creators home
creators.com lifestyle web
Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar

Recently

Straightening Out a Self-Absorbed Friend Dear Annie: I have had a best friend for nearly 20 years. However, in the past six or seven years, "Gloria" has become very self-absorbed and selfish. She refuses to show any reciprocity for favors or kindnesses. She seems to have time only for …Read more. The Season of Thanksgiving Dear Readers: Today is Thanksgiving. If you know someone who is alone today, please invite him or her to share your Thanksgiving dinner and help make the occasion truly special. Today we'd like to run a piece that has appeared in this space several …Read more. Distance from Grown Kids Doesn't Have To Be a Deal-Breaker Dear Annie: My boyfriend, "Darrin," and I have been seeing each other for five years. I love him and feel loved by him. He is affectionate and a great listener. I have grown children who are free to pop in and out of my house whenever they please. …Read more. Understanding Asperger's Dear Annie: In my circle of friends, there is a 23-year-old man with Asperger syndrome who drives me crazy. This guy has zero understanding of boundaries. He'll argue, interrupt conversations and answer back to everyone, and he lectures incessantly. …Read more.
more articles

Irresponsible Sister Has Worn Out Her Welcome as a Guest

Comment

Dear Annie: My sister, "Didi," has been living with my husband and me for several months. Didi pays a modest amount of rent based on her income — but we set it up before she started working more consistently. She now has a part-time job and still doesn't contribute anything more. If she were saving her money, I would understand, but she's spending it on clothes and expensive makeup. She rarely helps around the house with cleaning or cooking.

I realize she is lucky to have a job, but she refuses to pick up a second one. I told her I saw a "for hire" sign at a fast-food place close to home, but she won't apply. I should also point out that she doesn't drive, and I take her to work each day. On days when I have to drop her off early or pick her up late because of my own job, she gives me a bit of attitude. Frankly, I'm ready for her to move out, but I don't think she can afford it yet, and I don't want her asking me for money to help pay her rent.

The complicated part of all of this is that my husband and I want to have a baby, but Didi is living in what would be the baby's room. Nine months seems like a reasonable period of time for her to get her stuff together and move out. But if she truly cannot afford it, I don't want to be the one making her live on the streets.

I love Didi, but am beginning to feel she is taking advantage of me. How do I help her get her own place? — Love my Sis

Dear Sis: Didi is definitely taking advantage of your tolerance levels. Are there any other relatives who might take your sister off your hands? If not, set up a timeframe. Inform Didi that you are planning to get pregnant and once it happens, you will need her room for the baby and she will have to move out. That will give her at least nine months to find another place. Tell her you'll be happy to help her search for another part-time job, an inexpensive apartment and a roommate.

Whatever it takes.

Dear Annie: I am a 21-year-old female virgin. Two years ago, I had my first and only "relationship," in which my boyfriend dumped me after a week when he realized I was not going to have sex with him. Since then, I have been afraid to seek out relationships because I'm scared of being pressured to move too fast.

I know it is ridiculous to judge all men based on a single experience. But society projects the idea that women are expected — even obligated — to give sex to their boyfriends. I want to avoid the risks of STDs and pregnancy, but I don't know whether I am strong enough to keep saying "no." Is it wrong of me to expect a relationship without sex? — Lonely, but Afraid

Dear Lonely: Of course not, but you are right that a lot of men expect a physical relationship with someone your age (although not after one week). There are plenty of guys who would be willing to get to know you and commit to a relationship before attempting to get you into bed. Keep looking. They are out there.

Dear Annie: I have another take on the letters about funerals where the mourners may not wish to view the remains.

Before my wife passed away in April, she made arrangements for her body to be donated to the University of Tennessee Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology. When she died, we notified them and they took her body to the school in Memphis. Their memorial service was impressive and comforting. These medical schools are always looking for such donations, and I have made arrangements for my body to be used the same way when the time comes. — Sevierville, Tenn.

Annie's Mailbox is written by Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar, longtime editors of the Ann Landers column. Please e-mail your questions to anniesmailbox@comcast.net, or write to: Annie's Mailbox, c/o Creators Syndicate, 5777 W. Century Blvd., Ste. 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045. To find out more about Annie's Mailbox and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Comments

91 Comments | Post Comment
To LW2 - don't be pressured! I'm 23 and also a virgin. I'm engaged to a wonderful man and we are saving sex until we get married. The cool part is that it's OUR idea, not MY idea, even though he has been in sexual relationships before.

They are out there. Don't give up.
Comment: #1
Posted by: CricketBug
Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:22 PM
To LW2 and Cricketbug -- I hate to be the one to break it, but your "values" are based on mistaken assumptions. Sex is good and natural. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional. It's an oxymoron to ask a man (or woman) to hold off on sex until marriage and expect the result to be a healthy relationship. It'll never happen. It's not about being pressured; it's about living a frigid and frightened life, denying your human natural and biological inclinations, then somehow expecting the wedding night with someone you've never known intimately, to magically transform your life. Sex is a vital aspect of relating to another person, not a guessing game. If the pressure to be sexual is can be damaging, the pressure to be abstinent, and associating it with some imaginary moral superiority, is far more so.
Comment: #2
Posted by: sarah morrow
Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:37 PM
Re: sarah morrow. Wrongheaded, mistaken, misguided, and downright offensive. Those are just some of the words I can use to describe your comments. Seriously? You honestly believe that a healthy relationship is flat-out impossible without sexual involvement? Are you willing to apply that same opinion to the legions of married men (and some women) who write-in here complaining they aren't "getting enough?" I guess I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as how you wrote yesterday that the guy with the uncooperative wife should go off and take a lover. I won't even bother trying to refute what you said - it would be like trying to straighten out someone who insists that the moon is made of green cheese. There's difference of opinion, and then there is flat-out wrong. You seem to be suggesting that human beings are like animals - "it's about living a frigid and frightened life, denying your human natural and biological inclinations" - and the other claptrap you wrote. Yes, it's natural. On the other hand, unlike animals, we have the ability to CONTROL our urges in favor of hope for long-term gain. Did you every stop to think that maybe our out-of-control STD infection rates, shattered lives, and epidemic-levels of unwed teen pregnancy rates might be some of the consequences brought onto society by people who share your views? Seriously, this whole "if it feels good, do it" attitude went out sometime back in the 1970s. It's so much more complicated than just "use a condom and everything will be fine." There are EMOTIONAL consequences to premature sexual involvement as well. I thought people were wiser now. I can't believe you've got this kind of attitude toward sex. Just un-freaking-believable. And lest anyone come running along to cast me as some kind of a sexless Puritan...well, I can only assure you from personal experience that when sex is kept in the proper place (the marriage bed), it can be frankly unbelievable and a huge part of a richer life. I couldn't envision life without it now...but somehow I got through my teenage years without jumping every girl who looked cross-eyed at me. And I can tell you...it's worth the wait for the right person. But sarah...you're so far off-base....just wow.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Matt
Tue Oct 19, 2010 10:56 PM
LW2: Do NOT give-in to the next guy who asks. If you're a bit skittish on relationships for the time being, so be it. Take some time and get your self confidence together. Don't feel obligated in any way, no matter how much he spends on you, or begs or pleads. As a man, I know those kinds of guys very well. I've seen how they operate, how they try and try to make a girl feel like she has to meet his needs just because she went out with him a few times. If you really really want to "go for it" because you've fallen for the guy, there is probably no way to talk you out of it...but be advised that even in those cases, he might not feel the same way....or even if he does, he might decide later on that he's gotten bored with the relationship and decide to move on. And why not? Young men in particular are about the chase, the conquest. The ones who get what they want early-on are particularly likely to move on even if you give them what they're after. You will be left feeling used and abused, tossed aside like yesterday's newspaper. It will be even worse if he knocks you up or gives you some nasty disease before running off...especially likely since those kinds of guys have generally already "made the rounds" with lots of other women before getting around to you. (Remember that something like 1 in 5 have genital herpes - not fatal, but incurable and highly annoying - and that condoms won't protect against this.) Best to wait until you are married; if you absolutely cannot manage that, don't get into bed with a man until you've been emotionally involved for at least the better part of a year. That way you can at least be sure that he really cares about you and will still be there - not just in the morning, but the next week, the next month, and so on.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Matt
Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:05 PM
I won't be returning to read the responses to my comments, by the way...so if anyone's tempted to start laying into me for what I wrote, don't bother. I said what I said out of principle, experience and conviction...and a bunch of nasty troll-ish comments aren't going to change that anyway.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Matt
Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:07 PM
I have to say for Once I agree with Matt, I don't always reply as you all know but I read everyday and I have this to say to LW-2: It is very possible to find a man willing to wait.

Sadly I was not a Virgin when I married, I married at 24 but because of Past expeirence I was very afraid to even have sex. My Husband was a Virgin when we married and he was willing to wait for me to be completely comfortable before we started having sex. That Happened about a week after we got married. My Husband is one of the Kindest and most gentle men I know yet if you threaten his family he stands up. I got lucky and I think there are other men out there like mine.

Sarah, I have to say that you're wrong in thinking that you can't wait until Marriage to have sex and still have a healthy relationship. My husband and I are even more in love then when we married 3 years ago. We have two beautiful children and Have a very healthy relationship. I actually feel bad for you since you think that is not possible.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Yoshi Mama
Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:29 PM
Yes, it is unreasonable to ask someone to be in a sexless relationship. It is also unreasonable to have sex when you don't want to just to keep a guy. So.....what to do? I think you need to be clearer with these guys. If you are not prepared to have sex until marriage, say so. If you won't consider sex until you've been dating 3 months (or whatever you feel comfortable with) say that. If you are scared or nervous or whatever your concerns may be, share that when you are getting close to being ready. You can expect someone to listen and work within your boundaries. You can't expect someone to wait indefinitely, and you can't expect someone to be sexless.

I'd also ask what your definition of sex is? Are you talking vaginal intercourse? Oral sex? Handjobs? Anal sex? I'm sure there are things you can do, and go slow.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Walkie
Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:42 PM
Also--in defense of Sarah. I've also never understood waiting until marriage. Sexual compatibility is HUGE and a large number of people create a miserable marriage for themselves by ignoring incompatibility or not bothering to find out if they click. LW2--don't buy into this "conquest" nonsense--if you have sex and get dumped you've been had, tricked, the guy is only after one thing. That is a line of crap. I guarantee that someone you sleep with will break up with you. But if you are making choices that are right for you, no one will ever be able to make you feel like a conquest.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Walkie
Tue Oct 19, 2010 11:50 PM
LW1 - you wouldn't be the one making her live on the streets. SHE is responsible for that. Don't wait til you're past your childbearing years to kick her out! It's noble to want to help someone who is grateful. It's self-inflicted pain to bend over backwards to help someone who "rarely helps around the house" and "gives [you] a bit of attitude."

