WAT,

I'm with you on that one...

Trying to stick to my species.

Too funny.

RebornMan

no, that isn't the point. The point of the post is are there principles that apply to everyone (meaning you will experience negative consequences if you violate them), with regard to the development of a physical relationship. I think there are, but maybe I am mistaken. Most seem to agree sex is a connecting experience, therefore it makes sense you have boundaries about it. I am in the camp that thinks promiscuous (unnmarried sexual intercourse), is always gonna have more negative conseuquences then celibacy... Some think sex is no different that going out for a pizza, you just do it cause it feels good, and lots of shades in between...so I asked about that. What is your opinion?

I guess for me part of the issue would include what is one's definition of "negative consequences"? What I see as a negative consequence for me, may be viewed as a positive by another person. That person may be operating from a different set of principles than I. So are there really any objective, innate set of principles that apply to all human beings, as defined by consequences that are always more negative than positive for everyone?

My opinion is that there are few, if any, principles that apply to everyone, if the principle is defined by a specific negative outcome/consequence for all. I can't recall any research I've reviewed showing 100% of a study population having 100% of the same exact negative or positive outcome(s), related to a specific principle. I would guess that if there were such a study that it's validity and/or reliability would be challenged. On the other hand (or foot!), I'm certainly no expert in research or statistics. I have reviewed very little research in terms of the volumes of it out there. (And if I tried to do such a review, I obviously need to get a life!! Of course I wouldn't have to deal with sex and dating issues if I pursued such a review...too occupied elsewhere!)

I also tend to examine the inverse idea. If there is a negative outcome for someone, does that mean that they had to have violated some objective, innate principle? I think of Job as an example. Or, why do "bad" things happen to "good" people...or "good" things happen to "bad" people. Hmmmmmmmmm.....

Of course, there are days when I think I'm thinking too much!

The story of Job is about a conflict between satan and God, but does illustrate some important (universal) principles. Perhaps we are having a semantics problem here, a principle by it's nature is the same for everyone. For example, if humans do not have sufficient atmospheric pressure, they can't breathe, and 100% will die. That is an easily observed physical principle. It makes sense there are psychological ones, and in fact there are many. One is a need for personal space. If "crowded" you will manifest aberrant behavior in all humans. Another is socialization, if deprived entirely of human, (or even surrogate animal) interaction, you will observe abnormal behavior eventually....and so on. The negative consequence of promiscuous sex would be reduced relationship success, either in time, or depth. Since the longest lifespan (well known fact) is experienced by individuals in healthy/committed relationships, the benefit is life, the consequence is death. Also the likelihood of experienceing std's/unwanted pregnancy is directly related to the extent of pre-marital sex.

If promiscuity confers benefits, then there should be an observable statistical benefit to marital longevity for those who experience pre-marital sex. That doesn't seem to be the case.

I do NOT think of promiscuity as being comparable to an intimate relationship between TWO people who are in love, but not married. Also, it seems like you are equating promiscuity with marital longevity, and I don't see the correlation between these two concepts - or even a suggestion of it - in this post. I don't think anyone here is arguing for promiscuity.

Logic doesn't always answer the anomolies of life. We see examples all the time of things that seem to "benefit" someone who doesn't deserve it (the good things happen to bad people story). I don't see how "statistical benefit" applies in this situation (even assuming we could define "benefit" so all would agree with the definition). This isn't a science experiment.

I just don't get your reasoning sometimes, knight.

OK. I'm gonna take a shot at this. If you want real answers, I believe you have to go back to mankind's origins.

Here is what I find. "a man shall leave his father & mother and cleave (word for sexually unite) with his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (Gen. 2:24)

Clearly, when a sexual act takes place, we are told by the Creator and Grand Designer of our human species that some sort of "unifying & oneness" takes place.

Modern psychologists affirm that there is a "giving of oneself to the other person in the sex act". It is because we are wholistic creatures with a unified brain + body + emotional spirit. Doing something to one part of us affects the rest of us. We were designed that way like it or not.

Is it the research supporting that the sperm chemically alters the woman, thereby creating a desire for closeness? Maybe. We aren't told why originally. Just asked to accept it as truth.

