one is that a car is something that you use. People shouldn't be something that you use. And if you love someone enough to want to marry them, I think you can work out sexual issues.

Yes, of course it's not a great analogy. The point being that if people are willing to put that much research and effort into choosing the right car, it would stand to reason they would do at the very least the same when choosing a life partner. There are certain aspects about buying a car that most people simply wouldn't skip because they hold more importance. To use another bad example, someone might not check every tire specifically to make sure it has the perfect amount of air, just like most people wouldn't not marry someone because their earlobes are slightly different, but most people wouldn't commit to buying a car without first seeing if it drives nice.

Also, it sure is wonderful to know that your partner isn't comparing you to someone else, and that you aren't comparing your partner to someone else. I think like a lot of good things, waiting for marriage to have sex is difficult to achieve but well worth it. I think it's a gift that is saved up for the person that you want to marry.

No offense, but I don't feel this is a great argument.

You're assuming that all comparisons will be negative when in fact the comparison could easily help to solidify the marriage as that person would know that they are more compatible than past partners. It's using the argument that ignorance can only result in good is like saying you have never eaten live larva before, so when you finally do, it will be great because you have no other insects to compare it too.

As well, you could also argue that because two people have nothing to compare sex to, it has the potential to spark the "grass is greener" mentality. When you've had enough sexual partners to form an opinion on what you do, and don't like you are able to eliminate certain things that you might otherwise wonder about. For example, I prefer girls with smaller breasts, and while that wouldn't be a make or break if I met someone amazing, I will put more effort into what I do like, than what I don't. I think my wife would rather me be solid in that conviction than spend my life sneaking peeks, wondering what big breasts feel like, and if I like them better.

The truth is (and this comes from experience), despite best intentions not all people are sexually compatible. Sometimes they're not physically compatible and no end of trying will ever change that. That's not to say you need to have sex with 200 people before you get married, but I feel that in order to make an informed decision you need to have enough experience to know what will, and won't work for you. It's not always the case that two people can simply work out sexual issues, in fact this is my point, you can eliminate many of those issues by exploring what you like, and how your potential life partner interacts with you.

Imagine if your wife/husband suddenly decided they were into S&M and you only liked your tried and tested missionary position. There is going to be a point there where in order to make it work, both of you are going to have to have sex they don't like. It would seem much better to me anyway, to know you don't like S&M, and to know that the person you're marrying does before hand.

And as far as those silly arguments about wanting to be experienced on your wedding night - how ... I don't know, I guess vulgar would be one way to put it. As if you loved the person because of how they could perform. As someone who was a virgin on her wedding day, and who married a virgin, I can tell you that we had no problem at ALL having fun on our wedding night! It was really special to know that we both waited and could explore this wonderful area for the first time together.

This has nothing to do with the wedding night. I have had days of horrible sex with people I have been with for years. What matters is how sexually compatible two people are for the duration of the marriage. The wedding night isn't like a one time Olympic event that you need to train for, and in the big scheme of things matters very little. Anyone can get a "high" and fudge together a wedding night of sex, its the same reason why strangers can pick each other up at the bar and have one night stands with fairly good success.

[ScottBarger]

First, Rian, thanks for the comments. I agree that sex should be thought of and taught in a very positive light. When it's working, it's better than ice cream.

I think wisdom is key.

Second, Crazylegs. Great name. I disagree with the conclusion that since sexual incompatibility is a potential problem, we must experiment to make sure we are sexually compatible before we make a life commitment to one another. I have a few reasons.

First, if we are talking about physical incompatibility, then I would assert that this is only issue for a small portion of people...and for many of those people sexual intimacy is still very possible.

Second, if we are talking about sexual compatibility in terms of likes/dislikes (positions, frequency, toys, etc.) then I would argue that while we are all sexual beings, and most of us will be sexual beings throughout our lives, our sexuality is certainly not static. What I like today, I may not like tomorrow. I am certainly not the same sexual being at 35 that I was at 18. People are complex, they grow and change. We should expect that our sexuality will grow and change with us.

Third, and this is coming from a decidedly Christian/biblical world view, your "try before you buy" assertion seems to assume that my own sexual satisfaction is of primary importance, and that the sexual satisfaction of my partner is performance based. In other words, I have to develop and idea of my own sexual likes and dislikes and explore these with my potential life partner because in order to be satisfied with my sex life, I have to enjoy the sexual enjoyment my partner gives me. I am not sure that this is true.