LW2 - any man worth dating will wait longer than a week, and will respect your time frame. There are men worth dating. There are a lot who just want sex. The good news is that the ones who are just looking for sex won't waste a lot of your time or theirs pretending anything different. They'll weed themselves out. There are many of them, but not all men are like that, just as you can't lump all women into one category either.

Whether or not people wait until marriage is up to them. And whether or not they think sex should be meaningful and emotional or just something fun to do is up to them, too. I don't think there's a right or wrong way, it depends on the people. But I definitely think that no one should feel forced or pressured to wait or not wait. They should do what's good for themselves, and be honest with their partners so that they have the same expectations from a relationship or sexual encounter.

The only thing I believe very very strongly is that people should not have sex until they are old enough to handle any consequences. If you think you could handle an unwanted pregnancy (however you want to define "handle") then take a risk. Otherwise, abstinence or at least 2 forms of birth control are best. Obviously, educate yourselves on how to prevent STDs.

Like Walkie said, there are other activities that aren't sex, but aren't completely platonic either. There's a whole gray area to consider.
Comment: #9
Posted by: FAW
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:07 AM
Sorry Sarah Morrow, but I have to disagree. I have had sex both within and outside of marriage. I have only been married twice, but I have had a total of 4 sexual partners, so I am not without experience. We are not animals. We have the unique ability to analyze and control our actions. And sex is not only about base urges or procreation for humans. It is much deeper than that. Or at least it should be. Sex is primarily a bonding experience and expression of love and affection between two people. And oh yeah, super unbelievable and awesome. Believe me, I am highly sex positive and have a very high libido. But I do not feel that we should just give our bodies away willy-nilly. Our bodies are our temple and we should have more respect for them than that. Not only that, but the attitude that sex is all about pleasure and personal gratification is actually what leads to bad sex, not the other way around. When you truly love and care for a person, you will do everything you can to bring pleasure and joy to that person, you will put their needs above your own. And that person, who loves and cares for you, will do the same. And because you completely trust that person, you will be completely uninhibited and comfortable. *This*, this love, which can only come with time, and honestly a man worthy of that love, *this* is what leads to knock-out, mind-blowing sex. There is nothing destructive whatsoever about abstinence. It allows one to get to know a person truly and rationally, without sex clouding their judgement or emotions. And also, if everybody was sexually monogamous with only their marriage mate, horrific STDs/STIs would be nonexistent and we would no longer see the tragedy of unwed pregnancy and the suffering of children that results. God created us and knows what is in our best interest, even if we don't. Like all children, sometimes we are misguided.
Comment: #10
Posted by: SarahM
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:50 AM
This is test...I wrote two replies yet neither one has shown up.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Jean
Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:10 AM
Ah, there it is...

To Love my Sis (LW 1) you and your husband have been more than kind and generous to your sister. The Annies should not have suggested that you find other relatives to "take Didi off of your hands." She is not a child. She needs to grow up and support herself and behave like an adult. You should give her a time limit to find a place of her own, and I think to give her 9 months is much too long. She will stay the 9 months if you allow it, then she'll find some excuse to prolong the stay, ignoring the fact that you and your husband deserve to have time alone and privacy, now that you are planning a child of your own. Didi will not end up homeless, and if she does, it will be her own fault, not any doing on your part. If you decide to offer monetary help, it should be made clear that is a "one-time offer of help" and that there will no further "hand-outs", that if she needs more money, she can find a higher paying job or get a second job.

To Lonely but Afraid, (LW 2) if you feel that saving sex for marriage is right, then by all means hold your ground. I know that most men expect and even demand sex as part of a relationship, yet you should not feel pressured. I was brought up in a religious home which believed in sex for marriage only. I decided to follow that teaching, and I also
formed the belief that sex should be a mutual decision, and in no way should it be obligatory.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Jean
Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:18 AM
SarahM used the term "sex positive". I would like to clarify this term, if I may. There is a large community of people & sex educators that use that term to define an attitude toward sexual identity. It is a term that implies an overall acceptance of any sexual identity/behaviour between consenting adults, including: BDSM, lesbians, gays, cross-dressers, transgendered people, swingers, polyamorists, and non-monogamists. I suspect SarahM meant something different than this.
Comment: #13
Posted by: Walkie
Wed Oct 20, 2010 2:17 AM
Matt,
I love your comment! How great to hear from a guy that sex is not the only thing on his mind.
Comment: #14
Posted by: Cindy
Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:46 AM
I absolutely disagree with Sarah! Yes, sex is part of a healthy relationship, butas much as I hate to be the one to break it to the young women of America (including some of my peers), a week of dating does not constitute a long term relationship. Lonely does not say she's saving sex for marriage, she says that she is avoiding unwanted pregnancy and STDs, both consequences of the "we're animals, we're made to rut" philosophy on sex. She has the right idea- if you don't want a baby, don't have sex. Haven't we had that discussion on numerous posts? Well, someone listened. You know if there's chemistry long before the actual act of sex, and contrary to popular belief, sexual skills CAN be learned, and even tailored to one's partner. Even though I don't necessarily assume it's the way to be for everyone, I see no problem with waiting until marriage, if the chemistry is there, you can develop a sexual routine together, with the help of a sex therapist if needed, like if they're both inexperienced or if there are psychological/emotional issues preventing one of them from having sex. I also agree with Walkie, she should make her boundaries clear early and stick to them. That way not only does she go into the relationship honestly, but she weeds out the guys who aren't interested in even trying to get to know her first and don't have the basic respect to honor her wishes.
Comment: #15
Posted by: Nichole
Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:36 AM
Oh goodness, what are you people doing online at 3am?

Anyhoo, I have to jump in about the whole virginity thing. Being a virgin is not a terrible thing people (Sarah Morrow), nor is it the best thing for everyone. It is a personal choice which some people have made. We are outraged when people are pressured to have sex, outraged when they're pressured not to, so how about we not get cranky at this girl for her own personal choices? It is possible to have a very healthy relationship until you're ready for sex (again, Sarah, are you perhaps a psychologist?). Yeah, your honeymoon is going to be somewhat awkward (the first time with someone almost always is) but you get to learn together.

Also, I'd be curious to know what "sex" means to this young lady. Society defines sex as vaginal intercourse, right. So, maybe they kiss alot (a sexual activity), us manual stimulation (again, a sexual activity), give each other oral sex (um, yeah, sex is in the name) but are saving intercourse. We don't know, and it does change the situation somewhat.
Comment: #16
Posted by: AgLee
Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:40 AM
LW1 should be reminded of Ann Lander's sage advice: "no one can take advantage of you unless you let them." This is appropriate advice here, too. LW1's sister is in no hurry to help out around the house, earn more money or make an effort to become independent because she has no incentive. The Annies advice here is spot on: The LW should inform her sister that she has plans for her room and that she has X number of days to find a new living arrangement. Then, stick to the schedule.

I commend LW2 for her conviction to remain a virgin until marriage. That's her choice and it's nobody's business but hers and her potential partners. The LW is correct in that sex is often expected as part of the package of being in a relationship. While I personally believe it's a good idea to "try before you buy" to ensure sexual compatibility and avoid a lifetime of frustration and dissatisfaction, it's not a stance for everyone. Best of luck. Now I'll wait patiently for aimai's two -page dissertation on this subject.
Comment: #17
Posted by: Chris
Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:11 AM
LW2 asks if it's wrong to expect a relationship w/o sex. When you're talking about dating, it absolutely is not wrong. It's your decision 100% and many would applaud you for abstaining. Any guy that would break it off for not having sex after a week of dating did you a tremendous favor. You certainly don't want to be involved with someone like that.

With that said, you stated that women are expected "to give sex to their boyfriends", which implies that it is a gift for women to give to men. Which just brings up bad vibes from yesterdays column.
Comment: #18
Posted by: Gerhardt
Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:21 AM
LW #1-- your sister will not die in the streets if you kick her out. You don't need to tell her your plans for a baby either. If you kick her out she WILL find another part time job or a full time job, an apartment she can afford and roommates if needed. Survival is one of the strongest skills human beings have and hers will come to the top when they need to. As of now she has a cushy living space so she is not worried. And don't kick her to another relative unless you want them to end up hating for you sticking them wirh her.
Comment: #19
Posted by: Cheryl
Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:42 AM
They are out there. Finding people of true character is difficult.. but possible. My own experience.. I decided to wait until marriage for sex. Most of my friends in high-school gave me a hard time because it's not the social norm these days.
During the first year of dating (my husband) it was so wonderful! I wish I could tell everyone the significance. We would have fun, great conversation... every day was something different & it was all kept innocent. It began to get difficult after about 11 months (we were like caged animals ready to rip each other's clothes off). When we finally consummated, it was an explosion.. not only of emotion but also physical gratification. That 1st week, I had 13 consecutive orgasms in a row during one encounter. I don't think most people these days, ever get to experience this because they rush the process & consequently the relationship is built crappy. Relationships are built on far more than sex & that's definitely not the foundation. That base is built on a mind, spirit, & body connection and for those who take the time - there are rewards for waiting.
We have been together 13 yrs & have a baby. Our sex life is still on fire. I'm convinced because we took the time to build the relationship right. I'm curious if Sarah Morrow has had any long-lasting success in relationships (I doubt it).
Comment: #20
Posted by: Diana
Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:45 AM
Sarah Morrow makes some good points. If a woman is practicing abstinence as a means of avoiding STD's and unplanned pregnancy, great! But if she's doing it because she's been programmed to believe that good girls are virgins and only bad girls have sex, then there IS another risk involved: failing to develop a healthy view of one's body and sexuality in general. This happened with dear friends of mine, and when both women eventually got married, both marriages failed.

There's nothing wrong with a woman liking sex and choosing her own partner(s), including before marriage. She needs to be an adult (not a teenager) capable of making that decision and living with the consequences.

And yes, this applies to young men as well. But we all know the underlying current here -- "It's okay for a guy to do it, but the girl he's doing it with is a slut." That was Sarah Morrow's point, and to some degree she was right.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Honor Girl
Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:53 AM
To LW1: Why would your freeloading sister bother changing anything if the status quo is obviously working for her? Although you may be inclined to use a baby as an excuse to get her out of your home, she might come to resent your child (because she's obviously a child herself and that's what displaced children do!) and it truly sounds like an immature excuse on your part. You want her out because you want your home back--don't blame an impending pregnancy for your sudden growth of a spine.