Human experience certainly bears this out. For thousands of years now we've experienced the fact that sexual union creates bonds that can hardly be broken. And, the wholeness of this sexual union is a significant part of the glue that binds our societies together. Whole & happy marriages in families are far, far better than single parented households at providing the stability and role modeling and discipline, etc., etc., that society needs for it's wellness.

The Creator's words for this continues:

1 Cor. 6:16. Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh."
18. Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.
19. Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;
20. you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.

Here we have the specific reason for avoiding pre-marital, and extra-marital sex. You end up with a divided mind. You've given a significant part of yourself to that other person. You've become "one" with someone. It is a dead-end street of the dividing up of yourself into less than whole. You became one with someone you weren't committed to, and they weren't committed to you. Therefore, you're slowly but surely reducing yourself down from wholeness and oneness to nothingness. Emptiness. Zeroness.

God intends SYNERGY to accompany sexuality. 2 become 1!! And that 1 is better than 2 separates. But this cannot occur with immoral, uncommitted sex. It has an opposite effect. It simply reduces both of the 2 down to less than 1. You end up sinning against your own body. Destroying it act by act, chipping away at your heart until there's little to nothing left.

Sociologists have long documented the phenomena of emptiness and meaninglessness in prostitutes and sexual addicts. You can even see this on TV programs wherein they interview prostitutes and johns etc. BTW, the suicide rate is very high among these folks. Kind of easy to see why. They are so reduced down, so diluted in spirit, so empty in meaning that life has no further appeal to them. It's such a dark hole they cannot see a way out.

Again, BTW, violation of these Creator-given sexuality principles is what many of us here on MB have experienced when our WS's went into affairs.

On the one hand, they had given themselves to another. They had become one with another. A chemical reaction of rather exotically potent hormones took place within the both of them. Many of us prayed for them to come back to us. I believe God always answers that sort of prayer. GUILT began to creep into many of our WS's hearts. You remember seeing it no doubt?

So here they were, in a tortured land of GUILT, yet chemically bonded with another in mind and body. At this point, they all faced a life-significant choice. Turn against the naturally released chemicals (which the Creator gave to us to help in the correct bonding of husband & wife), and do a lifestyle MORALITY driven U-turn, ask for forgiveness, and go to hard work on the relationship, OR just give in to the exotic bouquet of chemicals????

Sadly for most of us here, they gave in to the chemicals. Their moral choice wasn't there.

I hope some of you aren't offended by my use of Scripture. However, to me, if you want to find out the details of how your new car really operates, you have to go to the "Owner's Manual" to get the facts & specs & recommendations. I find it no different for human life. We need that "Owner's Manual" to inform us. The Creator always knows best is what I've found.

Regards,
High Flight

So you believe it was an involuntary outcome to be adulterous? They had no choice?

No, I'm sorry that wasn't clear was it? What I'm saying is that THEY didn't make a moral-based choice. They gave in to chemicals - that by the way, wouldn't last. They clearly had a choice. Moral vs chemicals. They went with the chemicals instead of what was right = morality.

Originally their straying from the marriage didn't have the super-strong chemical connection. But we all know it builds up pretty fast even before full-blown intercourse.

To tie in with MB principles, their love bank was empty or at least perceived empty, their moral determination weak. They were easy targets for a chemical invasion. But they ALWAYS had a choice.

High Flight

Good analysis HF, it is difficult to make the arguments to non-Christians because all they see is it is an attempt to impose values on them, but as you pointed out the secular evidence is in full support of the Christian values. Unfortuneately, people being people, if you give em out they will ignore anything that interferes with their wants, regardless of how much sense it makes. But yeah, this was the purpose of the post, to suggest principles that bind everyone (and whether Christianity is true, in which case all are bound to it whether they like it or not...or is just a way of life, then the consequences still apply as pretty much all psychologists concur, as well as our own innate commonsense about such matters.

I am willing to consider any argument that pre-marital sex has no consequences and/or enhances our emotional well-being, marital success...but no one has offered yet for discussion.

