Saving Physical Relationship for Marriage Really a Huge Mistake?
by Steve Watters on 12/30/2008 at 6:00 AM
A Chicago couple got married recently and shared their first Christmas together as husband and wife. Few weddings of ordinary couples get news coverage beyond the wedding announcements feature that some papers still have, but this couple made the news because they not only planned to save sex for after their wedding, but also planned to save their first kiss.
In a follow-up to this story, the Chicago Tribune wrote:
When the Tribune reported last month that Chicago couple Melody LaLuz and Claudaniel Fabien were about to wed without ever having kissed, much less slept together, hundreds of readers responded passionately.
Some were incredulous: "Huuuuge mistake. ... To go in with that as an unknown is too big of a risk factor."
Reading this last line reminded me just how upside down conventional wisdom is about physical intimacy and marriage. For the past four decades Americans have developed an unhealthy fear of marrying someone without giving them a sexual audition. In that same time, Americans have lost just about all the healthy fear they once had about what premarital sex might do to undermine their future marriage. As a result, we have a culture of people who go around sampling the sexual potential of future partners with little concern for the wear and tear they are putting on those people (or themselves).
I realize there are some unfortunate examples of couples who discovered serious sexual problems after they got married. But how many more examples are out there of couples who have compromised their sexual satisfaction in marriage by trying to eliminate all sexual surprises before marriage? As Michael Lawrence (an occassional Boundless contributor) says, "I've never met a couple in all my marriage work who say they wish they had been more physical before they got married."
101. Jonathan said the following at 5:41 PM on Jan 7:
I would have to say that there have been a lot of thought-provoking comments on this. I wholeheartedly agree with #99 that this is an issue to take before God, as well as other spiritually mature Christians. I also completely agree with #97 in that waiting for marriage is so completely worth it. The Bible is extremely and painfully clear on sex outside of marriage, and I would have to say that there are many good reasons for this.
On the flip side we can't look at these verses and tell ourselves that we need to act without emotion either. Emotions, and powerful ones at that, come into play during dating/engagement, and the trick (like always in life) is growing to learn how to use these emotions to honor God. But it would be wrong as well to say that an emotion ('being aroused') is sin...I can't think of any emotion that is a sin in and of itself. It is how we respond to these emotions...and for some that means no kissing, for others a kiss may be fine. That is why accountability with other Godly believers and daily time spent in communion with our Lord is so so important.
102. Jo said the following at 10:13 AM on Jan 8:
The fact is that if point 8 is sin and you set your boundary at point 2, you have a far better chance of staying pure than if you set it at point 7. If in a moment of weakness you go to 3, you still have not sinned. It shows a great deal of wisdom then to set your boundary at some point before 7.
However, if you start with this good logic but then begin to regard 3 as sin, you've got a problem. Then, if you slip up and go to 3, you will feel guilty and ashamed for no reason. You might even start condemning people who set their boundary at 5 or 6 rather than 2, even if they stop short of 8. You will start making arguments like, "6 will tempt you towards 7 which will tempt you towards 8 which is a sin, therefore 6 is a sin."
Notice I deliberately haven't defined these numbers. Some people obviously believe that kissing is point 8: a sin in and of itself. But if you're abstaining because of where kissing might lead, then you need to avoid the mistakes of the second paragraph. If you don't believe kissing is point 8, then don't act like it is, for you or anyone else.
103. MGM said the following at 9:30 PM on Jan 13:
This is a wonderful and incredible story. As a young man, it has been the most excruciatingly painful battle of my life to avoid physical temptation, but so far, God has blessed me and kept me pure.
I have always dreamed of a wedding on this order, and am so encouraged to see it CAN happen, that there are women out there that dedicated, as well.
In terms of all the debate, i think a simple analogy is in order:
sex is the most powerful force in the universe...we would do well to think of it like 'glue' for holding families and societies together. Or at least, that's how God designed it. Ever put glue on something and then accidentally got it stuck somewhere before it was in its permanent place? how annoying that is?
I think that's a bit of an inkling of how annoyed God is when His gift is incorrectly used.
Save dessert for the person who's willing to commit to you permanently. And from what i'm told, it's better then, anyways.
As for me, I can't wait to find out one day.
104. Daniel B said the following at 1:00 AM on Mar 3:
Congratulations to the ladies on this thread who haven't let impatient boys pressure them into trading their bodies for an attempt at love. :)
________________________________________
However, as Ted has written, it is hard for me to imagine how kissing a woman whom he desires could *not* sexually stir up a Christian man.
----------------------------------------
Yes, but having a woman I desire smile at me could also "stir me up" sexually.
In answer to #96, there is definitely a huge difference between lust and arousal. Lust usually causes arousal, but it doesn't always (sometimes the hormones or the body just doesn't respond to the thoughts). And sexual arousal can come from a whole gamut of sources, most of which are not sinful and many of which are not even a choice of the person.