Tell her you're glad you were able to help her in her time of need, but you need to move on with your married life with your husband as just a couple and she has 2 months to move out. Offer to help her find a place, find a roommate, and find another job if you have time for all three, but keep to that deadline. Only she can make herself homeless, as others have pointed out. If you happen to get pregnant in those two months, so be it--you'll have the time you need to "nest" that new nursery without having to move "aunties" clothes off the floor to do so.
Comment: #22
Posted by: chaz
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:01 AM
I agree with both Matt and sarah morrow on this one, although both of them had a pretty bad attitude about it. Studies have shown that living "as a married couple" without being married (living together, sleeping together) can actually be detrimental to a relationship making it more likely to fail. Waiting until marriage has a higher rate of long lasting marital success. (The idea being that if you live with someone before getting married, you just kind of go with the flow even if you aren't 100% compatible, because it's too much work to move your stuff out. If you live separately, it's much easier to break it off if you aren't totally feeling it).

However, we are sexual beings and I see nothing wrong with sex before marriage if both partners want it. It's a personal decision. Matt's fear mongering notwithstanding, sex can be part of a healthy relationship (with or without eventual marriage).

LW2, wait until you are comfortable. If that's after a year of dating, then fine. If it's on your honey moon, that's fine too. You won't regret waiting until you are ready but you will regret not waiting. There are guys out there willing to wait (some even want to), so be honest but get yourself out there.

Also, "I have only been married twice" only twice? ;)


BTW, hasn't Matt stated before that he ISN'T married?
Comment: #23
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:19 AM
LW2: Whatever you do, do NOT let a man talk you into having sex before you are ready. Not even if he says he loves you, because if he's going pressure you like that, he probably doesn't.
Here's a story from my own life. When I met my future husband he was 23; I was 33. Neither of us had ever had sex, although I came close with a former boyfriend. We dated for a long time before we became sexually involved, although I am sorry to say we didn't wait for marriage. But now, after 17 years of marriage, we have a very satisfying (and frequent) intimate life. We have our difficult moments, like any other married couple, but they're not due to sexual problems.
My point is that sexual restraint and sexual repression are two different things. The rule is, if you aren't sure, DON'T. It means the other person probably is not right for you. Never mind if this person calls you frigid, makes insinuations about your sexual orientation or dumps you. There is absolutely nothing abnormal about waiting for the right person to come along. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
Comment: #24
Posted by: JMG
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:21 AM
LW2 : Don't worry, there are some great guys out there who will wait. When I was 18 I was so not ready to have sex - I wasn't even interested because of my fear of getting pregnant or an STI. I made my boyfriend wait 9 months before we had sex. Of course he lightly complained, he kept asking me if I was ready yet, and I would just say no and that'd be the end of it.
I don't regret waiting at all, I've had boyfriends since, and definitely don't make them wait as long.
Essentially you should go at your speed -- don't let someone else determine when you should or should not lose your virginity, whether it be your boyfriend or friends.
Comment: #25
Posted by: tapeoca
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:21 AM
Re: sarah morrow
To add to your comments:
Sexual intimacy is part of getting to know a person before you decide to commit, and an important part at that. You don't know until you've experienced it first-hand - I'm not gonna get graphic, but some people are pretty kinky. There is nothing wrong with that as long as both partners are consenting adults and nobody gets hurt, but the fact remains - the way the other one is in bed may be a dealbreaker and after the wedding is not the time to find out.

I have a problem with double standards. A man with experience marrying a virgin is a double standard. And a despicable one at that, where man's sexuality is considered normal and women are reduced to a thing, a piece of merchandise, brand new or used. Appalingly, there are a lot of women who think that way too, not just men. Like I have said before for another column, if the problem only lied with men, it would have been solved a long time ago. Unfortunately, people who think that way refuse to admit they do - they always have some rationalisation and call it by another name.

It wouldn't be so bad if both the man and woman were expected to be virgins when they marry, but that is not the case. And it would only be a little less bad because, like you pointed out, leaving physical intimacy out of the picture until after the Big Day leaves a huge part of the relationship to guess work until it's too late.

Sex is healthy and natural - at least when you're emotionally balanced and mature. Unfortunately, a lot of attitudes towards it are not. A lot of people, men and women both, are screwed up and riddled with unhealthy guilt. I am tired of men who keep complaining that their wives are cold fishes and that they live like a monk - but show them a woman who enjoys sex and they think she's a whore. This is so boring.
Comment: #26
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:25 AM
Regarding LW1 - the pregnancy thing is a good idea (especially if LW1 needs an excuse to broach the subject), but don't set the deadline at 9 months. You and your husband are going to want to shop for baby stuff, re-decorate the room, baby proof the house, and spend time resting, etc. You are not going to want someone else in your baby's room at that time, having to drive them around to see apartments of whatever. Give her a deadline of THREE months. That gives her time to save up for first/last month's rent or a security deposit (offer to bank the money for her, maybe), collect items she needs, get a bus pass or a bicycle, find a place, find a roommate, and find another job. Help her crunch numbers to see how much money she needs to make.
It will be a time commitment on your part but use that to gently push her out. She will not be able to get angry with you if what you are doing seems kind and patient, and you will feel better about it in the long wrong. If you don't think she is moving fast enough, pack up her stuff for her and tell her you're changing the locks ("with a baby, we want to be safe, so we're changing the locks and only giving a key to Bob's mom for emergencies, and we're installing an alarm"). Make it totally clear that she has to leave, that you will help her, and that if she hasn't left by the date you will force her out.

Just make sure that you know the laws because you can't just change the locks on someone without prior warning.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:25 AM
Wow Sarah Morrow, obviously you're not a Christian, we are suppose to wair until we get married. Hello? Geez, to the LW: try finding a large church & getting into a singles group, the larger the church, the better your chances. Some churches have singles groups divided by age brackets too. I think its wonderful that you've decided to wait sounds like Sarah M is bitter, which I can understand, since, she's probably been rode hard & hung out to dry, instead of waiting. Don't let that happen to you! Stick to it Girl! He'll come!! I promise! He did for me!!
Comment: #28
Posted by: Crissy
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:27 AM
Wow Crissy, I'm going to guess that you're not a Christian, either, since you're being pretty judgmental of someone you've never met. Calling someone bitter and basically whorish based on a comment online isn't very kind at all. Something about not judging and being without sin casting the first stone comes to mind...

FYI, there are a LOT of non-Christians out there, so acting as though we as humans are "supposed" to wait is kind of moot.
Comment: #29
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:33 AM
Re: Matt
I don't see anything in Sarraw Morrow's comment that suggests we're animals going bang-bang like rabbits in a rut - you're jumping to your own conclusions and blaming her for them.

Just for the record, no, one shouldn't do it just because it "feels good" and, by the way, it's only for men that it feels good with every hole they can score, women in general need to feel something for the man before it starts feeling good. There are anthropological reasons for this of course, but basically sexuality is not grounded in men the same way it is with women. For women in general, sex is tied to the emotions and feelings, while for men, again in general, the two things are in separate boxes, which is why so many men can cheat repeatedly and still love their wives. Not that it makes it right. But, in general, when women are promiscuous, it is for a different reason than for men. And I repeat, in general. There are minorities and exceptions everywhere.
Comment: #30
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:42 AM
Re: Matt
As for that, no, she DEFINITELY should not give in just because the guy pressures her. It WON'T feel good if she does, neother physically nor emotionally and she'll feel sullied, that's all. A woman is not a f*ck-hole any more than she's a piece of virgin property.
Comment: #31
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:45 AM
To LW1; get a backbone and do what's best for you
to LW2; isn't it possible that sex had nothing to do with your breakup. Maybe you're an intolerably judgemental person or timid and mousy? maybe ti wasn;t sex but you.
and Matt; you are of course entitled to your opinion as are all the posters, But personally with regards to sex and marriage, i wouldn't buy a pair of shoes without trying them on first.
Comment: #32
Posted by: RAE LIBONATI
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:47 AM
Re: Yoshi Mama
I agree with both Sarraw Morrow and you:
Yes, it is possible to have a healthy relationship even when waiting after marriage to have sex, so you're right about that.
But yes, it is leaving a lot to chance, so Sarraw Morrow is also right.
My own point is that while it not wrong to either have sex before or wait, the decision is generally taken for the wrong reasons and based on attitudes that are demeaning to both men and women. Keep in mind that I know nothing about you and that I am not talking about you personally when I say that. I'm glad it worked out for you.
Comment: #33
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:50 AM
Re: Honor Girl
You rock!
Comment: #34
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:55 AM
Re: AgLee
What are "we people" doing online at 3:00 AM? Same thing as you were at 4:40, apparently...
Comment: #35
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:57 AM
(AgLee -- the time is depending on where the server is logging the time, not necessarily the local time zone someone is posting in.)

LW1 - You'd be doing your sister a kindness, in the long run, to help her be more independent. She won't see it that way now, and her road could be bumpy. But it's really not your job to smooth out the speed bumps -- you need to save your resources to get you over your OWN life's challenges. She needs to do that, too. After all, someday, you might need to lean on HER -- and will she be able to offer help of any kind to those she loves?

LW2 - I think you're getting way ahead of yourself. I'd agree no one should pressure you into sex you don't want to have. Bute you're not really comfortable with your decision; if you were, you'd have the confidence to say, "deal with it, Joe." You're looking for validation that there's good reason not to deal with guys at all, and I'd think you might benefit from a few sessions of therapy. You've set yourself up in a nasty little circle that will prevent you from EVER getting married -- you don't trust yourself to say no before you're married, so you don't establish any kind of relationship with any guy, so you'll never get to know anyone well enough to know whether he'd make a good husband for you. Is that the end result you want?

You need to realize that dating isn't just about men auditioning you to see if they like you -- it's also about YOU auditioning them -- and a guy who's pressuring you (for sex, money, drugs, whatever) is someone you don't want or need, right? You have the freedom to break it off at any time. It can sting when you find you've misjudged someone -- but that's part of how we learn to read people to find someone whose values and outlook mesh well with our own.

While it's a really, really fine and admirable plan to postpone sex until marriage, sometimes people fall short of that goal -- we're human. Maybe your real goal should be to not having sex until you're truly ready.That MAY mean marriage, but then again, it may not. What's more important than the ring: You're with someone you've determined looks out for your own well-being as much or more than his own; you're ready and able to discuss with him responsible birth control and options if it failed; you're mature enough to have a conversation with him about testing for STDs, Because a wedding ring -- any wedding ring from any guy -- doesn't necessarily guarantee those critical things.

To get them, you obviously have to take time to establish a relationship with someone and observe carefully how he reacts to various situations and information before you choose to get physical with him OR before you choose to put yourself in a situation where getting physical is more than likely (drinking, for example, is likely to result in deciding you're ready before you really are).

