sdb@shark.UUCP (Steven Den Beste) (09/11/83)
[SDB:] "Often the sexual problems caused by other things are caused by a whole cultural thing about sex having to do with performance and self-esteem, which I consider extremely unhealthy." ... [Bickford:] I would add one thing to the middle statement - a major problem is over-high expectations, which cause major problems when not fulfilled. The two go together with proper premarital planning and counseling - well enough that even if there are problems with the mechanics, the genuine love is not hurt. [SDB:]And why, one might ask, do these people have overhigh expectations? Among other things because they have never tried it and DON'T KNOW what they're getting into! Counseling is great, but I don't think it is any substitute for actual experience. There are some things you have to learn for yourself, because they are different for every person. Larry, I find it interesting that you consider yourself an expert on sexuality when you haven't tried it. (I assume you haven't because if you have you are a hypocrite.)In fact, this shows throughout your discussions on this point. Later in this article I am going to go into sexuality in a big way, so catch you later on this one. [SDB:] "My cousin [affected with Down's syndrome] is not capable of taking care of himself - he doesn't even know what "money" is; how is he supposed to understand 'everlasting salvation'?" [Bickford:] Perhaps you are thinking too hard. Jesus said that except a person humble himself and become as a little child, he would in no way enter the kingdom of God. It is probably easier for your cousin to have faith than for you or me. [SDB:] Larry, I can't really take this seriously. That phrase in the bible was meant as analogy, not literal truth (at least as it was explained to me, or do you really think that Jesus prescribed frontal lobotomies for all Christians?). In any case, my cousin is not child-like, he is more like an animal. "Thinking to hard?" Well, "Faith" is a very complex concept and it is beyond my cousin. Damnit, don't answer me with platitudes! But then, this is typical tactics: If you cannot answer an issue face on, quote something high-sounding from the Bible and it will make it all better. Bosh. [Bickford:] Abortion is a near-idiotic means to try to control population growth in areas of greatest poulation increase. You have to work on attitude - in those areas there is no DESIRE for birth control, and it is this attitude you would have to work on first. The males want children for several reasons: 1. More children == more bodies to help in work 2. The greater number of children adds special status to manhood. 3. A certain percentage of children can be expected to die before adulthood. However, the declining death rate due to modern medicine has not been matched by a declining birth rate. Unless you change what's inside, changing what's outside won't help. (Hmmm, that's sounds familiar...))) [SDB:] And damn well it might - I fully agree with it. I never advocated abortion as a means of population control - I advocate it as a mans of "quality control" (and DON'T tromp on that phrase - I don't consider people to be products of a factory). With respect to population control, I think that contraception and the willingness to use it is the proper solution. You listed three very good reasons why many do not use birth control techniques, but left out the fourth: 4. Their Church tells them that birth control is immoral and a sin. My whole reason for bringing up the issue of overpopulation was because you dropped a statement to the efect that "there was plenty of food in the world, so there must not e an overpopulation problem." Now that we have settled that there is a problem, and that massive use of birth control is the solution, I am content to drop the subject. [SDB:] "They are so concerned with the next life that they won't do anything about this one." [Bickford:] Some are so heavenly-minded that they are no earthly good. We are commanded to do those things which will help others here (James 2:16). But my confidence in God is that WWIII *won't* destroy this planet - because there will be people alive when Christ returns to reign. [SDB:] "God helps those that help themselves." Unfortunately, recent history seems to indicate that God isn't going to step in and save our asses - he hasn't the last few times we were in a bind. (What was that about 6 million Jews? But then, they weren't christians!) I suspect that you are right - tat WWIII won't wipe out EVERY LAST human - but it's gonna get most f them. Does that mean its alright to go ahead with the holecaust? Just as long as there are enough people to form the cadre for a cheering squad for Jesus when he returns, whatever happens to the rest of us is good enough! Great, but if you feel that way, would you please move to another planet and play your games there? I don't want it happening on the planet *I* live on! ---------------------- And, folks, now for the subject you have been waiting for: Premarital (whisper it) Sex. People vary a lot. Normal adults can be as short as 4'11" and as tall as 7'4" - weigh as little as 85 pounds or as much as 340. Some people sleep 4 hours a night, others need 10. I am six feet tall and weigh 205. I used to go out with a woman who was 5 feet talland weighed 95 pounds. We would go to restaurant, and order the same meal - except that she would also get a salad-bar plate piled high. I'll be damned if I know where she put it all, I was always stuffed. People vary a lot - it is built into their bodies. Sex drives vary a lot too. This