Premarital Relations
By Jeff Ginger
Last Updated 2/25/06
Well holy crap! This page has for some reason been getting visits like crazy... like around 150 each month! Figured it was about time to update it. If you get bored or feel you've gotten the gist of it, skip to the end and read the new stuff.
I wrote this article while living in Snyder, my sophomore year. It's intended for a Christian audience, and thus makes assumptions
thereof. My true views are actually more liberal than what you read here, but this is my best reasonably moderate pitch for those in question. Regardless, I invite you to read and contemplate a little bit-
 So when dabbling with my friend at lunch one day he touched on the notion of absolute morals – that is to say, morals or feelings that virtually everyone believes in. The example he
employed was sex before marriage, which he claimed to be something that every individual deep down knows is wrong, even if it's widely practiced. I'm not going to go into relative morality here, as that's an entirely different debate (and several hundred books worth of material!), but something I'm sure most of us can agree to is contextual morality, or rights and wrongs. Different societies and peoples form their own ideas of what's right and wrong, and so effectively in those environments we can have a more or less solid (absolute gray line perhaps) idea of right and wrong. I should clarify - I'm not saying there are definitive rights and wrongs that never change. I'm not pitching that type of absolute morality. I'm pitching a rough guideline morality - that if you freeze at some point in time in a cultural context and examine their ideals on right and wrong you'll find a somewhat blurred grey line that indicates what they are. Need some support? Slavery was once considered the norm, and people honestly thought there was nothing wrong with it. Now we are all abhorred by the concept of slavery. In the future we might think eating meat is a terrible thing and consider our kind uncivilized ruthless barbarians because we're not vegetarian or vegan. So morality changes as our concepts of right and wrong flow. Morality is pretty complicated - and it's difficult to say how much can be based on good intentions and motivations. Some people even express that no one ever does something they truly believe to be wrong.
Okay, but progressing past that – the question in the air is if sex before marriage (in whatever form you'd like to consider sex) is morally permissible. Many people enjoy quoting pastors or bible verses or little tag lines they live by when presented with this question. Instead, lets take it apart and take a step backwards and examine one of the key elements in the picture here – marriage.
So what is marriage? It's a social construct – a union between two people that commits them to each other. Christianity also typically views marriage as a type of holy sacrament or union ordained by God. This is really quite fine and dandy – but we must remember the concept (and constraint) of labels. If a person goes to prison, is reformed, and gets out they must always deal with the label as being an ex-felon wherever they go, even if they've changed who they are completely. This sort of stigma effects who they are and what they feel capable of doing. If you took this ex-prisoner to a
monastery and placed them into service with no relation of their past life, they'd be as respected and revered as any other monk there might be. If a child grows up always being told they're stupid, chances are they're likely to start believing it. Point is, we make these labels or social constructs. We as a society make marriage what marriage is.
If you take a look at cultures over time – marriage has been seen in many different forms. Sometimes polygamy, sometimes spiritual unions, in some places the concept doesn't even exist. Even if you glance back into the old testament you can find support and encouragement for men having multiple wives – something that I suspect most American Christians would frown upon. A man's brother was charged with
impregnating his wife should he ever be killed. Many people feel the Bible gives a strong definition of what marriage is. But like most ancient texts the Bible has been translated and retold over the centuries. It's bound to the cultural context it was written in, and beyond that someone has to interpret it. We bring with us all of our personality intricacies into the
interpretation - our strengths, shortcomings, bias, interests, whatever else. So regardless of what the Bible says, people will choose how to interpret it largely based on the cultural context around us. Slavery was once found to be in line with the Bible. That societal outlook clearly changed and others will too. I personally find it best to read with a sort of poetic interpretation – seeking the general messages and feelings like forgiveness, respect, honor, humility, and love.
 If I were to ask you if it's alright for a couple who's just met a day ago and married in Las-Vegas to have sex, you'd probably say no (if you're a typical believer in the school of thought that believes sex before marriage is wrong, anyway). Why is that? Because the two people in question could hardly have developed any sort of union or bond, much less a holy sacrament symbolizing consummate love. Now if I were to back out and then ask if a couple who have been engaged for four years in college and plan to get married as soon as they can find stable jobs and purchase a home are okay to have sex, I'd say yes. Or to take it to an extreme – what is the arbitrary difference of a day going to make with a couple that's getting married – that is, could a couple that is about to marry have sex the day before they get married? Does it make any difference in the scheme of things? Sure they could wait that extra day, but why?