I don't think this means wearing a button that says "No sex before marriage for me!" First it's none of their business. Second, as you note, it's rather demeaning to assume that every guy you meet wants to bed you. This is a decision that's more about YOU than it is them. Give yourself some credit, and cut yourself some slack -- and you'll be fine.
Comment: #36
Posted by: hedgehog
Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:12 AM
Re: Crissy - If you're an example of a christian I'm very glad I'm not a member of that club. What a hypocritical, mean spirited post not only to Sarah but to any of us who don't practice your "faith". Who are "we" who said "we" have to wait until marriage?
Comment: #37
Posted by: Rick
Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:42 AM
Thank goodness for Matt! Again Sarah, what gives you the right to determine what is good or bad for everyone else? It is not WRONG to ask a man to wait for sex. He has the ability to agree or to decide that he does not want to wait and move on to find someone else who shares your loose morals. Holding your body as something of value can only benefit a person's self esteem and it impels others to treat you with respect if they want to be with you. As Matt pointed out, sex is not purely biological there are emotional consequences to consider for many people as well. In addition, this can be a matter of not just religious value (although there is nothing wrong with anyone holding whatever religious beliefs they wish as long as their beliefs are not harmful), it is a matter of self-respect. Do I owe to some guy to use my body for his pleasure because he bought me a few dinners and a movie? If you think that is a fair trade, then I feel sorry for you.
Comment: #38
Posted by: sharnee
Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:45 AM
WOW!!! Crissy, you took the title for the MOST OFFENSIVE POST I'VE EVER SEEN HERE!
How DARE you think you are the judge of who is a Christian?!?
I consider myself Christian. I have been attending church in the same mainstream protestant denomination for half a century. Yet I don't buy that being Christians means waiting till marriage to have sex. That was in the Old testament. Jesus spent a HUGE chunk of his ministry preaching against Pharisees, people who obsessed over Biblical laws as an excuse to judge people. Jesus, and later Paul, continually stressed love & faith over following rules. Jesus said point blank that the only commandments you really need are to love God and love your neighbor.
Of course, if you are living in Christian faith and love, you are not likely to behave like a sex maniac; you are likely to treat sex as the sacred gift from God that I believe it is. But I don't believe that gift is ruined just because some people choose to share it with people to whom they are not married. Plus, sadly, some people manage all too easily to cheapen sex WITHIN marriage.
My father, who served over 40 years as a fully ordained Methodist (/United Methodist, after the 1967 merger) minister, summed all this up brilliantly. He said, there are 10 commandments, but the only commandment people want to talk about is the adultery one. For example: when someone talks about a woman's virtue, the only virtue they mean is that she is not promiscuous. Not whether she honors God and her parents and the Sabbath, or whether she steals or covets or bears false witness. When people talk about a woman's virtue, they are reducing her to a sex object.
Pharisees love to reduce everything to rules, so they can judge others, without having to use the minds and free will that God gave them to try to better themselves.
Crissy, you sound like a Pharisee - You hand out a snap judgment that someone else is not a Christian, based on an Old testament law that Jesus never endorsed, then you proceed to deride her in the most vulgar terms, which clearly goes against the 1 of the 2 commandments that Jesus said were the only commandments that mattered.
Is that your idea of Christian conduct? Really?
Comment: #39
Posted by: cassandr
Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:54 AM
LW1 - Please stop enabling your sister but rather help her get on her feet. Give her a time frame to move out and it shouldn't have anything to do with you having a baby....someday. It has to be about her taking care of herself. Give her a deadline and stick to it even if that means packing her bags and putting her in a cab.

LW2 - Lots and lots of good info here for you. I think the bottom line is to not get hung up on "waiting until marriage". There's really no magic in just doing that. However, standing by your values and waiting for the right person, whether in or out of marriage is key. It's the person you trust, love and feel good about, not the institution. Sex is good. It is fun and it can be a healthy part of adult life. Don't confuse it with some societal ideal of when, where and how it should take place. To thine own self be true. As someone suggested perhaps discussing this with a professional would be a good thing. As you enter into the world of relationships you will have to learn to say no and not just around sexual issues. You are not expected to like, love, sleep with and/or marry every guy who asks you out.
Comment: #40
Posted by: Rick
Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:58 AM
I didn't find Crissy's post offensive at all. I thought she expressed her thoughts well and they certainly weren't offensive to anyone else's comments.
Comment: #41
Posted by: Gerhardt
Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:58 AM
WOW!!! Crissy, you took the title for the MOST OFFENSIVE POST I'VE EVER SEEN HERE!
How DARE you think you are the judge of who is a Christian?!?
I consider myself Christian. I have been attending church in the same mainstream protestant denomination for half a century. Yet I don't buy that being Christians means waiting till marriage to have sex. That was in the Old testament. Jesus spent a HUGE chunk of his ministry preaching against Pharisees, people who obsessed over Biblical laws as an excuse to judge people. Jesus, and later Paul, continually stressed love & faith over following rules. Jesus said point blank that the only commandments you really need are to love God and love your neighbor.
Of course, if you are living in Christian faith and love, you are not likely to behave like a sex maniac; you are likely to treat sex as the sacred gift from God that I believe it is. But I don't believe that gift is ruined just because some people choose to share it with people to whom they are not married. Plus, sadly, some people manage all too easily to cheapen sex WITHIN marriage.
My father, who served over 40 years as a fully ordained Methodist (/United Methodist, after the 1967 merger) minister, summed all this up brilliantly. He said, there are 10 commandments, but the only commandment people want to talk about is the adultery one. For example: when someone talks about a woman's virtue, the only virtue they mean is that she is not promiscuous. Not whether she honors God and her parents and the Sabbath, or whether she steals or covets or bears false witness. When people talk about a woman's virtue, they are reducing her to a sex object.
Pharisees love to reduce everything to rules, so they can judge others, without having to use the minds and free will that God gave them to try to better themselves.
Crissy, you sound like a Pharisee - You hand out a snap judgment that someone else is not a Christian, based on an Old testament law that Jesus never endorsed, then you proceed to deride her in the most vulgar terms, which clearly goes against the 1 of the 2 commandments that Jesus said were the only commandments that mattered.
Is that your idea of Christian conduct? Really?
Comment: #42
Posted by: cassandr
Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:59 AM
Re: sharnee - Sarah has the same right to post an opinion here that you, Matt, me or anyone else does. You may want to re-read Sarah's post. I don't believe she's asking anyone to be a whore for chrissake.
Comment: #43
Posted by: Rick
Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:05 AM
I actually feel sorry for Sarah. She has evidently not had a sacred relationship with someone on this level and feels it is somehow out of reach to even expect such a bond between two people. It CAN be possible and occurs every day if both parties are seeking the same sort of relationship. I'm married for the second time and have kept my romantic life between my husbands and myself. It is much more special to achieve a higher level of intimacy between spouses and not just anyone you date( I have dated alot over the years). I have friends who slept around and their experiences are just about hooking up. There is a difference between just hooking up and waiting for someone special and if you want that in your life, then you make a decision and follow through with it. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but it really IS possible to wait till your committed to marriage, even if you divorce or are widowed and then are blessed to become committed again. I was engaged the first time for 2 1/2 years (young and in college) and the second time for 6 months(older/divorced/blending families) in addition, for our personal chioces, our young and impressionable daughters were also a major factor of waiting in my current marriage. Those are just my personal experiences to share. To each their own in this life - but it IS possible and anyone can make this decision even if they have previously 'hooked up' and it isnt working out and they are looking for something more meaningful. Aim high in your life's choices :)
Comment: #44
Posted by: Deena
Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:20 AM
Deena - I feel sorry for you if you feel the need to assume that someone whose opinion differs from your own can't possibly have had a deep, meaningful relationship. You have to understand that some of us do not consider sex to be sacred; rather, a biological function that is enjoyable if done safely. I'm not 100% part of that group (I'm somewhere in the middle), but I don't begrudge anyone else as long as they are using protection and enjoying themselves in their choices.

Sharnee - If you feel that sex is "his pleasure" only, I feel sorry for you. You say "holding your body as something value" as though having sex somehow reduces your body's value. I do not see any sense there, nor do I see how having sex somehow makes you less respectable in the future. That, I think, is part of what Sarah Morrow was addressing. If someone feels better not having sex before marriage (or before a certain time investment in a relationship), than all the power to them. But they should understand that not everyone feels that way.
Comment: #45
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:36 AM
Hey Matt - tell us again how you don't believe in premarital sex, but you and your girlfriend got "horny" one night and the next thing you knew she was "knocked up", but she didn't want to marry you because her family doesn't like you. Anybody else remember that post? I sure do.
Comment: #46
Posted by: Brock O. Lee
Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:52 AM
@ Rick - absolute Sarah has a right to post an opinion. Most days I actually agree with her opinions. BUT to state that what someone believes is WRONG is judgmental. No one's opinion is a one size fits all solution for everyone.
@ Deena and Zoe - Please re-read my post. I did not say that sex is solely for his pleasure. I think based on the discussion you and I had yesterday, you would understand that I obviously enjoy sex. My point is that I will not cheapen myself to have sex when I am not ready simply because some guy took me on a few dates. And yes, I do believe that having sex without emotional commitment devalues me. And yes, I do believe that many people who use sex as a tool tend to have unhealthy self images in general (of course not always). If I value my body and do not want to feel like an object I will not allow my body to be used like an object.
You and I will never agree on this matter and that is ok with me. You don't have to think like I do, I will not lose sleep over it. I respect your right feel however you feel as it pertains to you. But to impose values (or lack there of) is irksome to me.
Finally, as far as not everyone feeling the same way, the LW understands this as that was her reason for writing. She is not trying to force a man to accept her values. She is just frustrated and wonders if there are men out there who will. A very valid question and the answer is simply yes, you just may have to look for a while to find one.
Comment: #47
Posted by: sharnee
Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:55 AM
PS - @ Deena - I don't think you read my post at all... I never said that a person can not have a deep meaningful relationship because they had sex outside of marriage. I think you read between lines that weren't there..
Comment: #48
Posted by: sharnee
Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:03 AM
It's both funny and sad, how completely and utterly obsessed the world has become about sex. To the near destruction of all that is good.
Let me tell you a story that might give some of you an idea of just how UN-important sex really is, when you are truly in love; though I'm sure most of you have heard some version of it through the years, even if you have, apparently, forgotten:
I had a friend, years ago, who fell in love with a soldier via pen-pal. They had many shared interests and the same sense of humour, and for 2 1/2 years they wrote and planned their future together. NOT once, not ever, did they mention their sex life. It was a given, that of course they would eventually, but it was just so secondary to what was actually lasting and important in their (and indeed any) true and loving relationship.
You can probably guess what happened. He was wounded, lost one leg and the use of the other. As well as his ability to ever have sex.
When my friend found out, she mourned for his pain and for all he would now have to deal with regarding wheelchairs. But she knew she would always be there for him, and he would always be there for her.
The sight of them at their wedding, the memories of their parties, the unbelievable warmth of their love, is something we all aspired to.
Not one single decent human being would ever have thought "gee, but they can't have 'real' sex".
It's not about "for some people it's different".
Lust is from the genitals. Love is from the heart.
Lust passes with time and can be gone in an instant.
Love is eternal.
If this "radical" idea ever gets through the thick and greedy heads of the world, we may actually see fewer divorces.
Comment: #49
Posted by:
Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:45 AM
Re: Brock O. Lee
I didn't see that post, I haven't been reading this column on line for very long. Thanks for the perspective, heh heh heh heh heh heh heh, about Mister Big Self-Righteous! Reminds me of the Republicans who were all going for the jugular vein on Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky scandal - after some careful digging,it turned out that the most vociferous and vicious had a few smelly skeletons in their closets themselves... Celui qui le dit, celui qui l'est, as we say in Quebec.
Comment: #50
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:55 AM
Re: Matt
Oh gee, Mister Big Self-Righteous can dish it out, but he won't take it. Watch it, Buster, you'll be back posting on another column some time soon!