What really puzzles ne is people who claim to be Christian, yet say pre-marital sex is ok. It is not possible to be a Christian and believe that (well, unless one is gonna say the Bible is not the Word of God, but then what is Christianity at all, if it means nothing but whatever someone wants it to). However, many Christians do fall short of this standard, at least they should acknowledge their misbehavior and be trying to overcome it.

I thought someone above had a very astute observation that - in so many words - you are lumping together pre-marital with pre-committment.

So, I'll state that pre-marital sex has consequences for me - very good ones! It enhances the emotional well being of me and my committed significant other quite nicely, thank you.

As a point of detail for you, the "chemical" you may be referring to is dopamine. The love drug. It's also the chemical responsible for the narcotic high, alcohol high (or low) and most other thrill highs humans experience. ("Highs" = good feelings) Of course, the narcotic highs are considered a negative application, unless administered for medical reasons, i.e., pain killers. It's also most of the explanation for why infidels do such stupid things - like tell lies that a 6 year old wouldn't believe or come up with such lame excuses for their actions. Too much dopamine coursing thru the brain and humans loose the "oops response." This is the normal "conscience"-like hesitation most people feel before they do something stupid - like thinking they shouldn't try to balance on that second floor balcony railing at the fraternity party. A no-brainer if you're sober. But get that dopamine pumping (from too much of the keg) and you're suddenly stupid. You try it. No "oops response." "oops, maybe I shouldn't try this."

Suffice to say the evolution of our species - and certainly all other mammals - was greatly promoted by dopamine as part of the hard wired pro-creation drive.

WAT

Interesting topic, even if it devolves into a Christian/secular dichotomy. I think that, if you follow a Christian faith, you are more likely to want to find absolute principles to guide your life, since much teaching is based on following directives from the Bible. For those of us who assign the Bible a place among works of great historical and social significance, but by humans of a certain period and place in the past, principles are more likely to be formed on experiential learning.

In my belief, Knight50 wants to live by a personal principle of celibacy and perhaps seeks to justify it to others by formulating a premise of celibacy’s moral and physical superiority to the unmarried. But such a principle, to become one worthy of name, should be like a scientific law or theorem with sufficient data to back it up and little to disprove it.

Yes, promiscuity has been fairly well established as a mental and physical health risk, but sex within a committed relationship, or even a situation as currently described by Reborn Man, cannot be proved to be unhealthy. For one, there are so many factors that contribute to a (subsequent) marriage falling apart (just read these boards!) that IMO that cannot be isolated as a factor. I think that if two mature adults agree on a certain behavior with good intentions, that is fine, be it sexual relations or celibacy. I suppose I have a hard time judging others unless it clearly crosses the line of intentional hurtful behavior.

One note - beware statistics. My brother was in a committed marriage for 25 years - a datapoint supporting marriage with a strong Christian basis. But only the dictates of his faith kept him tied to an abusive, passive-aggressive wife. She was (finally!) on the verge of divorcing him when he died an early death which we partially attribute to endless stress. Although I never asked him, I have to believe he withheld sex until marriage.

Well said, Weisguy, and a good job of positioning both the secular and the religous.

Reminds me of my teaching experiences - one of the topics in a course I taught was about "facts vs. values" in argumentation. When a debate is values-based, it can be akin to expecting other people to change their blood type: in other words, there is no basis that both sides can accept for coming to agreement. The arguments may be presented as facts-based, but there is no solid evidence on either side, so they are in fact values-based arguments.

Fact-based argumentation can err the other way, by not taking into consideration the feelings and values of others. People may end up agreeing in principle because they can't find a way to refute the facts, but won't go along with it in the end because their hearts aren't into it.

What puzzles me is how the legal ceremonies of today equate to the concepts of marital and pre-marital in biblical times. Today we use a legal ceremony as the measurement of marital, but in fact, isn't the legality just a milestone in the progression of a relationship? And what, if anything, was its counterpart back in biblical days?

You could argue that it is the religious ceremony - not the legal paperwork - that really counts. But, suppose a religious ceremony was conducted without a marriage license? Would that still count as being married?

