Yes. There was a post here that is not here now. I meant to put it in comments and so I corrected that.
Cindy asked -Where have you been, Ruth?
I've been studying for finals and writing papers and jumping through hoops for financial aid and praying for my brother and spending time with Harris and working and - yeah. I learned the lesson a while ago about putting concerning things on my blog but concerning things have been all that are on my mind lately. I apologize for the blog silence.
In the "sex" post, Shoshanah came around and started quite a debate. She sent me a very long e-mail explaining more of her position and I asked for her permission to post it here. I couldn't tell if it was supposed to remain private or not by the information given. She responded today saying that I could post it so long as I posted it in context. To do that, I should probably post it in it's entirety.
I will try to address mostly Ruth's comments about my own. My last two comments were not directed at Ruth, but rather at other people. So of course, I do not think Ruth hates me or the things I have said.
Ruth, since I am a Christian who believes God's Word, anything I say will hopefully reflect that. Because I believe God's Word to be 100% true, I believe that anytime His laws are broken we harm ourselves and need to be restored back to Him. I am a sinner and no better than a murderer or a thief because I have broken God's laws. The good news is that I have been restored to Him because of what He has done for me. He freely forgives me and FORGETS what I have done, even when I do not. He loves us and finds beauty in me and you, even when we can't see it ourselves.
I have no authority over you and am puzzled as to why you would think I had such an idea. Nor do I want authority over you. You are an adult and have the freedom to make your own decisions. I will try to answer your questions.
You said: "How can you teach your daughters about purity in relationships and then stay out of it?" I taught them about purity when they were young. The two oldest are adults (19 and 21) now and already know what we believe about purity. Unless they seek our guidance, it's too late to try to influence them. They are adults who need to sink or swim. If they need a little lift from me, they can always ask. I have no desire to pry into their relationships (that would certainly set a bad precedence as a mother-in-law someday, now wouldn't it?) I trust their good judgement. I only know what I know because they have voluntarily shared things with me about their boyfriends. I know that they hug and hold hands and that's it. I have a great relationship with the two oldest, especially the younger one who has been dating her boyfriend since she was 16. She met him at a Christian high school where she was asked to help produce the play she had written. He spends a lot of time with our family and seems to enjoy us because his parents do not spend much time with him. My oldest daughter's boyfriend is a student here from Brazil. We like him very much and have met his parents. If they marry someday, I think they will move to Brazil when both are finished with college. The younger kids love the boyfriends. I do not know if it will be this good with all of my children. Some of our adopted children have emotional problems from the abuse and neglect they suffered before we adopted them. They are doing very well now and I hope will continue to be close to us. I make mistakes but can only do my best with God's help in the short time we have to raise them. By the way, we teach the same beliefs about purity to our sons. Their responsibility is the same.
We are not Gothard, or Doug Phillips followers and never have been. We want to follow Christ alone. We do know and admire the faith of other Christians and at times ask advice or read their books. I like some of the things Doug Philips says, but I threw away the series of Elsie Dinsmore books I had bought from Vision Forum for two reasons: They were unrealistic, especially in how artificial Elsie was, and slavery was not addressed as an evil. We have adopted black children, among others and I was ashamed of how the book portrayed a white, Christian girl.
Ruth said, "I don't respect myself any less for having a serious relationship without the promise of marriage." There is nothing wrong with having a serious relationship without the promise of marriage. It is even desirable. Relationships need to end when a couple finds they do not belong together, even though their intentions were serious to begin with. The usual dating experiences are far less than satisfying, I know because I've done this. You find someone. You may or may not be physically intimate. One may be more serious about it than the other. Then you break up and start all over again. Sometimes it has to happen this way, but it all depends on whether you are working towards marriage or just playing around with someone. It's artificial, not like marriage. Most people just play around for years, making up and breaking up. The physical aspect is important, but so is the spiritual/emotional aspect. To continually begin and end relationships with the opposite sex does not prepare a person for marriage, it keeps people from growing up and taking responsibility in a committed relationship. There is more heartbreak when a person has had sex with someone, along with the emotional closeness they have felt when the other one doesn't want to see them anymore. Why put yourself through it? If you date someone, and learn to have a mutual love and respect, why wouldn't sex work out in the marriage? My daughters do not seem afraid to talk about being married and having sex. They have happy, healthy relationships now and a happy sex life should reasonably follow.
God's plan for waiting until marriage for sex is a good one for many reasons, both emotional and physical. Venereal diseases, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, etc. I knew girls long ago in college who would brag in minute detail about their latest sexual conquests. They often had venereal diseases or got pregnant. One girl I knew, who was a medical student, got pregnant near finals time. Her abortion at the university clinic did not go well. She ended up with a bad infection from retained "products of conception". (and a badly broken heart, by the way as he abandoned her) Was it worth it? Birth control does sometimes fail. Hers did. I also worked on an inner city gynecology floor as a new nurse. I sure got my eyes opened. Pelvic inflammatory disease, tubal pregnancy and VD were very common. Some of my patients were as young as 14. Premature babies are the norm for young teenage mothers. I also worked in a neonatal ICU and had to teach young teens how to take care of their very sick babies. Having sex before marriage degrades what is supposed to be shared only by people who have made a very important commitment to one another. It makes sex less special. It also contributes to infidelity after marriage. I know some of you won't agree with me about that one, but I know it's true. After all, what's the big deal? However, if you have had sex before marriage, it's never too late to confess it to God and ask Him to forgive you. HE will help you move on with your life and seek healthier relationships.
Ruth: "Your comment pisses me off"...referring to me being sad about you throwing out everything having to do with Christian faith. You are 100% right to be mad and I am sorry. I had no right to make such broad assumptions. Is it safe to say that you have been put in a position of questioning all that you were taught? I think your parents refer to themselves as Christians and presented the Gospel to you, took you to church. It seems that they were very abusive, especially your father. Without going into detail right now, I was abused as well. Definitely physically and somewhat emotionally, as a child. I can understand a lot of what you are dealing with. I have feared that you would eventually reject Christ, Who is a far better father to us than even good earthly ones. I had no right to assume that you had rejected everything having to do with Christian faith.
I was also taught purity, but in a very Catholic home. While I did not actually have sex before marriage, I tried everything but intercourse with the man I was engaged to. After 5 years, he changed his mind about marrying me (he has never married) and I was left with a broken engagement and heart. It was still wrong. I have asked forgiveness and been healed from that sin. My husband had no experience sexually at all. He didn't care much about my past. All is well and we have had a great sex life from the beginning.