Just for the record, whoever read me not agree with me, but I don't indulge in personal attacks and name-calling, so whatever I write will be interesting to others, not only the one I'm directing the comment to.
Comment: #51
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Wed Oct 20, 2010 9:59 AM
sharnee - Sorry, I misunderstood what you were saying with the "his pleasure" thing. Regarding the rest, well, no one can change how you feel about your body and sex, so as long as you feel as you do for the right reasons (as in, not because someone shamed you into thinking sex was "dirty and cheap"), it's all right by me.

sharomari - Your story is very sweet but it is hardly representative of the real world. Our obsession with sex is nothing new and it is hardly the cause of the destruction of "nearly all that is good" (that, my dear, would be money and power). Sex is important to us because we're hard wired to feel that way. Without it, we can't pass on our genes, so we (men is particular) want to have sex, and lots of it, to pass on their genetic material. Anyway, you can try to ignore sex and pretend it isn't important, but it's never going to go away.

Regarding, "Not one single decent human being would ever have thought "gee, but they can't have 'real' sex"." - you're right, of course. What you aren't considering is when one partner withholds sex for reasons I consider unacceptable (for power, to get what they want, because they aren't particularly interested, as punishment). That is very different from one partner being incapable of traditional sex but indulging in other ways.
Comment: #52
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:12 AM
Ah well Zoe, your youth, and/or immaturity, that was exposed by the phrase "real world", prevents me from wasting anymore time here.
Every phrase after that sounded like something from my 13 year old, and therefore understandably sex-obsessed, niece, DESPERATELY trying to justify the need for instant gratification...Janet, IS that you? :)
Luckily, she has good examples to draw from, I hope you will some day too.
Good luck with your life hon, you're gonna need it.
Comment: #53
Posted by:
Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:29 AM
Religious opinions aside, my own opinion is one should never have sex with someone they don't trust completely. That said, yes, I didn't heed my own present opinion when I was younger; I didn't have the common sense to see what's sometimes a very clear danger when there is not complete trust. If you think about the positions, regardless of the sexual activity, you have basically placed your life in one another's hands; either could do serious harm to the other if that trust is misplaced. I'm not talking about STDs, although that's a possibility; I'm talking about placing oneself in a position to receive bodily harm. For a good and lasting sexual relationship, there must be a good and lasting underlying relationship of complete trust; and it takes time to build trust. No one should feel pressured to make a decision they are not ready to make. Have trust and faith in your own judgment and do what feels right to you; when you have developed the level of trust that allows you to feel secure in an intimate situation with someone, you will know it. Anyone that does not consider your feelings, wants and needs as important as his/her own is not worthy of your trust. Lasting love is built on total trust. Sadly, in this day and age, often your life also will depend on it.
Comment: #54
Posted by: graham072442
Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:38 AM
Wow Cassandr, that was the most offensive post you've ever seen? Maybe you need to get out more. As for my Faith, I am a Christian, & I didn't mean to come across as "judging"....well....maybe I did mean to offend, but not to judge. I'm not perfect & being a Christian doesn't mean I'm suppose to be either. I find it comical how people get so defensive over one statement about something that they disagree with. I'm guessing Sarah has been ""wronged" somewhere along the way but why encourage someone else to make the same mistake that she did. She was so stern in her post that it had to be a painful one just by how strongly she obviously felt in her post. I am not judging her, I was simply taking an educated guess. Just because a person claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they never do or have done anything wrong. Did I say I never did anything wrong? NO, I did not, now who's the judgmental hypocrite? Perhaps you are? I'm just sayin.... I have done many things wrong in my life. I'm a recovering alcoholic which should speak volumes as to how I lived my life when I was still drinking. If that's what you think, you're not judging me, you are simply forming an opinion based on what I've sad. I'm not judging her, I'm forming an opinion based on what she said & how strongly she obviously felt about it. Anyway, thank you to those who agreed with me & for those who didn't....go to hell! Lol!!! Just a joke!! See? Christians even have a sense of humor!! Have a great day everyone! (Unless you're not a Christian). Lol!! Again! Joking! I'm on a roll! Later....
Comment: #55
Posted by: Crissy
Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:39 AM
Ah, when someone starts to accuse you of being immature, proclaims they won't "waste any more time here" and then goes on about you acting like their immature thirteen-year-old niece based on a couple of words, you know you've won the debate.

P.S. - I also use the words "flabbergasted" and "scalawag" on a regular basis so maybe between that and the term "real world", it'll average out to somewhere around my actual age.
Comment: #56
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:43 AM
Matt can actually make some sense now and then but for me, it gets lost in his idiocy!! O YES, he said he isn't married and I remember that post. Also LOVE the way he posted a SECOND time just to say basically, (while probably covering his ears) I'm not listening, I'm not listening!!! So when I see his name, I usually just skip his post. This time I just read a few lines, and THEN looked at the name and thought "O, never mind!"

OF COURSE LW 2 needs to do whatever makes HER comfortable. There IS a lid for every pot, so to speak and knowing what makes you comfortable and what doesn't is a GREAT place to start when you are looking for a life partner.

And as for Sharomari, sorry, love isn't eternal. It waxes and wanes in the BEST of marriages. Love needs to be fed and nurtured and worked at AND sometimes it IS hard WORK! People don't 'fall in love' with their "soul mates" and live happily ever after. Sickness and money problems and in-law problems and sex, children, work...all of these can draw a couple apart. Life is ever changing. Talking, laughing and commitment to each other as well as wanting the BEST for your partner is a good recipe for a happy marriage.

Comment: #57
Posted by: Katie
Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:48 AM
Katie, your comment about love "waxing and waning" reminds me of something I heard in an awful movie a few years ago. It was something like: "there are two wolves inside of each of us, fighting. One represents love, the other, hate. The one that wins is the one you feed the most." Which is quite lame but struck a chord with me. I think it is very true, partly because hateful people tend to live hateful lives but also because you can't sit idly by and hope that everything good happens. You have to work at it.
Comment: #58
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:53 AM
Darn, did I miss Matt's peerless lectures on sex again?

I'd like to weigh in here and say that (for once!) I'm agreeing with Sarah Morrow and Zoe here. Look, the letter writer's predicament is just this: she would like to date men in order to find the right permanent partner and she rightly thinks that dating should and will take some time and some luck. Time and luck because finding the right life partner takes time and luck. Finding someone to go to a single movie with, or have a one night stand with, is quite easy. Its not wrong or right, its just easier than finding the perfect person just as its not wrong or right to have dinner in a different restaurant every night, but you might want to think long and hard before you settled on a single cuisine for the rest of your life.

The letter writer seems a bit confused, however, about what a "relationship" because she thinks that she was "in a relationship" with a guy because she knew him/dated him for a single month. She's upset because she did not realize that he was not in a relationship with her--he was just dating her to determine whether they were compatible. In his case he includes sex with compatibility just as another person might include "shared interests in sci fi" or "loves long walks on the beach." She doesn't. She thinks sex is something that comes *after* all the other things and only within the confines of a theoretically permanent religiously sanctioned relationship.

That's great--she should absolutely not feel pressured to have sex with someone on the first date or the fiftieth. Having sex to please the other person, or to hold on to them, if you don't want to is totally wrong and would be a kind of ugly sacrifice of self. If the guy is pressuring you to have sex when you've said no, or getting you drunk or bribing you or threatening to end the relationship in order to get you to have sex that's a kind of date rape, a kind of sexual extortion, which you should not only resist you should flee. But that's not what is happening here. The problem the letter writer is having is not that she is dating guys who want to have sex with her against her will, but that she can't find guys who place the same emphasis on abstinence until marriage that she does. In other words: she's fishing in the wrong pool.

No shame in that. Its just a technical problem. She needs to find guys who share her values about sex and are also attractive to her and interesting to her and who find her attractive and interesting enough that they are willing to wait until marriage to experience physical intimacy with her. Its neither right nor wrong--although she and some of the self proclaimed Christianists on the board think it is--its just another fetish, really. A virginity and purity fetish.

A fetish is, roughly speaking, a substition of one thing for another--the sacralizing of a thing as when we take an object and invest it with sacred, magical, or sexual power. A foot fetishist derives sexual pleasure from feet or shoes. A virginity or marriage fetishist places inordinate power and sacred significance on a woman's sexuality and virginity and uses marriage as a boundary marker: before marriage sex is impure/unnecessary/degrading (one of the posters called it "holding myself cheap") and after marriage according to yesterday's thread sex is something you must do, on a regular basis, like laundry, to keep your husband and your marriage running smoothly. Needless to say those two ideas about female sexuality and the sex act are somewhat incompatible.