is normal - nothing strange about it. Why, then, is it that those lucky ones who don't need very much sex (at least to hear THEM tell it, they're the lucky ones) feel the right to declare that those with greater needs are immoral or sexually obsessed? Indeed, for many centuries it was considered immoral to enjoy sex at all, by many sections of the Christian church. (However, that was an aspect of a greater feeling that you shouldn't have a good time doing ANYTHING!) I was in Dallas about three years ago, and had an afternoon to blow, so I went to the natural history museum. They had a show of paleolithic carvings, and it was fascinating. One kind of carving that occurs very often seems to be that of a female image with heavily exagerated sexual characteristics, that is, heavy breasts and very wide hips. Current theory is that they are fertility symbols. There was this proper type Texan lady hauling a 6 or 7 year-old kid around at this exhibition, and they were looking at the exhibit of these fertility symbols, and she pops up to her kid with the statement "Of course, the cavemen only used sex for reproduction." Anyone who knows me by now knows I wasn't going to let that pass, so I popped up and said "Actually the converse is true - they weren't even aware of the relationship between sex and reprduction. They only had sex for fun." She and the kid moved away from me somewhat rapidly, and I didn't see them again. However, that whole episode has haunted me for a long time. Why did it scandalize her so much that the cavemen might have had sex JUST TO ENJOY IT? There is a cultural thing with many of the people in this country that there is something inherently *UNCLEAN* about sex - that it should be restricted and limited, that sexuality is something in yourself to *CONTROL*, not to *fulfill*. If you (gasp) give in and REALLY WALLOW in your sexuality and have a good time, you have somehow done something bad. Why? Well, full-scale wallowing has several draw-backs, and I don't think it is right, either! Sleeping around is not only demeaning, it is somewhat dangerous, as well. It is like anything else, you should release it where it is appropriate. The argument comes down to "what is appropriate?" The classical morality on this says: Sex should only happen in marriage, it should only involve certain positions (missionary only, and woe-betide you if you do anything else), of course it shouldn't happen too often, and above all, do not (that is *DO*NOT*) enjoy it! Fortunately, that is changing. Modern morality among the more enlightened seems to have gotten rid of many of those limitations. It is OK to have fun now, and it is OK to do it a lot. However, if you do it outside of marriage, or with more than one person in your lifetime, you are still on the road to Hell. I have never understood any rationale for these limitations. With respect to classic marriages with no pre-marital sex, the myth goes like this: Everyone's sexuality is just like anyone else's, so sexuality compatability is automatic, or at least easy. If the two people sincerely love each other, they can work out any differences - and in any case it is wrong for sex to be too great a part of their lives anyway. If they just love each other enough, they can work out any problems, and will be happy. (I think the truth is somewhat closer to this: If they only are sexually involved with one other person in their entire lifetime, they will deceive themselves into thinking they are happy because they will never find out what they are missing. Once in a while when I espouse sex outside of marriage, someone brings up the wisdom: "If they can get sex outside of marriage, why would anyone want to get married?" Turn that around: is sexual frustration a good enough reason to get married? Of course not - people will get married because they are in love. By providing a release outside of the marriage structure for sexual release, you can keep people from getting married for THAT wrong reason.) Go back to my descriptions of differences in people: Remember the four-hour versus ten-hour per night sleepers? Well, some people need sex more often than others. If one person who needs sex daily marries another who only feels comfortable with it once a week - that is going to put a massive strain on their relationship. Maybe they can surmount it - maybe not. A much worse tragedy would be if they simply did not turn each other on sexually, even if they loved each other. Bickford, who has never been married or been sexually involved with anyone, thinks that if they love each other enough that sexual compatability is assured. I, who have never been married but have sexually involved twice, don't think it is that simple. If Bickford has never tried it, what entitles him to an opinion? (Oh, I forgot; he has that bible in his left hand. That makes him the ultimate authority on everything!) I think it would be better if people find out whether they can get along BEFORE having children and investing together and in general intertwining their lives so much that it will take a court to untangle it. The way I think that people should get to know each other is that first they date, then they live together, THEN after a year or two they marry. (Surprise! I DO believe in marriage!) The year or two of co-habitation is a period in which the people honestly try to live as if they were married, and try all aspects of that relationship without it being a full commitment. I know that is going to grate; I can hear the comments now: "But without full commitment it isn't really marriage". You bet - that is exactly the