Ruth said "This world you seem to feel would pull me away from Christ has done more to show me love than my parents did..." You and I are not talking about the same "world". There is nothing wrong with getting an education, especially if it will equip you to be useful and glorify God. Woman can succeed in many professions. I loved being a nurse. Medical people serve others, as well as scientists, restaurant owners and other business people. All of these professions take getting an education to be successful. We want our daughters to be as knowledgeable about the world and God's creation as possible. For some of our children that means college, and for others it doesn't. By the way, a person's education should not end with high school or college. A person should try to be as knowledgeable as he or she can be for the rest of their lives, always reading, always trying to learn more. Our two oldest daughters are at the university here where we live. A person can live in the world, but not be of the world. That means, they try to live the life that God calls them to and to be a good example to others. They try not to become like those around them, who may think nothing of lying, cheating, stealing, getting drunk or whatever is sinful. That is hard to do. I know, I lived in a college dormitory for four years. Sometimes, Christians are not as friendly or loving as other people, that's true, but it is not how God wants it to be. They will answer to God, we can only be responsible for ourselves. The world rejected Christ and still rejects His teachings. It is hard to be a Christian, especially today if person wants to be serious about being a follower of Christ. We are changed by knowing God, or at least, trying to know Him.
Ruth, there is NOTHING you can do to make God love you more, and there is NOTHING you can do to make God love you less. He loves you with a huge, everlasting love. He would not love you less if you had unmarried sex. He would not love you less if you murdered 100 people. You would be separated from Him by your sin and would need to confess them before God and ask Him to help you. Sin hurts us, and God knows that. It isn't simply that it makes Him angry, He is slow to anger. He also says, "Come to Me, all her are heavy laden, for My yoke is easy and My burden is light." As I said above, when we confess our sins to Him with true repentance, he forgives and forgets them. He wants the best for you. always.
Ruth said, "If a child daydreams about the boy next door, I don't think they are going to Hell." Children do sometimes dream about the opposite sex. It is natural, even good. What do you mean?
As far as giving a piece of your heart away when you are dating or being physical with the opposite sex, that is a poor analogy. You do have emotional attachments that are sometimes not easily broken. If you have sex before marriage, that emotional attachment will be stronger in most people. Let's face it, it is common to bring extra "baggage" into our next relationship. I've been there, done that. Why put yourself through it? Why not be more careful about whom you date? Why not wait until marriage for sex? I have to admit, the comment about needing to try out for size before getting married made me laugh. How ridiculous. And now, if someone lives with the person they are dating, they are "my partner"? It sounds like a business relationship. Talk about taking all of the beauty out of love. Some questions that you should ask yourself when dating: Are they becoming serious about you at some point in the relationship? (not someday or 2 years from now, for example) Do they love and respect you or are they just having some fun with you for awhile until someone else comes along? This goes both ways. Men's hearts get broken, too. I think dynamite is less dangerous than dating games.
I probably haven't answered all of the points. I am pretty busy and have a sick toddler. If I have missed anything please let me know. I hope what I have written is helpful, even if you disagree with me. I would have liked to address some of the commenters, but am hoping this letter makes things more clear. If you would like to address what I have written you are welcome to.
God bless you, Shoshannah
Since she took the time to write it, I thought it deserved a post. She couldn't put it in comments because of the length. I've been repsonding as time allows. I'll put my responses up if anyone is interested.
Yes, I'd be VERY interested in your responses.
ReplyDeleteI echo jennl777. I do feel less bristled after reading her entire response. Goes to show how much "tone of voice" is missing from the internet and how easy it is to take something the wrong way (or say something the wrong way without meaning to).
ReplyDelete"Having sex before marriage degrades what is supposed to be shared only by people who have made a very important commitment to one another. It makes sex less special. It also contributes to infidelity after marriage. I know some of you won't agree with me about that one, but I know it's true"
ReplyDeleteNo, its your opinion.
Just because you type it out on the great big interwebz does not make it factual or true.
Well said, Ambivalent Egotist.
ReplyDeleteI had much the same reaction as TheAmbivalentEgotist: do you have a citation for that?
ReplyDeleteAnd this in particular: "I know some of you won't agree with me about that one, but I know it's true." That sounds dangerously close to "don't confuse me with facts, I know what I believe."
I admit, I skimmed quite a bit in the middle, where Shoshannah was... lecturing? preaching? ...explaining at length about God and His Unending Love. And I don't understand that at all. Shoshannah, if you read this, what was that about? Do you think this is something that Ruth doesn't (or the rest of don't) already know? Do you think she needs your guidance to be a good Christian?
I really don't want to participate in a pile-on-Shoshannah dynamic, since there are quite a lot of us who comment here, but part of the reason I keep taking issue with her comments (and now e-mail) is that she sounds like she thinks that Ruth is doing something wrong, or else about to do something wrong. Maybe that's a misperception on my part, but I don't think so. At least, I'm not the only one who seems to be reading Shoshannah that way.
So if you don't mind clarifying, Shoshannah, I'm very curious about what prompted you to comment in the first place. Do you think Ruth is doing something wrong, or about to make some cataclysmic mistake? If so, what is it?
Also... would you do us the courtesy of assuming that we're all well acquainted with the basic tenets of Christianity?
Shoshannah-
ReplyDeleteI'm glad your life worked out for you. However, in the process of dating, I've learned through breakups who NOT to date, and what I do and don't value in relationship. It is not artificial, the feelings and the people and the experience is/are real. And it's valuable. I could have married the first guy I ended up with (and almost did), and I'm very glad I didn't (although he's a great guy). Incidentally, although he left the church and the faith, his family was fundamental, evangelical, creationist Christians who belittled and mentally and sexually abused their kids. I don't doubt their faith was real, but I want nothing to do with it, and no amount of 'No true Christian' argumentation will sway me from the long line of stories that connect this culture with this mistreatment of men, women and children.
My beef with you and your comments is a two-parter: a) you seem to assume what Ruth thinks and feels, which is bunk. You apologized which was awesome, but even in your clarification above you are making assumptions about what people are doing when they are going about their private lives. B) You seem to think that your experience says something about the experiences and motives of others, or that your feelings can be equated with established fact "I know some of you won't agree with me about that one, but I know it's true." I KNOW that you think it's true, but I also know that I don't agree with you. You stating your beliefs as truth makes me doubtful about anything else you state- it ascribes meaning to what you value and implies falsehood or naivety to those who disagree with you.
When Ruth nuked your earlier argument a few weeks ago, she did it with logic and reason. You responded with pleading, "I value this and I know it's true whether or not you agree.", and an awful lot of preaching. Your comments and your tone suggest you think you know what Ruth is doing and how her faith works, and that you know what she OUGHT to be doing. The fact that you made those assumptions and tried to tell her what to do about her faith and her private life without even asking to clarify makes you sound presumptuous and rude.
I'll grant that if you're doing what you say you're doing in terms of your kids and their 'purity' (they aren't any dirtier than anyone else, no matter what they do), that sounds decent. But given the preaching and the lecture you felt like handing out here, I'm dubious you're staying out of it. Given the assumptions you made about Ruth, I doubt you have the objectivity and ability to look at yourself critically to see if your kids are happy and well-adjusted.