Are people supposed to subscribe to every single aspect of a doctrine - fully and perfectly, without interpreting meanings for themselves - in order to be true followers of the doctrine? I find it hard to believe there are many people out there truly capable of fully adhering to their doctrines. Maybe that's why I consider myself spiritual and with faith, but not with religion.

I do not understand your insistence on redefining the word "promiscuous," but I agree that waiting until marriage is virtually always the better choice. (I suppose an exception could be made for a couple stranded on a desert island, where no legal marriage was possible, or some other such unlikely case.) However, I suspect that the degree to which the consequences are negative is going to vary, and in many cases other factors are going to so swamp those negative effects that they may not be recognized or felt.

Holly COW….. Are you serious? Are you for real? You are going to Judge all the worlds Christianity based on one thought, belief, or idea. If your argument holds true then no one who ever tells a lie, says a mean thing about another, admires their neighbors yard, or mows the grass on Sunday (or what ever your Sabbath may be) could be considered a Christian. And where does forgiveness fit into your equation? By the way, if it helps any the acts that I mentioned are all part of the Big 10 and I’ve yet to find a single Christian who hasn’t broken at least one of them in the last year and I’m willing to bet that I can put you in that category as well. So does that make you less of a Christian? Heck, I’ve given sermons on Sunday and then worked, that’s breaking one of the big ten, so am I now less or not even a Christian?

This baffles me as well. The Biblical principles are so very clear on this matter, and yet I see so many Christians wanting to claim God's blessing on their life even as they are repudiating His standards. I don't believe that God established those standards as a means of testing our commitment; I believe He established them for our good!. And yet the prevailing attitude among Christians is to hold up those standards as some abstract ideal to be admired, but which nevertheless God couldn't possibly expect us to actually follow. To me, this attitude reduces Christianity from a true faith to a banal desire for identification.

Sexual behavior is not a trivial Scriptural diff of opinion, , it is a clear unambigous part of Christianity, you either follow ALL the basis (meaning there just is no room for logical disagreement) or you don't (and cannot honestly label yourself Christian), you can't choose, this is not a buffet. I agree with your point about what is marriage historically. But we have to use some kind of identifyer.... so yes any lifetime committment is ok, be it common law marriage, or earlier practices, or two people stuck on a desert island, and committing to each other.

Not really looking for this to morph into a relgious discussion, inevitably that comes into it, and digresses from there, the arguments against the practice of pre-marital sex can be strongly made on secular grounds, because the principles affect everyone.

Wat, did your response mean you have made a lifetime committment, was that your point? If not, you implied you may be Christian, if so how do you reconcille your behavior. In the case of Christians, the consequences are not something to take lightly. The rest will suffer same (and worse for being non-believers) but that is a different problem and consequence.

I'd also like to add that I've probably broken all 10 of the big ones, especially if you use many modern interpretations of their meanings. But the awesome thing about having Christ in my life is that I can ask for forgiveness and I am forgiven. When I was molded by my creator, He knew that I would fall short of His glory, but He loved me so much that inspite of that fact, He sent his son to die for my sins so that I may dwell with Him forever.......

Oh yeah....and PS. I've had pre-marital sex within the confines of a committed relationship.

Almost home, did you actually read the posts? Sinning doesn't make you a Christian or not, believeing you aren't sinning when you violate Christian doctrine is the problem. Do you see the difference?

“””Almost home, did you actually read the posts?”””

Believe it or not I actually did……

“””Sinning doesn't make you a Christian or not”””

Actually it could depending on ones interpretation and what weight is given to certain books of the Bible but that’s a whole different discussion again.

“””believing you aren't sinning when you violate Christian doctrine is the problem.”””

That’s a huge problem if it truly occurs. But I don’t think it merits this “””It is not possible to be a Christian and believe that ...””” That being said, I don’t think I personally know of a single Christian who doesn’t at some level believe that pre-marital sex is wrong whether they admit it to you or not. Quite frankly, I’m fairly religious and spiritual if you caught that hint I dropped in my first post, that being said the absolute intolerance and narrow-minded-ness of that statement trying to define a who is Christian baffles me more than whether a person were to truly believe in pre-marital sex.