But I never criticize another person's fetish! What two consenting adults choose to do with their religions or their bodies is not my business. Miss I Want To Be Surprised On My Wedding Night of 2010 deserves to find the right guy for her. Complaining that someone who seemed compatible (she was "in a relationship" with him, after all) turned out not to want the same things as she wants isn't a bug in the system of dating: its a feature. ITS WHAT DATING IS FOR. For some people having sex with a potential life partner is also what dating is for--its another pleasure you could share with someone who you enjoy being with. Its another aspect of loving their company. For others, its too scary or sacred or dirty. Whatever floats your boat.

aimai
Comment: #59
Posted by: aimai
Wed Oct 20, 2010 10:59 AM
Okay, I admit it! I came back!
I just couldn't stop giggling when I saw the words "won" and "debate", oh Zoe, really? Where do you think you are hon?
This is a "comment" board. People here are commenting. You went after me, and others, no doubt out of some need to feel a false sense of superiority. I have this irresistible image of you dancing around your cubicle singing "I won I won I won!" :)
As for your age, what I actually said what youth and or maturity...I have known people in their 20's who are wiser than an 80 yr old. The words "won" and "debate", especially in this format, are not conducive to your argument of maturity.
If you don't want to be called out, then stop bullying in the first place. Not all of us will cower before you.
And Katie, while the depth of love may ebb and flow, true love never disappears entirely.
That's what I meant by it being eternal.
And that's from someone who's been married for almost 4 decades.
Comment: #60
Posted by:
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:05 AM
Aimai, I agree with you about 99% of the time (today included, of course). You just don't know it because I keep my yap closed unless I have something argumentative to add.

Great post!
Comment: #61
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:07 AM
@ Sharnee: I did not comment on anything you posted and not sure why you think I did??? My post was directed at Sarah's respone and offered a differing oppinion. Re-read if you need clarification.
@ Zoe: Like I said, we are all entitled to our oppinions :) including you and Sarah. I will say "perhaps" you missed my point??? Re-read it is all I can say and have a wonderful day and try to to get so upset when people offer differing views because it sounded like the LW is looking for something more then a 'mere hook-up' and Sarah has maybe not experienced it and believes it cannot exist - but it does exist and it's WONDERFUL!!! To anyone hopeful for that kind of an experience, listening to the nay-sayers can be discouraging.
Comment: #62
Posted by: Deena
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:12 AM
You know, I would agree with Sarah Morrow that it's not a good idea to be abstinent based on fear -- fear of pregnancy, fear of disease, fear for loss of reputation -- all those traditional fears that are pounded into kids' heads. It's true that those are some of the very real, unsavory consequences of people engaged in sex with the wrong people, at the wrong time. But when people keep stressing those, it ends up equating sex with evil -- and that's not right, either, particularly for people who believe that (responsible) sex is one of God's great gifts.
Marriage was created, and has endured, partially to protect individuals (and children and society) from the consequences of irresponsible sex. But can people engage in responsible sex outside marriage? A fair number of people believe this is possible -- and take pains not to procreate before they can raise children or spread disease. The most responsible ones also take pains to choose their partners well, and to take care of their partners' emotional needs as well as their physical ones.
Now, are the majority of men and women mature people with a responsible approach to sex? Doubtful (just like the majority probably aren't mature and responsible about finances, nutrition, exercise, keeping informed about current events, etc.) Many WILL expect to "score" by Date 3, or 6, or 25. Doesn't mean you have to surrender -- but you might need to have a real conversation about it, like a responsible, mature person would. You might change their mind; you might not. You get to decide whether the person is worth changing for, just like that guy gets to decide whether he agrees with your reasoning and that a relationship with you is worth pursuing even if it means no sex until the wedding night.
But if he's not on board, and holds off only grudgingly until marriage, you're STILL not into that mature, responsible relationship --where ideally, you've got each other's back -- even if you have the ring on your finger to sanctify what happens in the bedroom. In my mind, there are a lot of husbands and wives who DON'T have each other's best interest at heart, so despite the license and the legal advantages they enjoy, they're no advertisement for responsible sex
Comment: #63
Posted by: hedgehog
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:16 AM
Gosh, I miss the 70s.
Comment: #64
Posted by: Joannakathryn
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:16 AM
sharomari - boy, I've got you well engaged. I find it comical that you consider what you are doing to be "commenting" but when I am doing to be "going after" and "bullying". You needn't take offense to what I'm saying if I don't agree with you. If you feel that I have wronged or bullied you in some way with my comments, by all means, quote 'em. Pretty sure that all I said was that sex isn't nearly as destructive as you say, that our brains are wired to desire it, that its presence will always be felt as long as humans are around, and that there's a difference between being incapable of penetrative sex, and refusing to engage to gain power in the relationship. Sorry that offends you. You need thicker skin. Oh, but wait, I said "real world" as opposed to... what, "real life"? "Actual events"? "Reality"?

I'm not arguing my maturity; if you want to see the words "real world" and assume I'm (mentally) a thirteen year old, that's cool with me. I still won though, as you can't stay away, preferring to hover around me going on about how immature I am. I know you are, but what am I? :P
Comment: #65
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:17 AM
Deena, you said "She [sarah] has evidently not had a sacred relationship with someone on this level". Which I think is a pretty lousy assumption to make based on her comments (I don't agree with everything she wrote, but I wouldn't assume that she has or hasn't had a meaningful relationship based on it).

In response, I said "you feel the need to assume that someone whose opinion differs from your own [on this matter] can't possibly have had a deep, meaningful relationship." Was that incorrect based on your quote above?

Later, you said: "LW is looking for something more then a 'mere hook-up' and Sarah has MAYBE not experienced it" (emphasis added) so I gather you are softening up on that.

In my first response to you, I elaborated that others' opinions may differ from your own because they do not consider sex to be "sacred" in the same way that others do, but that I don't begrudge anyone as long as they are safe and responsible.

I don't think I missed your point and I fail to see how you could perceive any sort of upset in my words.



Dang, I am getting no work done today.
Comment: #66
Posted by: Zoe
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:24 AM
@Deena - sorry, I was having a moment of Flight... I read the first line of Zoe's message (which was directed at you) and misconstrued it as you directing a comment toward me. One of the side-effects of attempting to "multi-task" several things at once.


@ Aimai - unlike Zoe I quite frequently disagree with your opinions. However, today I agree with almost every word you wrote - though you lost my following on the fetish part. Sorry, I can't buy in to that reasoning. I think many people who actually abstain from sex for religious reasons would find your opinion to be offensive. I am religious but I find your logic in this regard to be amusing, not offensive.


@Zoe - I like a good debate as much as anyone. I have been reading this board for years but only post on ocassion because usually at least one of the regular posters has expressed my sentiments (including Matt - I think Katie's post was dead-on) better than I could. I don't see your comments or reasoning as immature. Sometimes too judgemental, but never without merit.
Comment: #67
Posted by: sharnee
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:32 AM
To LW2 Lonely
Stick to your conviction to remain a virgin and wait for the right man. Too many young ladies are being sold a bunch of whooey these days and I feel we have let many of our young women down by pushing sex so early. As an older person, I have witnessed that even though young men expect sex these days, behind young ladies back they still refer to them as whores or sluts once sex is so freely provided. So nothing has really changed except men have to do less and treat women more shabbily than they did in previous generations. I had a friend who waited until in her 30's and finally met the right man that was of her same faith. They married, have a beautiful child and are very happy together. It does happen and it is worth waiting. Be up front with men that you are waiting to have sex after marriage. The right man will respect you and make you a wonderful husband. Also, having sex with multiple people increases the risk of getting an STD that may not be curable. Also, don't fall for the lie that oral sex isn't sex. It is and men don't think of you any better if you do it or you don't. Get into fun activities and don't worry about sex so much.
Comment: #68
Posted by: Mandy
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:41 AM
Re: sharnee

Sharnee,
Who cares what self desribed religious people think about the scientific language we use to describe what they say and do? There are thousands of religions practiced in this world: to an anthropologist they are all more similar than they are different but to a believing practioner of the monotheistic ones this basic fact is lost. So what? Telling me that virginity isn't fetishized in (many) religions and specifically in modern American fundamentalist Christinianity is like telling me that I can't use the phrase "maternal nurturing" to describe the way women breast feed/formula feed/and make family dinners because when you do it for your family its out of pure love and completely different from the reasons and meanings some other woman ascribes to it when she does it.

A thing can be both a fetish *and* a deeply held moral belief. The origins, or supposed origins, of the belief don't change is structure and the way it fits in with other behaviors and beliefs except when the belief or desire is majoritarian people tend to feel more comfortable proclaiming it, when it derives from private or idiosyncratic beliefs people tend to be a bit ashamed and secretive about it.

aimai
Comment: #69
Posted by: aimai
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:50 AM
HAHAHA - No Zoe, I'm not "softening" because I never intended my comments to come off harsh at all to begin with. Sometimes in "the posting world" you loose something that ordinary conversation offers and it can come off as not intended but I cant change that only try to work with it. The bottom line is that I was trying to show the young 21 year old virgin or anyone else reading/looking for something "more" is that there is HOPE to gain what they are looking for and that I 'get it' what she's looking for. Some people are not looking for that at all and are fine with their lifestyle chioces but this young lady is not one of them and she needs to know it's out there and worth waiting for. I do feel sorry for anyone who may not understand or "get it" just like the same "feel sorry for" if you arrived late at my home and missed out on my 7 layer chocolate ganosh cake I rarely bake (geesh it's exhausting trying to give an anolagy on this) and not in a nasty "feel sorry" manor. That's not how I intended it to come off. People that are not looking for this may not understand because maybe it is not a value to them as in Sarah's response. All I'm saying is it exists and if she wishes to wait then it can be worhwhile and no one should try to discourage it. She sounds like she REALLY needed to hear that. PS - I too am getting nothing done today :) evidently this is a hot topic!!! Wish we could all get together and drink some good wine and have face to face conversations in this day and age of "computer posting talk" cuz it woud be FUN and interesting and it seems on one really has the time for that anymore which is a totally different topic alltogether :)
Comment: #70
Posted by: Deena
Wed Oct 20, 2010 11:50 AM
Aimai - my disagreement with your use of the word fetish comes from neither a lack of understanding the definition of the term or an inability to grasp your point, I simply disagree. A fetish (the connotation of the word not just the sterile definition) is most frequently used as a negatively. Additionally, most people I know who share my religious view do not TRULY have a distorted view of the sanctity of the body. No one I know literally believes the body is a temple or an alter of worship. The expression of the body being a temple is figurative with the intention that the body is to be respected. Simple. I think that my amusement really comes from the fact that for all of your soliloquies, your depth of understanding the emotional aspects (outside of the extremes) is pretty shallow.
Comment: #71
Posted by: sharnee
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:04 PM
Re: Matt
Hi Matt, my point was that committing to a marriage... a LIFETIME with another person, if one agrees with the traditional sense of marriage... would be absolutely foolish if you had no sexual experience with that person. You are choosing a man or woman as your SEXUAL PARTNER for the rest of your life. The idea of making that choice without ever checking to see if you are even sexually compatible with him or her is patently absurd. Who on earth, who is sane and rational, would do something like that?
Comment: #72
Posted by: sarah morrow
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:18 PM
Sarah - I am one of Jehovah's Witnesses. There are 4 million of us world-wide. For the most part we are sane, rational people with very conservative moral beliefs based on the bible. We do not believe in sex without the benefit of marriage. We also believe that divorce is a limited option and that marriages should be a life-time commitment. Of the people I grew up with in my city alone, there are hundreds of happily married people that I know personally who did not experience sex before making their vows. Sexual compatability is the ability to meet the expectations of your partner. This is done through strong communication about your wants and needs and the commitment of both partners to care about each other's needs. Not sure why you think they have to have sex first in order to accomplish this.
Comment: #73
Posted by: sharnee
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:25 PM
LW1 - You are not responsible for where your sister ends up, especially if she's being a freeloader (lots of letters about those recently, btw, eh?). You are right, nine months is plenty of time for your sister to make her own plans to move and your being able to plan children with your husband so that you actually have a place for the crib to go is the greater priority.