And, quite frankly, I don't care if it turns into a Shoshannah pile-on, as long as people are making consistent and rational arguments with her points.
When one comes from an abusive, overly strict, and controlling past, it becomes difficult to sort out what is true wisdom and what only appeared to be wise within the constructs of the carefully controlled atmosphere. Sometimes in our diligence to extract the untruth, some wisdom is unfortunately cast off.
ReplyDeleteI believe it's wise to wait until marriage to have sex. I believe that the commitment behind a marriage contract reduces insecurity and leads to a healthier relationship. Also, abstinence can serve to deepen and enrich a healthy relationship or illuminate the selfish desires of an unhealthy relationship.
Relationships are very important to God. God makes Himself known to us through the love of a mother expressed toward a child, the love of a husband toward his wife, the kindness of a traveler toward a fallen stranger on the roadside.
God's commandments aren't an arbitrary standard. When you think about it, all of the commands of scripture are essentially how-to instructions on having good relationships with your neighbors, yourself, and God. The desire God has for us to have honorable relationships stems from His desire for us to know and show His love.
Shoshannah,
ReplyDeleteBased on your apparent inclinations to lecture and preach and presume about people on the internet, I can't help but be doubtful that you're really staying out of your kid's lives. If you can satisfy yourself with the argument "I know you don't agree with me, but I know I'm right", I'm suspicious of your ability to be objective or open.
If you feel like dating is 'artificial', then good for you. I'm sure you really feel that way, but I take exception to your assertion that your experience as an individual = truth for everyone else.
I find my dating experiences to be invaluable and very real. I'm glad I had them. I have also found, through dating and friends and helping to counsel troubled friends, that the more fundamentalist and evangelical the family, the more likely the kids are to be mentally, physically, and sexually abused. I can't say this represents the entirety of the incredibly varied fundamental-evangelical community, and I won't try to sell it as truth. I'm sure plenty of kids come out fine. But what I've seen over and over is that these families are frequently bad for their kids. I'd say a lot of readers here may have made similar observations, and if you're going to comment you should keep that in mind.
Ruth - please do respond. Am interested to hear your feelings...
ReplyDeleteShoshannah,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think you are sharing with Ruth that she has not already heard from Christianity?
Not trying to snark on you, I just cant figure out whats up with your posts.
Yeah, I'm not buying that premarital sex makes you more likely to be unfaithful after marriage. Also, Shoshannah makes it sound like tubal pregnancies are a consequence of premarital sex. No, tubal pregnancies are a medical condition not dependent on your marital status. Also, being married doesn't protect you from STDs.
ReplyDeleteBah, sorry for the sorta-double post above. When I submitted the first I got an error message.
ReplyDeleteIn response to H, I think Shoshannah may have been referring to tubal pregnancies being a byproduct of STD's, which is true, and STD's are much more common when people have sex before marriage (because if the relationship doesn't last, they'll likely end up having more than one partner total, etc, as opposed to two people only ever being with the other) It is true, though, that being married won't protect you from STD's.
ReplyDeleteI have no dog in this fight, just trying to help clarify.
Shoshannah said. "There is more heartbreak when a person has had sex with someone, along with the emotional closeness they have felt when the other one doesn't want to see them anymore. Why put yourself through it? If you date someone, and learn to have a mutual love and respect, why wouldn't sex work out in the marriage?"
ReplyDeleteI'd also like to see some citations. I know several couples who married young, had sex prior to marriage and...gasp...are still happily married over 20 years later. Other people who saved themselves divorced inside of five years. See? Two can play at that game and it accomplishes nothing; it's merely here-say and in the scheme of things, doesn't mean much of anything. Nothing is absolute.
You scoffed at my prior posts regarding size issues, but they are real and I have lost two very good men because I am very small, they were bigger than average and the physical experience was truly painful, no matter what we tried. So laugh if you must, but physical compatibility is every bit as important as emotional compatibility, especially if this is the person you will be spending the rest of your life with.
If that makes me a sinning slut in your seemingly judgmental (IMO) eyes, so be it. When I married, I wanted compatibility in all areas; imagine the grief that would occur without knowing there could be problems like that? THAT is how many marital problems begin and an issue that could drive BOTH partners to affairs. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it with your assumption that "everything will be fine." It often is NOT, whether one believes in your God or not.
Nothing in life is guaranteed and IMO, you make a lot of presumptions about how you think people should act. We all have coping mechanisms. If mine or Ruth's or Michael Mock's differ from yours, what business is it of yours? If I may offer YOU some advice, it's to live and let live, when it comes to others, including your adult children. If your daughters have pre-marital sex, it's their choice, not your failure as a parent.
PS: Ruth, could you email me your email? I'd love to chat privately, about your student experiences as an older student, being one myself (albeit a MUCH older one than you). :D
Ruth, I'd be very interested in your responses if you feel like sharing them.
ReplyDeleteShoshannah, I believe that you mean well. But I also think you might do well to examine your assumptions and how you externalize your own experiences. Others have pointed out the "I know it to be true" statement, but there are many other, more subtle ones.
Your experience as a medical professional is, I'm sorry to say, biased. Of course the majority of your patients were people for who sexual activity went badly - those who didn't have problems didn't need the services of your clinic! You cite how one woman's birth control failed, and her abortion went badly, and her partner left her, which is terrible. But the story gives no indication of how many similar women never had birth control failure, or how many had uneventful abortions, or opted to keep their children and had perfectly normal pregnancies, or how many wanted to keep their babies and had other medical complications that would have been avoided by a safe, legal, clinical abortion.
Stories of the dating game's risks are likewise suspect, simply because only the cases that went badly are the ones that get shared far and wide. A couple who both agree they're looking for a casual relationship, who are honest and open with each other, and who part on amicable terms when they find their goals change doesn't make the gossip mill - what's to gossip about? Do these relationships have ugly splits and tearful heartbreak sometimes? Of course - but so do committed, marriage-oriented relationships undertaken with the best of intentions between people who are just too different in their beliefs and goals.
It's the same with most stories of how "the world" has rejected Christ. The emptiness of the partying lifestyle and how alcohol destroys lives? I saw that at college - but I also saw that most of my fellow students, even many of the partiers, were also decent people with a responsible work ethic and awareness of their limits. Casual sex spreads diseases and isn't worth the risks? Sometimes. But the average sexually active person is no more eager to deal with unplanned pregnancy, STIs, or other such issues than the average abstainer - and the smart ones take precautions.
Of course, my stories are just as biased as yours. Everyone's viewpoint is shaped by their own experience. I just suspect you are doing more extrapolation from your own experience than actual listening. It's not just the morality-play stories that make me think so, or the extensive preaching, or even the "I know it to be true" comment everyone else has pointed out. It's this:
"Is it safe to say that you have been put in a position of questioning all that you were taught? I think your parents refer to themselves as Christians and presented the Gospel to you, took you to church. It seems that they were very abusive, especially your father."