I do agree with your assessment of the wedding night. Some of the most damaging things I was taught about sex when I was growing up were derived from a kind of exaltation of the wedding night. If I kept it in my pants, my wedding night would be awesome, if I didn't my wedding night would be...well...less than awesome. For every "I saved it for marriage and had mind blowing sex on my wedding night" couple that I know, there are dozens of others who are more along the lines of "I saved it for marriage was entirely disappointed on my wedding night."

[crazylegsmurphy]

Hey Scott, thanks for the reply.

I wanted to take a second to address and clarify my thoughts.

First, if we are talking about physical incompatibility, then I would assert that this is only issue for a small portion of people...and for many of those people sexual intimacy is still very possible.

You're right. It's definitely a small percentage and will probably not effect most people, but it is a concern and one of those easily determined issues when two people are intimate prior to marraige. I didn't mean for it to sound as though this is a major reason why, but more of "to add". I only bring it up because I have experienced this, and it's frustrating when nothing can be done.

Second, if we are talking about sexual compatibility in terms of likes/dislikes (positions, frequency, toys, etc.) then I would argue that while we are all sexual beings, and most of us will be sexual beings throughout our lives, our sexuality is certainly not static. What I like today, I may not like tomorrow. I am certainly not the same sexual being at 35 that I was at 18. People are complex, they grow and change. We should expect that our sexuality will grow and change with us.

This is also true, but as sexuality is not static, neither are the dynamics of marriage. I feel that once the chemicals (honeymoon stage) wears off and reality sets in, there needs to be a lot of things working right to create strong bonds between two people so it can continue to last. Much like a relationship, if you start things off on the wrong foot, it can greatly effect the chances of it working out. In marriage (and relationships), physical intimacy is one of those things that needs to be balanced equally to assure each person is happy and satisfied.

If two people, right on the heels of marriage suddenly find that they're not at the same place sexually (and we know this to be true as men reach sexual peak at a much different time in life than women), then it can cause a strain. This strain/stress in a time when pair bonding should be at it's greatest (and most major life changes are happening), can, in my opinion, can have a very adverse effect. It's no secret that divorce rates are high, and while I'm not suggesting it's due to this alone, it would seem to me that giving everything the best chance possible (by making informed choices), might help.

Third, and this is coming from a decidedly Christian/biblical world view, your "try before you buy" assertion seems to assume that my own sexual satisfaction is of primary importance, and that the sexual satisfaction of my partner is performance based. In other words, I have to develop and idea of my own sexual likes and dislikes and explore these with my potential life partner because in order to be satisfied with my sex life, I have to enjoy the sexual enjoyment my partner gives me. I am not sure that this is true.

Let me give you an example that might help explain things a bit more.

When I was 21 or so, I had been dating a girl for about 3 years. We got along great in all aspects of life and it wasn't too long before we had concluded this was probably going to continue for a long time. Our relationship was great, our sex life was perfect, our families got along, it was everything you could hope for. We eventually gave each other "promise rings" and it wasn't long before we decided it was time to move in together. I mean we had been dating for 3 years, saw each other all the time and it seemed like a natural progression.

It took 3 months for that relationship to disintegrate so badly that we now have nothing to do with each other. What happened was that when we moved in together we learned things about each other that we had no idea existed. We couldn't stand the way each other did things. We didn't agree on how a household should be run. We had differing ideas about who should be allowed to stay and visit. She had certain ideas about pets that I didn't agree with. Her mother suddenly became very controlling and overbearing. Needless to say, in this instance the added knowledge of the situation greatly effected our relationship.

And before some of you argue that if we were married we would have stuck though it, or sought outside help. We actually books sessions with her school counselor to try and work out the issues, but it was recommended to us both that this was no longer a healthy situation to be in. In the end, we left loathing each other.

Now, I realize this is anecdotal evidence, but my point is that regardless of how many times I have seen this happen with my peers and family, it seems apparent in my eyes that the lesson to be learned from that experience is that even the best intentions are sometimes not enough. Like most things in life, the more knowledge you have of a specific topic, the better your choices will be. The next time I lived with an ex of mine it went much better because not only was I able to see that that person didn't have the same tenancies (or find mine to be a problem), but I now had the experience to foresee things that were issues the last time, and deal with them appropriately.

[Pseudonym]

I was under the impression that you were American.

I understand that it's sometimes hard to keep track of who lives where on a forum like this. However, I think that keeping a global perspective is helpful.

As an aside, I've listened to all of the podcasts, and I do find it hard to understand some of them. Sometimes there are references that I don't get (from this episode, for example, I had to look up Josh McDowell and TBN; I'd seen books written by someone of that name in bookstores, but otherwise I hadn't really heard of him). Sometimes there are blanket generalisations which don't apply (e.g. I seem to recall a previous mention of "protestants" as believing something, which essentially nobody outside of US-style evangelicalism would countenance). Sometimes there are discussions which might as well be taking place on a different planet.