My neighbors had a friend of the wife's move in with them a while back when the friend was down on her luck. Even after getting work again she refused to leave.

My neighbors finally told her they wanted the room she was renting out for their grandkids when they came to visit for the summer, which was true... they may have even told her they decided they needed to start charging her rent. That and a couple other conversations finally got the freeloading friend out, and apparently she stopped talking to them, but good grief with friends like that who needs enemies?

LW2 - There are only four people whose business I consider mine when it comes to what kind of sex they're having: Mine, my husband's and my children. It's my business when it comes to my husband because if I God forbid caught him having an affair, obviously there's a major problem that led to such a thing happening. It's my business when it comes to my kids because they're developmentally disabled and one is still a minor, therefore whether they'd be capable of consenting and whether they're being protected properly from anyone who might try to take advantage of them would be a major concern.

That said, I can't understand why so many of you consider it your business to criticize those who want to remain virgins until they marry. You point fingers at us Christians any time you think we're judgmental, prudish, repressed, etc., according to your standards, yet if we disagree with you or say that you're off the mark in your assumptions about something, suddenly we're bad guys and the "judgmental card" gets pulled?

Sorry but the street of respect goes both ways. I don't buy anything any of you who are putting yourselves on your high horses about waiting until marriage being wrong or bad for any reason are saying, especially while you're verbally ripping into each other's flesh about it - and that of LW2's for that matter.

I was not a virgin when my first husband and I married - we lost "it" to each other. Whether or not we were "compatible" didn't mean a dang thing as the union was a toxic disaster and fell apart after only a few years.

Meanwhile my current husband and I waited until our wedding night before even seeing each other in the buff and we've had fireworks ever since. Goes to show you, it's what's in your head and not between your legs that determines compatibility.

I might have my morals and they're rather conservative, but I still think what goes on in someone else's boudoir is not my concern. If anything, should I speculate or judge, it probably means I need to get my mind out of the gutter and go find something else to abide my time.

So just knock it off, y'all, and go back to worrying about keeping your own noses clean. I've refrained from participating here the past several days because everyone has gotten so vicious and backbiting against each other and it's disappointing to see people who used to have healthy discussions turn so nasty. You're going to each have your own opinions until you die and you're never going to convert the other person, so let it be.

Life is negative enough, times are scary enough, I'll admit even I'm guilty enough of getting sucked into those things and I'll take responsibility for my end of that, because that's the only thing I can control. God willing I will continue to do so and if that means I need to stay away from here a little more often, well then okay.

LW2, CricketBug, and anyone else who's waiting or did wait until you said "I do" to have your fun for whatever reason you chose as such: You're doing just fine in my book. Don't let anyone else tell you otherwise. Like Deena said, nobody should discourage you guys from believing this is worth waiting for - as I found out my second time around, it is.

The rest of you, hope your days and weeks to come are more pleasant than this comments forum has been lately. Blessings.
Comment: #74
Posted by: PS
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:28 PM
It would be fun if Marcy and Kathy would occasionally post their thoughts about comments made here.
Comment: #75
Posted by: Gerhardt
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:30 PM
I think there's a middle path that's probably more accurate and reasonable. Plenty of marriages for people who abstained still end, and some end badly. Not having any sexual experience at all before getting married can create problems, but it's different for everyone, and people should work it out for themselves without passing judgement on people who take a different path.
However, what concerns me most about the LW is that she says that it's societal pressure, that it's expected, it's an obligation. She seems to have no understanding at all that sex is pleasurable for women too! And that PLENTY of women WANT to have sex, and find it can be fun, healthy, and fulfilling.
Whether or not she abstains, it's her current attitude towards sex that I think is unhealthy for her and her future partner(s). Very few men are going to want to stay in a relationship with a woman who sees sex as nothing more than "a societal obligation".
Comment: #76
Posted by: Mike H
Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:49 PM
Re: Lise Brouillette

I like You-You seem pretty open minded and Non-Judgemental. Just for the record I think if someone wants to have sex before marriage its there Choice. My only thing with Sarah M's post was she seemed to think its not possible to have a healthy relationship without sex. If I'm Wrong Sarah M I appologize. For me, I wanted to wait until Marriage, unfortunately things didn't work out that way. But as I said My Husband was willing to wait and be understanding.

I do think this is a touchy Subject because there are people who will Zealously cling to their beliefs. Part of my Religion (I wont say what it is since I don't want to be bashed in any way) is that we do not Judge others because we're not perfect either. Its not my Place to get after anyone for their preferences. But if LW-2 wants to wait untl she's married I think its awesome.
Comment: #77
Posted by: Yoshi Mama
Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:14 PM
Wow, Sarah Morrow, a bit judgemental much? You seem to think very poorly about people who save themselves for marriage. There is nothing wrong with what LW2 is doing. Her virginity is very important for her, so she should keep it for herself until she is ready to give it to a man of her choice. I like the other suggestions in previous comments about her looking in church youth groups and such, although that does not guarantee success. She will find her one when it is time for her too, no sooner or later. It would be far more damaging for her to give in to pressure and perform because then she will always regret it because it was the boy's pressuring that made her choose, not her own heart.
I also wanted to save myself for marriage, but sadly, it did not happen. I guess I was never technically a virgin since I was molested twice over as a child, but I have never counted those strikes against my virginity (and I don't think I should have to). I was dumped six different times throughout high school by guys in relationships (and these were long term relationships which lasted longer than a single month) because I did not "put out". That was their excuse for cheating on me and then dumping me. They just could not wait on the sex. I did not expect to marry these boys cause I was in high school, but I made it clear before we started dating that I did not want to have sex before marriage. The seventh relationship had the most damage because we had been together for over a year and we were engaged. The guy had agreed to wait with me until our wedding night, but then I found out someone else had been giving him the "attention" he wanted (and so have multiple women, from the very beginning of our relationship), so I broke it off with him. The guy I was engaged with I met in church by the way, so again, the church scene does not guarantee success in finding a guy with your values. They are humans too who can fail in commitments. The next relationship I entered I ended up having sex with the guy after less than a month. I was just so scared he would cheat on me and leave me like all the other guys if I did not put out what he needed. The pig dumped me in the middle of having sex with me (my first time). I felt so dirty and used. The guy just had a virgin fetish and only wanted me so he could add to the number of virgins he banged. To add insult to injury, two weeks later I met and entered into the relationship with the man who is now my husband. So to LW2, don't have sex with someone just so they will not leave you, because there is a guy out there who will wait for you and marry you because he loves you, not just your body. I did have sex with my husband before marriage, but he waited until I was ready. And during that long time period (I forget how many months...) which I said no to him, that I was not ready, he did not cheat on me or dump me. He waited. Any guy who is not willing to wait until you are ready (whether before marriage or after) is not worth your time.
And to Sarah Morrow, I was not wanting to wait until marriage because of some notion of right or wrong, or because of some good girl/ bad girl thing, or even because of a religious value. I wanted to save myself for marriage because I did not want a guy touching my body who did not plan on being with me forever. I don't consider a girl bad for having sex before marriage, even if it is with lots of men. To me, a bad girl is someone who cheats on others. I realize my reason for wanting to wait until marriage is probably because I was molested, and it probably was not the healthiest view point, but it would have been even less healthy for me to have sex freely before marriage within the relationships I had. I cannot think of anything that would have damaged me worse than that. In fact, it would have destroyed me inside being dumped by guys multiple times after having had sex with them. What is sexually good for you is not sexually good for everyone, because everyone has their own life experiences. To each his own.

LW2, stay strong. You will find the right one.
Comment: #78
Posted by: Maria
Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:06 PM
Oh yeah, what's the deal with all the funeral letters the Annie's keep posting? I hope this won't be like the clicking noise in the throat and cabinet doors being open bit. "Dear Annie, my throat starts clicking everytime someone mentions the word funeral. Should I feel ok about that?"
Comment: #79
Posted by: Maria
Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:20 PM
Re: sharnee

I didn't accuse you of "not understanding" and I don't get the bizarre counter accusation that I "don't get the emotional issues." What emotional issues? I think the young woman is entitled to her own preferred relationship with her sexuality and with marriage and she should pursue that until she finds the right guy and has the marriage she wants. I am myself happilly and faithfully married to a guy I had a long term relationship with before we married and I come from a long line of happilly married people--my parents and my grandparents (both sides) were ecstatically married for more than half a century. No religious imperative required and none offered.

Fetishization exists with or without the explicit knowledge or acknowledgment of the participants, by the way. Your posts rather prove my point than disprove it.

Look: there are tons of reasons--historical, cultural, religious for some people to obsess about the sexual status of young women. Some are even utilitarian--that is, one might believe that its better for a young woman to know nothing of sex before she is married. I believe Christine O'Donell, who is running for the Senate in Delaware, explicitly makes that argument in re masturbation for men. That is, she argues explicitly that if a male person, such as her boyfriend, knows how to please himself that he "doesn't need her." And I've certainly heard that argument from various Christianist women about their own sexuality: if they knew what great sex was they wouldn't be satisfied with what their husband's were offering and would potentially be dissatisfied. Too much knowledge of sex is seen as dangerous because it leads to comparisons that might be harmful to the lawful married husband. That doesn't strike me as a persuasive argument since both versions presuppose that there is nothing else that a person has to offer other than sex. I think you'd agree with me that a full, loving relationship such as I have with my husband and I presume you have with yours includes a whole lot more than sex. I wouldn't be involved with someone just for sex and I don't think that what I have to offer inside our outside of marriage can be replicated by another woman. I'm unique and what I have to offer is unique--as is my husband and what he has to offer.