This, right here, tells me you are not actually paying attention to what Ruth has been saying. Ruth has made it clear her parents refer to themselves as Christians - as has her father, the times he's posted here. Ruth has also made no secret that her family is a founding family in ATI/Gothardism, which includes a lot of isolationist doctrine (home school, home church, socializing only within the circle of like-minded families). Her questions about what she was taught; the abuse she suffered; the long, slow journey to discover herself are all spelled out here in this blog. There's no need to assume or question or hedge around these things. Doing so just indicates either a) you're not paying attention or b) you doubt the veracity of the story. Given your sincerity and what you've shared of your own history, I believe it's the former. If it's the latter, well, probably best to get that out in the open too. Discussion is very difficult when those involved are not honest about beliefs and intents.
Looking forward to your response, Ruth; for now, I'm going to reply to a section near the end.
ReplyDelete'Let's face it, it is common to bring extra "baggage" into our next relationship. I've been there, done that. Why put yourself through it? Why not be more careful about whom you date? Why not wait until marriage for sex?'
- Unless the people involved lived in boxes, they will go into relationships with the memory of bad experiences, some much worse than breakups. I'm going to say that it is possible to let go of and learn from baggage, whether from previous relationships or from anything else in life. Difficult, but possible. You ask 'Why put yourself through it?', but that's what anyone hoping for a good result has to do – we have to think carefully, but be prepared to put ourselves through things.
'Why not wait until marriage for sex?' is as valid a question as 'Why wait until marriage for sex?' I admire people who consider both questions and then decide what is best for them personally.
'I have to admit, the comment about needing to try out for size before getting married made me laugh. How ridiculous.'
- It's not ridiculous to be aware of sexual compatibility before getting married. 'Compatibility' is the key word here – I couldn't make a commitment to someone without knowing if we agreed on very important issues, or wanted the same future, or could communicate well, and for me, sex is part of that communication. Avoiding sex until marriage doesn't automatically mean that a couple will have sexual compatibility problems, but I have seen cases in which sexual compatibility was a big issue intensified by the pressures of marriage.
'And now, if someone lives with the person they are dating, they are "my partner"? It sounds like a business relationship. Talk about taking all of the beauty out of love.'
- A small point, but I'm going to stick up for the term 'partner'. To me, it's a nice equal word, less institutional than 'spouse' and less juvenile than 'boy/girlfriend'. I understand that many people value the institution of marriage immensely (and I value it for them), but it's good to have an alternative.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI'm still sending good thoughts your way. I hope things are okay. Just remember that everyone has opinions. I'm glad that people have views and they can articulate them. But live life according to your own internal vibe. Stevie said it best, go your own way. Good luck with finals/school/papers.
ReplyDeleteI had just typed a huge list of statistics, and then my post disappeared when I tried to comment because I wasn't signed in.
ReplyDeleteSo here is just ONE statistic regarding premarital sex and the impact on marriage:
A Journal of Marriage onf the Family study found that women who lived together with their partner before marriage were 3.3 times more likely to cheat on their spouse after marriage.
Sorry my kids are screaming, gotta go. But this is just one of many statistics. They are not hard to find.
I'll ignore the sex part of that e-mail since others have already addressed it quite well. I just want to know what kind of screwed up brainwashing someone has endured to honestly think that they are as bad as a murderer or thief or rapist? Seriously. I've heard a lot of downright dumb concepts hatched from Christianity (and many other religions- my intent is not to bash Christians) but this always struck me as one of the worst.
ReplyDeleteFrankly, I almost think it’s an issue of pride. How much of an ego do you have to have to think your little petty, pedestrian thoughts and actions are actually anywhere near the level of crimes that truly hurt people. Wanting the new car your neighbor just bought and thinking the local weather man is a hunk is nothing but moral white noise. Your naughtiness is not special, nor is it significant. Enough with the self-flagellation already.
Thanks Ruth for sharing Shoshanna's post(email). I liked the letter and am glad that Shoshanna was able to elaborate on what she wanted to state in her earlier comment.
ReplyDeleteShoshanna I was encouraged by what you said.
Stephanie
i'm going to try to address her points. ruth, please do post your responses!
ReplyDelete"I have no authority over you and am puzzled as to why you would think I had such an idea. Nor do I want authority over you. You are an adult and have the freedom to make your own decisions. I will try to answer your questions."
you will be perceived as trying to gain authority over someone else's life if you tell them how they "should" live their life and express a lot of negativity if they choose something else. this is why most non-christians like me have problems with christians... not because of what you believe, but because most christians want the world to operate according to their belief, and shun any other life choices.
"I taught them about purity when they were young. The two oldest are adults (19 and 21) now and already know what we believe about purity. Unless they seek our guidance, it's too late to try to influence them. They are adults who need to sink or swim. If they need a little lift from me, they can always ask."
this seems to be a good way to parent, from what i can see, and this is what my parents did too. the difference is that as a daughter i chose differently, i didn't "maintain my purity" because my opinion is that "purity" is not all it's cracked up to be. my parents THEN tried to intervene in my relationships and take back that control, giving me no support only judgment for many years. ruth came from a family where only judgment was given, never support. my opinion is that a parent needs to show support even when the parent does not agree with the child's choices, as long as the choices have solid reasoning and responsibility behind them. and teenagers do mess up. there are plenty of cases where parents raise their children with the expectation of purity and the children have the intention of keeping their promise, and slip up. abstinence quite often goes against reality. not in all cases, but in many, many cases it does, regardless of what the parent says or the family believes.
Ruth, I'd love to hear your response.
ReplyDeleteShoshannah's email reveals some very black-and-white thinking. It's possible to have a very important commitment to another person without legally marrying. It's possible to have sex with only one person throughout your life without ever marrying them or going outside the relationship. It's possible to save yourself for marriage and then cheat, or divorce, or (as DaveL pointed out) the marriage could end in the death of one spouse. It's possible to get an STD from your spouse. It's possible to get pregnant unintentionally and need an abortion while married. Heartbreak happens with or without marriage. Love, joy and commitment happen with or without marriage, as well.
But hey, according to Shoshannah I don't "respect myself," so how could I possibly have something valuable to say?
It was good to read the whole post and get a better idea of where Shoshana is coming from. I think there is something to be said for the emotional connection that is forged through sex. It does make separating harder. I think it's certainly something to take into consideration, but just because it can make separation harder doesn't mean that it should always be avoided (some experiences that are difficult are still worthwhile, can forge character, and show us what we really want from life and from a partner). I can only speak for myself, of course, but I have had sexual relationships in the past that I am so grateful for and would make the same decision in a second- and have had relationships that did not involve sex that I regretted and rued long after they ended. As another poster pointed out- saving one's first sexual experience for marriage is no guarantee of avoiding pain- especially with today's divorce rates- which are highest among evangelical Christians. So, in my mind, avoiding pain of possible future separation is not a good rubric to use when deciding whether or not to have sex with someone.