Partly, I mentioned the Methodist thing as a joke. If it helps, my grandfather was a Methodist minister, my whole family was Methodist up to union, which happened when I was four. My only real concession to historical Methodism is that I personally don't drink very much (maybe one standard drink a month). Mostly because I don't like it.

The fact is, John Wesley wouldn't have liked me, and I wouldn't have liked him.

I'm actually a liberal protestant. Think of Rudolph Bultmann, Paul Tillich, Richard Holloway, Leslie Weatherhead and John Shelby Spong, and you'll get the general idea.

[whoosanightowl]

DU wrote:

Hmm... I've always found the practice of rumspringa distinctly manipulative rather than enlightened or liberal. Very much like the strategy of forcing a 12 year old to smoke a large cigar in one sitting to teach them that smoking is a bad idea.

Here's the deal. Take a 16 year old who has NO CLUE of the outside world, a total innocent and tell them there are NO RULES... that they can do anything. Wow. Is it any wonder that these defenseless babes scuttle home to the safety of a rigid society?

While I was surprised (a long time ago) when I found out about rumspringa, the more I've thought of it, the more I see it as a manipulative - highly unethical - practice. Your mileage will vary.

Hi DU,
I see what you're saying, and I agree as far as the tradition of rumspringa goes. It's a big, scary world out there, especially for someone who's been so completely sheltered from it. Most of the youngsters would certainly be more comfortable in the familiar setting of their strict Amish culture. So I think you're right that it's a manipulative trick, like reverse psychology or something.
But they also said that when a girl and boy are dating within their community, it is customary for the girls parents to allow the boy to stay over and share her bed if he stays too late.

[rse123]

That was a great topic which was covered well in the last podcast. However, it left out some sidebar topics that it would be nice to visit in a Sex Part II episode. One "hot topic" that many fundamental Christians give much attention is pornography and how it relates to Matthew 5:27-28. I often find myself subscribing to conflicting ethical yardsticks on this topic:

1st- my rational side subscribes to Utilitarianism which would indicate that if no one is getting hurt but someone is getting pleasure, then it is OK from an ethical standpoint. Who gets hurt when pornography is used and is a literal interpretation of Matthew 5:27-28 applicable if the "looks at a woman lustfully" is on the pages of a magazine (in modern times)?

2nd- my Christian side threatens me with hellfire and brimstone. Other than 'because the bible says so', are there rational underpinnings to why Christianity views this as taboo? Is a perpetual cycle of guilt in God's plan?

The word pornography could be replaced with masturbation and generate a similar discussion. My apologies if I have opened up a can of worms that is too big or controversial to be discussed in this forum.

[NH Baritone]

My apologies if I have opened up a can of worms that is too big or controversial to be discussed in this forum.

Some may wonder if that was a Freudian slip.

Welcome to the forum

[Pseudonym]

That was a great topic which was covered well in the last podcast. However, it left out some sidebar topics that it would be nice to visit in a Sex Part II episode. One "hot topic" that many fundamental Christians give much attention is pornography and how it relates to Matthew 5:27-28.

The Bible doesn't mention pornography.

Having said that, the question of whether or not anyone is "getting hurt" is a difficult question. One line of feminist thinking, for example, is that pornography that is made by men for men is inherently exploitative (either of the actors/models, or of the reader, or both). Another line of thinking is that the production of pornography need not be exploitative, but in this day and age, in this culture, it usually is. Yet another line of thinking is that making pornography may well be empowering, though most would concede that it's far from a guarantee.

To put it another way: the morality (or otherwise) of pornography cannot be discussed without also discussing the morality (or otherwise) of the industry that produces it.

[Redpower]

One of the more difficult things for me is know when to keep my "theological ponderings" to myself. Since I am a pastor of a church, It behooves me not to shake things up too much. If I weren't a pastor, I think it would be much easier to question different aspects of my faith.

I guess I was the only person on the forums disturbed by this. You can't shake things up because people might evade the next group think session, do some thinking on their own, leave the church and cost you tithes? Or... Some other explanation? If you're sure you have it right and Christianity is the way. Why would you be afraid to ask all the questions in the world? There must be answers right. Or are you just a complete cynic so deep into the business that you can't afford to question your faith?

I'm sure I'll be called a troll and be flammed for this, but I don't care. Your comment makes me ashamed to be a human being.

Thanks for the long awaited update. It was fairly enjoyable. Don't wait 6 months to do another update please.

[NH Baritone]

One of the more difficult things for me is know when to keep my "theological ponderings" to myself. Since I am a pastor of a church, It behooves me not to shake things up too much. If I weren't a pastor, I think it would be much easier to question different aspects of my faith.