reason they should do it! A real full-scale divorce with all the entanglements can really ruin someone emotionally. If through sheer bad chance two people who were not ultimately able to make it work get married anyway, they will both be devastated when it blows up. If they lived together first and find it out then, they can go their separate directions with somewhat lesser scars (though still not zero). Love-at-first-sight is a myth. Love grows slowly, through work on both sides. I don't believe that people should learn to swim by being tossed into the deep end - I don't think that people should learn to Love by being tossed into marriage. A hundred years ago people literally got married after meeting for the first time on their wedding day. Fortunately we have changed that for most aspects of marriage - now they can find each other and get to know each other before getting married EXCEPT SEXUALLY. Why, oh Why is that one way different from all the others? Why can't they get to know each other SEXUALLY before marriage TOO! Steve Den Beste Tektronix
CSvax:Pucc-H:aeq@pur-ee.UUCP (09/14/83)
Reply to Steve Den Beste: I actually agree with much of what you say. Sex, in the appropriate context, SHOULD be fun. At no point does the Bible condemn ALL sex. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh." (Genesis 2:24; quoted and reaffirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19:4). That's obviously affirming and blessing sex, including its pleasure. Somewhere in the Bible (probably in Psalms) is a phrase something like "at Your right hand are pleasures forevermore." Furthermore, I would be willing to bet that the source of the ukase against positions other than man-on-top was some medieval ecclesiastical MCP's; the Bible does not have any prescribed or proscribed positions. The Bible (particularly the New Testament) affirms freedom, not a rigidly enforced set of rules. One reason I can think of for restricting sexual intercourse to the context of full commitment between the partners (i.e. marriage) is that, in this imperfect world, no method of birth control is 100% effective (except outright sterilization--a bit drastic for a couple just starting out). Thus, there is always the chance that a couple not yet sure that they want to make that final, total commitment might inadvertently conceive a child. This would present them with the choices of: rushing into marriage; continuing to live together without commitment and bringing a child into this tentative, insecure environment; splitting up sometime before or after the birth of the child, and thus putting it into a different insecure environment (as a child of divorced parents, I can attest to the insecurity of living with a single parent); or having an abortion. Without expressing any opinion on either side of the abortion issue as it affects the baby, I can at least hazard a guess that an abortion would leave emotional, and possibly physical, scars on the woman, and perhaps even emotional scars on the man. I do not know from experience (never having married) whether cohabiting and copulating before marriage would cause any long-term emotional problems for the couple after marriage if their birth-control methods during the "trial period" succeeded in avoiding conception. However, when part of the Bible has turned out to be true (see my "Christianity and Homosexuality" article) in actual life experience, there is reason to suspect that other parts may be equally true. One comment I have read is: "The difficulty is that one cannot test marriage without being married." The paragraph went on to state that in the (again) tentative, insecure, uncommitted emotional context of unmarried cohabitation, the total, free giving, indeed abandonment, of oneself which makes for optimum sex is a terribly risky thing, so the sex between unmarried partners, irrespective of the degree of physical compatibility, just would not be the same (and particularly, would not be as good) as between married partners, where each party knows that the other is committed to loving her/him, where each party thus knows that s/he can totally trust the other, or in sum, where each party knows that sex is not a risk. (The book I read that in was written by a good friend who had been married nearly 40 years, so he had plenty of experience of his own; also, he is a pastor who has counseled many couples in his long career, so he has plenty of data.) In sum, I believe that God knew what he was doing when He told us not to do certain things (after all, He was the design engineer on the Human Project). He did not just arbitrarily decide to lay down a bunch of rules by executive fiat; rather, the Bible can be considered a maintenance and upgrade manual. -- Jeff Sargent/pur-ee!pucc-h:aeq
holt@parsec.UUCP (09/15/83)
#R:shark:-149100:parsec:45700003:000:213
parsec!holt Sep 14 13:39:00 1983
Steve Den Beste has said it all. Compatability is what makes marriage work.
And sexual comapability is as important as any other type.
WELL SAID STEVE!!!!
Dave Holt
{allegra,ihnp4,uiucdcs}!parsec!holtkinn@ihu1e.UUCP (09/16/83)
I wish I had said what you said (about premarital sex). I agree 100%. A friend of mine considers it okay to go outside of a relationship to satisify any need one might have--except sex. But this makes sex the most important thing in the relationship instead of just one part of it. I, on the other hand, think that opening the relationship a little for some sexual activity reduces the stress that can develop from mismatched sex drives.
davidl@tekid.UUCP (David Levadie) (09/19/83)
Wang, dang, sweet poontang...