ReplyDelete"There is nothing wrong with having a serious relationship without the promise of marriage. It is even desirable. Relationships need to end when a couple finds they do not belong together, even though their intentions were serious to begin with. The usual dating experiences are far less than satisfying, I know because I've done this. You find someone. You may or may not be physically intimate. One may be more serious about it than the other. Then you break up and start all over again. Sometimes it has to happen this way, but it all depends on whether you are working towards marriage or just playing around with someone. It's artificial, not like marriage."
ReplyDeletethe comment i'm mostly going to address is the last one "it's artificial, not like marriage." leading up to it, the assumption holds true for a lot of dating relationships, but i would argue that the issue is not the fault of "dating" relationships but of the people involved. PLENTY of marriages fall into the same bad pattern of either starting out as artificial or becoming artificial over time as the relationship deviates from what it started out as. it's not the fault of people needing to commit more (although that is true in some cases), it's the simple fact that what a person wants or needs changes over time, or a person doesn't understand what he/she wants to start with. just like there are unclear expectations in dating relationships, there are unclear expectations in marriages.
"The physical aspect is important, but so is the spiritual/emotional aspect."
ReplyDeleteyes, but your assumption is that marriage is forever (it's not... it's about 50/50 in this day and age, and in the past there were very unhappy marriages with affairs, abuse, and dysfunction that would have ended in divorce had it been legal.) and also your assumption is that you can't have emotional/spiritual connection without commitment which is completely not true. i've had 3 sexual partners, and all 3 of those i've felt a very deep physical, emotional, mental, spiritual connection to, but only one of those i've committed to. that doesn't lessen my experiences with the other guys, it just makes the nature of our relationship different. one is not necessarily better than the other and your assumption is that commitment is always better. besides, my husband and i were committed long before we got married. getting married was a mere formality, we were living together, loving each other, and creating a family together without being married. oftentimes marriage becomes an excuse to take the relationship for granted, which was my biggest fear about getting married, and i eventually overcame that fear, but it's reasonable to see marriage as a failing institution given the divorce rates and firsthand or secondhand experiences, and decide to wait until the relationship has withstood the test of time before taking that step.
"God's plan for waiting until marriage for sex is a good one for many reasons, both emotional and physical. Venereal diseases, unwanted pregnancy, abortion, etc. I knew girls long ago in college who would brag in minute detail about their latest sexual conquests."
ReplyDeleteyes but do you really think these girls would behave differently if their parents stressed abstinence as their only option? heck, i know some of these girls, and they came from VERY conservative families. why would you emphasize purity and sticking to tradition (which children will often rebel against) instead of teaching them responsibility and common sense? i will give you credit because you seem to teach your children both responsibility and purity, but in my opinion children will respond to life's choices with responsibility when their parents modeled and taught responsibility, whether or not "purity" and "gods word" is taught. yes you can have both, but they are not synonymous! plenty of people teach "purity" but no common sense! yes birth control can fail, but so can abstinence. it's better to be prepared for slip-ups and arm your children with knowledge, not just trust that they have an iron will (who has that? especially teenagers?)
"Let's face it, it is common to bring extra "baggage" into our next relationship. I've been there, done that. Why put yourself through it? Why not be more careful about whom you date? Why not wait until marriage for sex?"
ReplyDeleteyour last two questions don't follow. yes, it's responsible to be careful who you date. in order to be careful about who you date, you have to know and be able to predict people, which means you need to have real world experience. i don't think you tried to shelter your kids in an extreme way, but even a lot of mainstream christians try to shelter their kids from the "evil" in the world, and it really puts those kids at a disadvantage. i know at 13 i was put into a very bad situation which might not have happened if i had had a clue what was going on in the mind of the older man. but at 13 i didn't even know where my girl parts were and it didn't even cross my mind that people would consider me as a potential sex partner. people think kids need to preserve their innocence, but they need to be able to deal with real world situations, which certainly did not happen in ruth's upbringing and does not happen in a lot of christian homes today.
as for waiting until marriage to have sex, it has nothing to do with being careful who you date. you can have a perfectly healthy sexual relationship outside of marriage and regardless of whether it works out or not, it can be a very good thing in your life. it depends on what you need at the time. some people need to wait and some people need to explore, that is why issues aren't so black and white. it really depends on what the individual/couple needs at the time. even getting your heart broken can provide you with valuable life experience, albeit learning "the hard way." sometimes the lesson is "maybe you should wait to have a sexual relationship with your next partner" but that's not true in every case.
When you cite something, you need to provide a link, not just say its in some journal.
ReplyDeleteThere's a double bind inherant in Shoshannah's argument. Shoshannah had premarital sex (at least by my definition because I don't think you are a virgin if you've engaged in activities that culminate in orgasm, which she seems to indicate that she did.) Therefore, if her marriage were to fail, it would be because of the premarital sex hurting her, somehow
I also dislike the demeaning of relationships that included premarital sex. I'm trying to not get angry here, because I feel like my marriage is being judged very harshly, when I am sure it is every bit as good as Shoshannah's.
"And now, if someone lives with the person they are dating, they are "my partner"? It sounds like a business relationship. Talk about taking all of the beauty out of love."
ReplyDeleteyou talk about this term "partner" as if it were a business relationship and taking all the beauty out of love. however, many people in the past (the "good old days when marriages still lasted") WERE business relationships. most marriages are, actually. look up the history of marriage on google or a history book or even the old testament, you'll find that most cultures marry for economic reasons and that is true in the US as well. my husband's previous marriage started out of obligation and turned into a purely business relationship, and it turned out horribly. obligation marriages not only happen all the time, but they have a deep cultural root in christianity and the old testament.
"partners" on the other hand are usually formed out of love that is not socially acceptable. i think that love that blooms under adversity is a beautiful thing and often holds much, much stronger than love that is sanctioned by religion or society. don't be so quick to judge other relationships! they might have something you don't.
"Some questions that you should ask yourself when dating: Are they becoming serious about you at some point in the relationship? (not someday or 2 years from now, for example) Do they love and respect you or are they just having some fun with you for awhile until someone else comes along?"
i'll end my comments with this section, which i wholeheartedly agree with. :) i do have more respect for you, shoshanna, after reading your explanation, however i still think you are trying to apply your own experiences and perspective to everyone else. everyone's experiences, personality, and background are different. some lifestyles that you see as "sinful" are in fact perfectly healthy. if you think about it, "sin" is relative to the culture. (for example, in jesus' time, homosexuality was associated with drunken orgies and child molestation, so it would make sense that early christians considered it a sin. however in this day and age, homosexuality is between consenting, loving adults so why should it be considered "sinful"?) that's just an example, but it's an example of how christians can misinterpret cultural issues with moral ones. it's the same with sex before marriage, in some cases it's a bad idea and in some cases it's perfectly healthy.