I guess I was the only person on the forums disturbed by this. You can't shake things up because people might evade the next group think session, do some thinking on their own, leave the church and cost you tithes? Or... Some other explanation? If you're sure you have it right and Christianity is the way. Why would you be afraid to ask all the questions in the world? There must be answers right. Or are you just a complete cynic so deep into the business that you can't afford to question your faith?

I'm sure I'll be called a troll and be flammed for this, but I don't care. Your comment makes me ashamed to be a human being.

Thanks for the long awaited update. It was fairly enjoyable. Don't wait 6 months to do another update please.

Hi, Red.

I also noted the lack of integrity that Scott's comment implied, but he and I have gone back & forth about this before. He's charming, and seems genuinely concerned about his congregation. However, he also doesn't seem to care how much of what he's teaching is true or not. He's in good company. It's the same among most Christian clerics. For them, success is having a growing church, not having a thinking church.

[Pseudonym]

I guess I was the only person on the forums disturbed by this.

I understood his point perfectly. It probably helps that I spend my career hanging around scientists, because they do it all the time.

There are a lot of things that scientists tell each other that they would never say when addressing the general public. That's not because it's secret, or because they don't want to admit it, but rather because it'd be too confusing and contrary to the messages that the general public need, or because they don't want some of their opinions to carry the force of "a prominent scientist said X".

For example, on the D-brane theory, one physicist mentioned to me that some of this stuff that serious physicists say "makes less sense than astrology". I understood exactly what he meant. It's not that it's as wrong as astrology (brane theory has some maths behind it, even if it doesn't have any observations behind it yet), but that it's as hard to believe as astrology. However, he would never say this to the public, because it would give them the wrong idea. Astrology nuts would, for example, likely misquote him as "physicist X says astrology just as good as physics!"

Business managers have a similar problem. As a CEO, if you say the wrong thing and it affects your share price, you can be sued by shareholders for mismanagement. Because of this, managers have developed a large vocabulary of content-free phrases and terms so that they can always say the right thing while actually saying nothing.

In general, if your job involves speaking to the public, you need to be very careful what you say in public.

So when Scott speaks as a pastor to his church, it is his job to be a spokesperson for Christianity. He cannot give random opinions depending on where his whim takes him, because to do so would give his random opinions an authority which he doesn't believe they should have in that forum.

So, Redpower, I don't think you're a troll. A little naive, perhaps, but not a troll.

[darkumbra]

In general, if your job involves speaking to the public, you need to be very careful what you say in public.

My job IS speaking to the public - and I agree totally with your observation. You need to watch every word you utter - not only so that your meaning is delivered, but so that their 'context' is taken into account. I would, in certain circumstances use the word 'niggardly', but as a rule I'd steer clear of it. Why? Because most people are ignorant of what it means, and because of a coincidence in sound waves - associate with another word. Such is life.

However there is a difference between 'watching your words' and speaking in a manner that goes against your own beliefs. Then we trip over into another zone entirely. I was offered LARGE sums of money to make statements I didn't believe in... I could not in good conscience do so - and passed up on the 'opportunity'... let's just say that if I'd taken these offers I could have retired several years ago.

Speaking what you believe is the only way you can live with yourself. Despite the fact I could likely launch a church with very little effort -speaking the blather that people want to hear isn't difficult ... witness the success of 'The Secret' - I think I'll continue doing what I do... rather than what some pastors force themselves to do.

DU

[Rian]

To put it another way: the morality (or otherwise) of pornography cannot be discussed without also discussing the morality (or otherwise) of the industry that produces it.

Exactly.

[NH Baritone]

The morality (or otherwise) of pornography cannot be discussed without also discussing the morality (or otherwise) of the industry that produces it.

So what does that say about XTube, which shows primarily user created porn videos? Is it more moral than professionally produced films?

What about the teenagers who are being charged as felonious sex criminals for sending naked pictures to their boyfriends/girlfriends via their cell phones? Which is the greater moral outrage: Taking and sending those pics or responding with a legal sledge hammer?

[Mr. Sluagh]

The morality (or otherwise) of pornography cannot be discussed without also discussing the morality (or otherwise) of the industry that produces it.

So what does that say about XTube, which shows primarily user created porn videos? Is it more moral than professionally produced films?

What about the teenagers who are being charged as felonious sex criminals for sending naked pictures to their boyfriends/girlfriends via their cell phones? Which is the greater moral outrage: Taking and sending those pics or responding with a legal sledge hammer?

Also, what about pirating porn? I mean, if you're torrenting it, you're not funding the industry...