Most people are hard pressed to combat this notion. Some will claim that God cannot sanction such un-approved relations – but I ask why would God even care about capricious time? Time is yet another label, or social construct we have. In fact our measurement and understanding of time is really truly an invention. I'd like to think that God's beyond being chained to the system of time we've developed for ourselves - in all likelihood I'd imagine God to be outside of time.
So what then do I propose? Everyone get married whenever they want to whoever they want? No way! My opinion is that marriage ought to be about the intangible stuff – the feelings, the meanings – the behind the scenes of two people. A higher level emotional, physical, and intellectual bond that forms between two people in the form of consummate love. This relationship doesn't have to be tied to any particular title or timeline! If you took a couple that was married, and suddenly made them technically unmarried – do you think their feelings and actions towards each other would change at all?? Marriage is about way more than some silly title or ceremony (yes I realize many women are upset now because I called marriage ceremonies silly…I think it's an odd gender role thing that women tend to focus so much more on the material aspects of something that has considerably more ideological and spiritual meaning…). Regardless – I'd like to propose the notion that people reconsider why and when they think sex is a sin. I'd like them to examine why and with who they have sex, and if it's for the right reasons. What are the right reasons? In my opinion, love – or as I mentioned above. Okay, so what's the moral to my story here? Have sex with someone you care about, someone you're committed to, someone you love with all your heart and want to connect with on the most intimate level. Because as far as I'm concerned, and perhaps as far as God's concerned, it's not about the arbitrary labels or blessings – it's about the feelings – the faith – the belief – in love you share with another person.
Previous Follows Ups
After some consideration I wanted to expand on what I said above - it's short, and doesn't really cover the scope of something that books upon books can and have been written on. Some major notes: 
Another note of importance that Will pointed out was that there was little to no contraception (perhaps withdrawal) back during Biblical times – which opens up a whole new perspective with the no sex before you're committed issue. Simply put, health conditions not withstanding, if you were to have sex then you'd be more likely to cause pregnancy than you would now with a great deal of sex education and contraception available.
Some people see sex as nothing special . A couple of my friends mentioned to me that if all involved parties mutually agreed that the sex between them meant nothing more than a hand shake or something else equally arbitrary then it might be alright. This really does make sense, but I disagree on account of the point that I don't believe sex should be something taken so lightly or softly. In many cases it's just about the most intimate level you can be with someone else, each side is very vulnerable. Such things, in my opinion, shouldn't just be a walk in the park. They should be an experience, a relationship in itself to be explored and lived. Why reduce it to something like brushing your teeth? Furthermore, why share such a valuable and important experience with just anyone? Is really everyone who's merely attractive eligible? Why not make it something you share with those you love and care about? In my opinion it makes it so much more powerful and meaningful when shared with those you truly care about.
Many times one person (say stereotypically the guy) considers sex to be something different than the other person(s). For instance dude A might see sex like popping a squat, whereas his newly found girlfriend B might see it as a commitment to a longer and close relationship. My point is that both people must be clear on what they want sex to be - otherwise you'll get scenarios where someone (potentially everyone) gets hurt. If you're careful and share the gift with those you truly love, then you certainly reduce the risk of this type of problem, ergo another reason I believe it shouldn't be taken lightly.
The New Controversial Shit
I mentioned my own personal views are more liberal. Lighting it up:
Who the fna came up with this idea of virginity? Why does everyone accept it as something meaningful? I don't believe in virginity. Someone before they've had sex is not
quintessentially different then someone after they've had sex. All of the meaning to virginity is culturally applied and understood. People lie about it all of the time. I don't think it's anything to be ashamed of. More than that the first time having sex is most often painful and awkward for most of us, not some sort of transforming blissful or terrible experience.