A Journal of Marriage onf the Family study found that women who lived together with their partner before marriage were 3.3 times more likely to cheat on their spouse after marriage.\
ReplyDelete============================================
Find me an unbiased research journal (I imagine you do not have access to academic studies...I won't do it now, but I'll find some marriage studies for your perusal tomorrow.
Even the delivery of this stat is not clear. Does it mean 3x more WOMEN (than men?) are likely to cheat because they lived with their spouse or 3x of spouses, regardless of gender? I ask because the "study" mentioned women, but is not conclusive WHO is cheating. Anyone doing research recognizes this as faulty and looking for the conclusion they want. Link the study, or I'm going to conclude your source took what they wanted and left the rest without analyzing faults in the hypothesis.
I was with you - meaning that I could see your point, even if I felt some disagreement - up until the end. Laughing at people who have had physically painful sexual experiences because of a size difference that couldn't be resolved isn't very nice at all.
ReplyDeleteAnd I also used to think 'partner' was too businessy - though not because it "[took] the beauty out of love" (that's just a bit melodramatic, don't you think?)
IMO, boyfriend/girlfriend sounds childish and not serious, and fiance(e)/spouse/husband/wife have a meaning that is specific to marriage. I like 'partner' best because to me, it isn't gender-specific, has less cultural baggage/assumptions attached to it than the other words have, and implies commitment that isn't necessarily marriage. It kind of reminds me of 'significant other' or 'other half,' but without the implication that the two people involved aren't whole, or maybe of the 'help meet/helper/help mate' referred to in Genesis.
Also, RE: the note that women who lived together with their partner before marriage were 3.3 times more likely to cheat on their spouse after marriage - it's important when discussing statistics to keep in mind that Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.
ReplyDeletethe longer version is just saying the same stuff as the shorter version. just... with more words.
ReplyDeletei think shoshanna has a genuine desire to be helpful. which i thought when i read the original comment.
i also think she's so seeped in the culture of western christianity that she has no idea what she's saying that is so blinkered.
ruth, you continue to be gracious and open far more than i would manage to be under similar circumstances.
I'm pretty sure the article referenced is this one:
ReplyDeleteJoan R. Kahn and Kathryn A. London, "Premarital Sex and the Risk of Divorce," Journal of Marriage and the Family 53 (1991): 845-855
First page and abstract available here.
From the summary on the first page: "These results suggest that the positive relationship between premarital sex and the risk of divorce can be attributed to prior unobserved differences (e.g. the willingness to break traditional norms) rather than to a direct causal effect."
So, to repeat what Kay just said: Correlation Does Not Imply Causation.
Ruth, I think it's obvious from all of these comments that the bottom line is we all care about you very much, and want you to experience a fulfilling, happy life.
ReplyDeleteI feel Shoshanah has received an undeserved beating here (by some commenters, not Ruth). Whether or not we agree with her conclusions and advice, she deserves our respect and kindness. Give her the benefit of the doubt... she is sincerely trying to help someone who is in a situation similar to what she has experienced herself. There is nothing wrong with that. Her opinion that it's best to wait for sex until marriage, is every bit as valid as the sentiments to the contrary. Please, let's stop picking apart her letter and motives, and focus on encouraging and lifting up Ruth, instead.
tl;dr
ReplyDeleteI don't care what she has to say. I'm a Christian and I think her type of POV is ridiculous and arrogant.
"Shoshannah's email reveals some very black-and-white thinking. It's possible to have a very important commitment to another person without legally marrying. It's possible to have sex with only one person throughout your life without ever marrying them or going outside the relationship. It's possible to save yourself for marriage and then cheat, or divorce, or (as DaveL pointed out) the marriage could end in the death of one spouse. It's possible to get an STD from your spouse. It's possible to get pregnant unintentionally and need an abortion while married. Heartbreak happens with or without marriage. Love, joy and commitment happen with or without marriage, as well."
ReplyDeleteYes, those things are all true. But statistically, they are less likely to occur.
Hekates: I got the statistic from (gasp) a book. Page 196 of 5 Conversations you must have with your daughter, by Vicki Courtney. The Journal that published that study is NOT a Christian publication, by my understanding.
Here's another interesting statistic:
Women over the age of 30 had an 80% chance of being in a stable relationship if they had only 1 sexual partner. If they had 2, the chance drops to 54%. 3 partners total drops it to 44%.
I did get that statistic from the same book but there is a link listed
cdc.gov/nchs/about/major/nsfg/nsfg1-5doc_5.htm
it is from the National Center for Heath Statistics.
I also want to make another quick point: I don't understand why people keep bringing up the "what about if a spouse dies" question. That is a total red herring. The point here is that sex should be saved for within marriage. Of course if your spouse dies you are free to marry again, but are not supposed supposed to have sex again until you are married. (I do wonder how they took that into account in the first study I mentioned. Hmmm curious.)
I appreciate that Shoshannah replied. However, I still disagree with her perspective.
ReplyDeleteFocusing on purity without providing any kind of sex education (i.e., "just don't do it, promise?" without so much as telling a child what "it" is) is not just unwise, but potentially dangerous. Children and teens don't need instruction manuals, but they do need a basic understanding of sex and how to respond to both the physical/verbal pressure of others and their own "stirrings" (to borrow from Lois Lowry's excellent "The Giver"). Likewise, older teens and younger adults who are bolder in their explorations should *not* be shamed because their behavior is "ungodly". The idea that sex only occurs between married couples defies reality. If two adults make a mutual choice, they should not be punished (note that I said two *adults* and *mutual* choice; sexual abuse, or ANY abuse -- whether of an adult or a child -- is never okay and SHOULD be punished).
As I've mentioned before, Ruth -- you and Harris are adults. You do not need to justify any decisions you make to the internet at large. I'm also fairly certain that God is more concerned with the heart than with one or two types of action.
And, ohh, finals -- we have a few weeks left here, but they're coming. I'm more excited about the break AFTER finals :)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI had much to say to Shoshannah's email, but since I came late, other people already made most of my points for me.
ReplyDeleteSo, thanks, Lodrelhai, lktomi, nonprophetmessage and others. =)
I do still have one thing to add, however. Shoshannah seems to believe that her adult children are completely transparent with her about every detail of their lives. I have a lot of doubt about that.
My own husband was raised strict fundamentalist, and his parents still today (he's 51!) don't know anything about any part of his life that would not meet with their approval. We hide the liquor when they come to visit. He never ever disagrees with his parents to their face about religion or politics. He even pretends to be interested in the same sports teams his dad likes when they come over.
Why? Because in fundamentalist Christianity a parent has so frequently, so forcefully laid out their expectation for their children's lives that even when the children are adults they still KNOW what not to say/do/question/confess in order to keep the parents happy. Why upset mom with the truth, when believing her version of reality makes her happy?
I think Shoshannah's email itself is a great example of this phenomenon. Disagree with mom (or dad) and get ready for a long, long explanation of why mom is right and you are wrong, you poor thing. It's almost as if the parent is convincing themselves of the superiority of their position. At the end of the monologue, mom is more sure than ever she is right. What good would it do for a child, even an adult child, to continue to disagree?
Shoshannah's letter makes me think of a former friend whose son eloped at 18, without Dad's permission. Dad told me, truly dumb-founded, "But we just talked about this last month, and we both agreed he was too young to get married and should wait until he finished college!" :p
Why would Ruth want to shut down the comments section? *puzzled*
ReplyDeleteI appreciate very much all the comments from all the previous blog posts as well as this one. It has opened my eyes to a lot of other points of view to which I might not otherwise have been exposed.
Even the trolls have been very eye-opening! Every time DD or one of his minions jumps in, it underscores just how crazy this whole ATI business really is at its core.
I disagree with Brenda K, that Shoshannah is receiving any kind of "beating". People are refuting some of the arguments she made in her persuasive missive to Ruth. No one here is attacking here personally that I read.
Ideas that can't be defended in open and civil discourse may not be well founded ideas. There's nothing wrong with discussing ideas critically. It's how we all learn.
Shadowspring, my husband is the exact same way. It's frustrating for me - I'm an extremely blunt, open person who comes from a tight-knit family where we can disagree and still love each other - and then seeing his family be absolutely unable to talk about anything of importance without it turning into an argument or a lecture. He can't talk to them about church because we don't go to a church they approve of, and they ask every time "Are you going to a Baptist church yet?" He can't talk to them about his current joblessness, because it allows them to suggest that he should go back to the extremely conservative Christian university where we met and from which we were subsequently expelled. He can't talk to them about music, because they believe that the music we listen to is worldly. Same with movies and books. It's interesting to see how much he has to hide in order to have a relationship with them.
ReplyDeleteDani and Shadowspring - I really appreciated your comments. I am not good at putting into words the bad feelings I have about family relationships, and you hit the proverbial nail on the head! My parents are independent fundamental Baptist also. Because we attend an Evangelical Free church, are ok with music other than hymns, occasionally drink alcohol, have limited our family size, and do not home school, do not use the King James Version of the Bible, etc., etc., we are definitely looked down up, and viewed as unwise, immature and prone to not trusting God, and are accused of not believing God's word. In addition to being hurtful, I am just so sad that those issues should divide our family. I am jealous of families who can discuss deep issues, where each person is respected, despite their beliefs/opinions, etc. I guess that is what fundamentalism is like, across the board, be it fundamentalist "christian", "taliban", whatever.
ReplyDeleteI feel ya, dani! ;-)
ReplyDeleteOh, and as to my puzzlement as to why anyone would suggest Ruth shut down the blog, I am confused no more.
Clicking on Heather Paulsen Patenaude's name leads to her blogger profile and her blog. Heather has written a book about "emotional purity"- it's not enough to be sexually abstinent, you must not love anyone romantically except your husband?.
As such, she has both an ideological and a financial incentive in shutting down honest discourse about sexuality and romance that presents options to the fundamentalist Christian point of view.
I have found the previous blog post on sexuality, and it comments, as well as this post and its comments very thought provoking. I have appreciated reading all the comments from posters with various points of view. I have a 4 year old and a one year old, and am doing my best to raise them in a Christian way. I grew up in a Christian family, and was taught abstinence. In addition to that, I grew up with an attitude that my body and all its functions (everything from bowel movements to periods to sexual functions) were somewhat shameful. My sister commented recently that she and a friend had a conversation in 7th grade, wondering if they had vaginas--because that word was never used in our house. I still have a lot of hang ups associated with that, and I want to figure out how to raise my kiddos without them. Anyway, I have been thinking a lot the past week or so about how to raise my children in a way that celebrates their bodies as a beautiful part of God's creation, and also to encourage abstinence before marriage. I wonder how to do that in a way that is not controlling or judging, but rather just teaching them that their bodies are special, and that certain acts are special and meant to be saved for the person they will spend their whole life with. At the same time, I realize that they are sinners, saved by grace, as am I, and that we all mess up every single day. I want to create an atmosphere at home where we all strive for the best, and still love and accept one another when we fail--whether it is failing to treat one another kindly, or failing to wait until marriage for sex. I'm not exactly sure how to go about it, but I do think it is possible--I have seen other families that appear to do that successfully. Anyway, I just want to say that I appreciate all the comments here, and I think that hearing Shoshanna's comments in full was helpful to understanding where she is coming from.
ReplyDeleteI hope you are doing well Ruth. I'm enjoying reading your posts as you make them. :)
ReplyDelete~
I have lived together with my partner for almost the entire period of our 3 year relationship. Circumstances dictated we work apart for the last 9 months due to work and school, but we still visited each other and we still love each other very much. I would never marry someone I hadn't lived with first - I find it's important to determine compatibility, find out the other person's good and bad habits, etc. I wouldn't feel comfortable marrying and moving in with someone who I didn't know about beforehand.
I also use the word "partner" sometimes because I'm not engaged or married, so saying "boyfriend" sounds juvenile sometimes. "Partner" to me is the same as "spouse", minus the marital context. In no way, shape or form do I use "partner" and think of it as a business arrangement. :/ The word still holds a lot of love for me.
If some people have had success with not having sex before marriage, good for them. My issue is with people who are trying to link all of these negative consequences to premarital sex and living together before marriage, because it's subjective. It works for some people and not for others. As someone else has already said, I don't want my relationship looked down upon because we're not doing it the "traditional" or "Christian" or "right" way.
@ Michelle - that's tricky, and I'm not sure I have any really profound advice for you, but... as a general rule, the more relaxed and "natural" you are about body things, the more comfortable your children are going to be with their bodies. You can teach them about "polite" behavior without implying that there's anything shameful about the body - to use a non-sexual example, we don't let my son spit in public, but we don't say that the behavior is disgusting; it's just not polite. And if he does spit in public, we don't freak out; we just explain that that isn't something we do around other people.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Michael. I love that approach (teaching "polite" behavior verses "that's disgusting"). It helps children understand what's socially acceptable, but in a respectful way.
ReplyDeleteRe: the studies being quoted about pre-marital sex and later fidelity/stability/etc.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problems with any studies like that are the language used in them. Couples that live together before marriage are more likely to cheat - do they actually mean sneaking around behind the spouse's back, or do they mean ANY extra-marital relations, even when the couple has an open relationship? Because yes, that happens, and it's happening more frequently as time goes on. The quote cites women specifically - does that mean men weren't polled, or was there no difference in the number of men with pre-marital relations and the number that cheated?