 So we've got this split - religious sanctioning of marriage and state sanctioning of marriage. I think they should be able to work together, but separation of church and state would indicate that state sanctioning shouldn't be dependent on the religious side. Therefore I think gay marriage should be completely and totally legal from the law bound, state-side standpoint. This would mean LGBT couples would have access to the same rights and services that
heterosexual couples would. There's nothing inherently dangerous to it (a couple of gay guys or women raising kids is not going to be any worse than the thousands of broken homes and abusive parents. In fact, I think in most cases it would be better). And I really sincerely doubt we're going to see random men and women getting married just for tax breaks - the social stigma at this point is more than enough to block that kind of issue. We're just fine with a man and woman getting married for economic benefits and not love anyway. We can still keep marriage meaningful without having it be between only same sex/gender couples .
The religious sanctioning of gay marriage I feel is something that should be fought out between the various religions and flavors of Christianity. I'm not gonna make a call there, though I do like the stand point of the United Church of Christ: acceptance, love, and equal opportunity. Our state should do its best not to legislate with motivation from religion.
Sometimes in towns like Wheaton or in super conservative Christian environments kids get married (college age) mostly to have sex. That's crap.
I personally would like to be sexually experienced for my wife - I'm not going to save painful awkward virginity for her - how about the time of her life with well practiced, understood, safe, and responsible sex. Yes, I'm inciting that virgins are less likely to know what's going on in the world of sex, especially those who are afraid to expose themselves to education about it - that "I'm not gonna have sex until I'm married" excuse that I often hear in response to the offers of sexual education. Just because you're abstaining from sex doesn't mean you shouldn't know about it. You'll have friends having sex to worry about and trust me, there are plenty of ways to get STI's without sticking the ding ding in the bajingo.
Don't give me that bullshit about guys being wired one way or another. Some people are naturally more angry, others might be born without legs. I'd still discourage and condemn violent anger and still want the crippled person to be able to have
prosthetic legs. We have this benefit of being human and choosing who and how we want to be - we can defy our instinctual nature for the betterment of each other - in fact I think it's human nature to simply have the sentience enabling faculties and choose our path between right and wrong and develop our own identities. It's a shitty cover fire excuse to say you're a boy and therefore get to fuck everything placed in front of you. That being said I don't think it's bad to deny who you are sexually - be it orientation or attraction. I have a five year old in my pants too. Just don't be afraid to think about it, have faith that you can change it, and most of all respect others feelings and emotions.
Masturbation is healthy, and a great way to deal with strains of wanting to have sex with people without actually caring about them. I wish it was more widely accepted and encouraged among women.
Consent is totally and absolutely essential. Rape is almost completely a crime of violence and power, and I personally think it's worth it to foil your chance to get action by asking if it's okay. Respect and love should be more important than your lust.
I mean the real short of the shimmy is care about people. Be honest, be loving, and think about what you're doing in the world of sex.
Alright - there may be more later, but I want to submit this to a few people for editing and suggested revisions. Feel free to read and respond!
Reactions
By Kristin Ginger
Oh Jeff. You used the phrase "sticking the ding ding in the bajingo."
Having said that...you talk about love a lot. But you switch your phrasing between someone you love and being in love...which I feel are two completely different things? Plus, even given an element of love in a relationship, how do you qualify what sort or how much? Lines like that can't be drawn. But, you can still love someone and not be in love with someone; you can still throw in some sort of spectrum that doesn't make being in love something that is true today but wasn't yesterday.
With that spectrum, where do you start saying that you're enough in love to have sex? And what about "realizations"--do you have to KNOW you're in love to have sex? And then there's the theory of being in and out of love on an hourly basis--that you can love someone but aren't always IN love with them, even after 20 years of marriage; it's something that sort of comes and goes but the structure underneath is the more important factor. I might not be making ANY sense here, I do realize that. I'm just throwing out random thoughts because I read your editorial, and was curious...
A Lovely Response
By Jeff Ginger
Last Updated 01.06.07
Getting to it - basically my reaction would be that you have to learn to use your judgement. I can't too easily define love - I gave some ideas above in the intangibles. My pitch in the editorial here, is that so long as you're in love, sex before marriage ought to be cool by God, Christians, and you, the reader. Some people might get married before they find love, some might find it before - marriage shouldn't be the mediating component to sex, love should be.
If you're not Christian, and wondering if love exists, or why marriage exists, this isn't really the essay for you. I assert here an assumption of the existence and prevelence of romantic love, and the ability to judge yourself to be in love - not a particularly easy task.The alternative, though, I think is less wise - having sex before marriage is less of a problem than having sex out of love.
|