Then the one about "stable" relationships - what's stable? If you're still with your first spouse, but stuck in "holy deadlock," is that stable because you're still together? If one spouse physically, mentally, or emotionally abuses the other, but they don't sleep around, is that stable? If a couple, after several years together, finds their personal goals and needs differ, so they divorce amicably but still remain dear friends even after they're both remarried, are their former marriage or their current ones considered unstable?
Social assumption plays really, really heavily into most studies on sex, sexuality, and relationships. Look up research on societies like the Mosuo in China, who don't even have a word for marriage. But their word for sexual pairings is often mistranslated as "walking marriage," even though there is no commitment, no paternal expectations in the event of pregnancy, and no expectation of fidelity or monogamy. After dark, men who are interested in a sexual liason walk to the house of the woman they're interested in. If the woman is interested too, he's invited into her bedroom. He is expected to leave before dawn, and a woman may invite as many or as few males in during the night as she likes. Any children are raised by the woman's family, and her brothers fill the role of father or male influence in the children's lives. This social arrangement is so accepted by the Mosuo that it has stood despite heavy tactics by the Chinese government to force them into what we would consider marriage - including having their villages cut off from necessary supplies like food and clothing. Talk about solid. And yet, by our standards, there is not a single "stable" relationship among them.
I highly recommend "Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality" by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jetha for a look at how societal expectations have/still color research into relationships and sexual behavior. Fair warning to all: the authors heavily support the idea that monogamy is not natural (and often not healthy) for humans and their relationships. But even if you don't buy into evolution or polyamory for yourself, it's still a great eye-opener both for how other cultures view sexual relationships and the lengths to which researchers will go to translate what they see into what they expect.
Women over the age of 30 had an 80% chance of being in a stable relationship if they had only 1 sexual partner. If they had 2, the chance drops to 54%. 3 partners total drops it to 44%.
ReplyDeleteThat's a useless statistic, because it doesn't give any information on whether they engaged in premarital sex (I'd also like to know how the odds look for women in that age range with zero sexual partners).
I also want to make another quick point: I don't understand why people keep bringing up the "what about if a spouse dies" question. That is a total red herring.
I beg your pardon, but it's not. Shoshannah made the argument that waiting until marriage spared you from heartbreak, and I quote:
There is more heartbreak when a person has had sex with someone, along with the emotional closeness they have felt when the other one doesn't want to see them anymore. Why put yourself through it?
By this logic we shouldn't risk marriage at all, for if having had sex makes the heartbreak worse, just imagine what effect it would have to spend many years together, raise children, or care for someone during a final illness!
Once you understand how the rewards of marriage are worth the promise of heartbreak, you'll see how the same applies to other emotionally close relationships.
The point here is that sex should be saved for within marriage. Of course if your spouse dies you are free to marry again, but are not supposed supposed to have sex again until you are married.
Yes, yes, we all know what your dogma says. The thing is that Shoshannah was putting up the pretense of being able to justify it.
Hey, I just found and read your blog today. Whew! I'm glad you found someone to be/start a healthy relationship with, and it's fascinating to read about your emergence from a cocoon when you may have been mature in some areas, but not so much in the real world. Emotionally stunted is how I've referred to it.
ReplyDeleteI can relate with a lot of what you say, and oddly enough, at 17 I was proposed to by an Adam who was 3 years older and wanted, pretty much, a slave. His propositions for our future together never involved me finishing school or having a job or hobbies. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know I'm still reading, and awaiting to hear what you have next to say.
I can relate to your story because a lot of it is like mine, the physical abuse was more prominent, our household was by no means religious (though to keep up appearances my mom pretended to be), and I raised my three younger siblings (still denied by my mom to this day).
I'm rooting for you, and my heart is warmed by your ability to grow beyond an obviously evil setting, with or with out the religion involved.
With Love in Christ,
Peach
I completely disagree with Heather; I find the comments to be nearly as educational as Ruth's own posts. The discussions that occur are, by and large, intelligent, respectful, and thought-provoking. Yes, she's got her trolls (which I've always believed are a sign of a really good blog ;-) (although my favorite, Darth Pater, has obviously fallen off the map (bummer!!!)), but what I think is unique to Razing Ruth is the fact that the majority of the devoutly Christian commenters are able to express their views without condemning those who aren't, and vice versa. I've learned far more than I ever expected from these exchanges, and I appreciate Ruth's willingness to put up with the trolls and drive-bys.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you, Jenn.
ReplyDeleteAs young adults, we are constantly reminded to observe abstinence. Most elders condemn the practice of having sex before marriage. For them, virginity is a sacred gift that one should give their future spouse. Women are considered disgraceful to lose virginity before marriage. However, most women today have liberated themselves from the curse of the hymen. No longer is virginity an issue in marriage. We all have to understand that sex is normal like taking a bath everyday or brushing your teeth every other meal.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAeOFtvpeak
Even though Shoshanna apologized, she was still preaching. We get that.
ReplyDeleteI have girls her ages and I know for a fact that even though they share tonnes of info, they do not share their intimate details and why should they? why would they? To assume you know, is dumb.
I just wish that shoshanna could have gotten off her soap box at least for one minute.
"Even though Shoshanna apologized, she was still preaching. We get that.
ReplyDeleteI have girls her ages and I know for a fact that even though they share tonnes of info, they do not share their intimate details and why should they? why would they? To assume you know, is dumb.
I just wish that shoshanna could have gotten off her soap box at least for one minute."
I agree with this 100%. I was having sex at a young age and my mother had no idea until I took a pregnancy test in her bathroom and came out bawling. This was 5 years after I started. I felt it unnecessary to tell her the intimate parts of my life.
I was also NOT raised in a religious family in the slightest. My mother told my sisters and I that we had to follow our own path, not hers.
One of us is a Catholic, one of us is a Jew, and I am Atheist. My mother loves us all the same.
I waited till marriage to have sex. My husband never did anything more serious than make out when we were dating. We have now been married for 5 1/2 years and have two children. If I could do it all again I would most definitely have thrown out all the "waiting" and "purity" stuff.
ReplyDeleteI love my husband and my children. I have a good life. But I also married way too young to someone I did not know well enough. The fact that we actually turned out to be extremely compatible for each other was just dumb luck. We dated for over a year and a half and we still could never really get to know each other because we couldn't get past all those damned hormones.
When my children are old enough to start thinking about these things I will advise them to be cautious, to use protection, and to pick their sexual partners very carefully, but I will also advise them NOT to wait. Others will disagree with that and that is fine. I refuse to teach my children that their self worth is found in what goes on between their legs.
"I know that they hug and hold hands and that's it" I would have to agree with the comments made by Shadowspring. I have seen over and over again, that kids this age raised with Christian teaching on morality, even those raised with grace and love, are often not transparent with their parents. The younger daughter has been dating her boyfriend for 3 years, and they only hug and hold hands? Sexuality is such an incredibly powerful force, and is progressive by nature. If they go places in a car, i would be pretty incredulous regarding the daughter's claim to such amazing purity in such a long relationship.
ReplyDelete