What are we arguing about here? I acknowledge that many religions privilige ancient notions of purity and pollution, especially when it comes to female sexuality, over more modern notions of autonomy and personal responsibility and freedom, so what? I mean, what follows from that? As for myself I don't consider that my sexual life before marriage has any bearing on my afterlife, or my marriage. In my case and, I daresay Sarah Morrow's and many another adult today it was simply another aspect to determining which person I should marry. Not definitive, but not unimportant either. The truth is even the community you belong to, Jehovah's Witnesses, don't really think that sexuality is an all or nothing event in a woman's life. If you did you would forbid widow remarriage since a widow, by definition, has had sex with someone not her husband. You might argue that she's a better person for having had sex only within the confines of two or more religious marriages--that's the utilitarian version again--but you really can't argue that the sex act itself, or the sexual relation with another person, is dispositive in affecting her second marriage.

Anyways, as I said above, "whatever floats your boat" or, as they also say its "horses for courses." That is, its nobody's business but the letter writers and her future spouse. If she wants to be in a relationship in which she doesn't know her husband's sexual preferences and desires and doesn't want him to know hers more power to her if she can make it work. The evidence from studies of divorce, however, doesn't indicate that highly religious marriages built around shame and anxiety about sexuality are any more likely to succeed than generic modern marriages for consenting adults with mature views about sexuality. The stats are in and the most religious states, that have the earliest age of marriage also have the highest divorce rate. States like my own, MA, not only have a higher age at first marriage and more educated married partners and gay marriage but also low divorce rates. If divorce is a sign of a troubled marriage (that's a utilitarian metric, by the way) then its not the marriage before sex crowd that is doing the right thing.

aimai

Comment: #80
Posted by: aimai
Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:53 PM
Re: sharnee

I didn't accuse you of "not understanding" and I don't get the bizarre counter accusation that I "don't get the emotional issues." What emotional issues? I think the young woman is entitled to her own preferred relationship with her sexuality and with marriage and she should pursue that until she finds the right guy and has the marriage she wants. I am myself happilly and faithfully married to a guy I had a long term relationship with before we married and I come from a long line of happilly married people--my parents and my grandparents (both sides) were ecstatically married for more than half a century. No religious imperative required and none offered.

Fetishization exists with or without the explicit knowledge or acknowledgment of the participants, by the way. Your posts rather prove my point than disprove it.

Look: there are tons of reasons--historical, cultural, religious for some people to obsess about the sexual status of young women. Some are even utilitarian--that is, one might believe that its better for a young woman to know nothing of sex before she is married. I believe Christine O'Donell, who is running for the Senate in Delaware, explicitly makes that argument in re masturbation for men. That is, she argues explicitly that if a male person, such as her boyfriend, knows how to please himself that he "doesn't need her." And I've certainly heard that argument from various Christianist women about their own sexuality: if they knew what great sex was they wouldn't be satisfied with what their husband's were offering and would potentially be dissatisfied. Too much knowledge of sex is seen as dangerous because it leads to comparisons that might be harmful to the lawful married husband. That doesn't strike me as a persuasive argument since both versions presuppose that there is nothing else that a person has to offer other than sex. I think you'd agree with me that a full, loving relationship such as I have with my husband and I presume you have with yours includes a whole lot more than sex. I wouldn't be involved with someone just for sex and I don't think that what I have to offer inside our outside of marriage can be replicated by another woman. I'm unique and what I have to offer is unique--as is my husband and what he has to offer.

What are we arguing about here? I acknowledge that many religions privilige ancient notions of purity and pollution, especially when it comes to female sexuality, over more modern notions of autonomy and personal responsibility and freedom, so what? I mean, what follows from that? As for myself I don't consider that my sexual life before marriage has any bearing on my afterlife, or my marriage. In my case and, I daresay Sarah Morrow's and many another adult today it was simply another aspect to determining which person I should marry. Not definitive, but not unimportant either. The truth is even the community you belong to, Jehovah's Witnesses, don't really think that sexuality is an all or nothing event in a woman's life. If you did you would forbid widow remarriage since a widow, by definition, has had sex with someone not her husband. You might argue that she's a better person for having had sex only within the confines of two or more religious marriages--that's the utilitarian version again--but you really can't argue that the sex act itself, or the sexual relation with another person, is dispositive in affecting her second marriage.

Anyways, as I said above, "whatever floats your boat" or, as they also say its "horses for courses." That is, its nobody's business but the letter writers and her future spouse. If she wants to be in a relationship in which she doesn't know her husband's sexual preferences and desires and doesn't want him to know hers more power to her if she can make it work. The evidence from studies of divorce, however, doesn't indicate that highly religious marriages built around shame and anxiety about sexuality are any more likely to succeed than generic modern marriages for consenting adults with mature views about sexuality. The stats are in and the most religious states, that have the earliest age of marriage also have the highest divorce rate. States like my own, MA, not only have a higher age at first marriage and more educated married partners and gay marriage but also low divorce rates. If divorce is a sign of a troubled marriage (that's a utilitarian metric, by the way) then its not the marriage before sex crowd that is doing the right thing.

aimai

Comment: #81
Posted by: aimai
Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:55 PM
I had a happy 40+year marriage with the only man I ever made love with--and we both wanted to wait; in fact, I chose him over a man who I had thought I loved who started making sarcastic cracks about virginity. I had decided that any reason why I wasn't married to someone was adequate reason to not be in bed with him. I can't imagine anything more tense and depressing than to be "on trial" in the most intimate relationship possible. You can tell if the chemistry is there without even touching someone; you can certainly tell by your reaction to physical affection. Being single again (widowed), I can't imagine getting the most out of a sexual relationship without the total committment of marriage. And statistically, the divorce overall is higher among couples who didn't wait. Add to that the number of couples who live together and break up, the odds favor getting married first.
Comment: #82
Posted by: partsmom
Wed Oct 20, 2010 5:51 PM
partsmom,
Can you link to any study that shows that the divorce rate is "higher among couples who didn't wait?" Also, do you think that couples who "didn't wait" is the same as couples who never had sex prior to marriage? For example a person could have had multiple sexual partner and still not had sex with their eventual husband/wife before *that* marriage. Also, what are these studies based on, self reporting? As long as they've been doing studies of sexuality an incredibly high proportion of American women have always had sex before marriage--those numbers go back to the forties--but the divorce rate only started creeping up in the sixties and later. The idea that people weren't have sex before (and outside) of marriage until recently (the kids these days argument) is simply absurd. People have always had sex outside of marriage--the durability of marriages was affected by the changing financial status of women and the changing divorce laws not by female sexuality prior to marriage. Your secondary argument is that people who have sex outside of marriage (while they are dating, or living together) don't always get married (they "break up" before marriage). CAn you tell me what relevance that has to your argument that marriage is the only right/best place to have a sexual relationship? The "odds" don't "favor getting married first. That's a factual statement that can't be derived from your personal anecdote. People who don't have sex with their dating partners break up too, you know. Having sex and then breaking up with someone isn't like some kind of super break up. Its just a different level of testing the relationship. Perhaps the couple preferred to be in a relationship for one period of their lives and out of it for another. That's not a failure of a marital relationship, its a different kind of relationship. Margaret Mead observed that Americans were already practicing "serial monogamy" 40 years ago--that is: people were happilly having temporary marriages. What's right for one part of your life might not be right for another. What's right for one person isn't right for everyone.

As for what you can imagine--well, so what? I agree with you, having experienced it both ways, that committing to get married makes the sexual relationship more intense and I personally prefer to be married to my sexual partner. But that isn't the same as believing that what is right for me is right for everyone.

aimai
Comment: #83
Posted by: aimai
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:08 PM
How do I get my 2 year old grandson to stop biteing ?

when ever he does not get his way he rite away he bites or pinches .

can you please help me with some of your advice on this matter.


thank you

senserily nona

Comment: #84
Posted by: lois
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:27 PM
In order to have a healthy sexual relationship and healthy view on sexuality in marriage, one has to develop those things before marriage. A girl who is too afraid to date because of sex is not going to do well in a marriage.

On top of it, think of the sheer physical aspect of it. If a woman cares for her husband, she's not going to wait for her wedding night to lose her virginity, and if a man cares for his wife, he's not going to want to be the one to take her virginity. Lots of blood, lots of pain that lingers for days, very little pleasantness. Utterly horrible experience in the best of circumstances. To "save oneself for marriage" is only going to start the bedroom part of the the marriage on a really bad footing.
Comment: #85
Posted by: Krystyne
Wed Oct 20, 2010 6:30 PM
Krystyne, you are dead wrong about that. Plus, a person can date someone without having sex, so it's not like a fear of sex is keeping a person from dating. I had only been with one man ONE TIME before my marriage to my husband. I highly doubt that anyone can say having sex one time before marriage is enough to develop any sexual skills, plus the guy was very small so he didn't even break my hymen. My husband broke it. Yes it hurt, but it has in no way negatively impacted our relationship. It would be foolish to think something so small would have a huge impact on a relationship, and if it does, then the relationship was weak to begin with. What's my point? My husband and I have been together for seven years, and even though I didn't develop my sexuality before marriage, I DID develop my sexuality WITH MY HUSBAND during these past seven years. There is nothing unhealthy about my view on sexuality in marriage, and we keep lots of excitement in our bedroom by trying new things together. I trust my husband, so I am never afraid to try new things in the bedroom, things I would not be comfortable doing with just any man. My sexuality did not stop developing just because I got married. We, my husband and I.... We have grown sexually together into something committed, loving, and healthy... despite my only having had sex once before him and my past childhood experiences.
It is not how much sex you have before marriage that determines whether or not your marriage works, it is YOU! And who cares about the statistics of failed marriages of those who had sex before or after marriage, because you do not know what occured WITHIN those marriages, and I highly doubt it was waiting or not that determined the fate of their marriage, it was THEM as individual persons. There are lots of factors that play a part in divorce, so how about dropping the 'our opinion of sex leads to a better marriage' card.
Comment: #86
Posted by: Maria
Wed Oct 20, 2010 8:43 PM
To Nona, it's already 10/21 in my time zone, yet if you are still checking for answers to your question, I'll share a story where I had a problem like that you described with your grandson. When I was about 4 years old, I had a cobbler's bench toy, with a wooden hammer, and colored pegs that could be "pounded" down. Then the bench could be turned over and the pegs were ready to be pounded again. My mother's friend used to bring her son "Tommy" over to play, and for some reason, whenever I saw Tommy, I would hit him (hard) in the head with my wooden hammer. My mother tries several ways to get me to stop doing that to him: she scolded me, took the toy away and gave me several spankings. Nothing seemed to work. One day, as soon as Tommy showed up, I pulled out the hammer and clonked him hard, as usual. My mother then took the hammer from me and used it to knock ME in the head, quite hard. Of course, I cried, but suddenly I realized how it felt to be struck with a wooden hammer, and I never hit Tommy, nor anyone, with that toy again. I'm not saying that as his grandma, you should bite your grandson, but maybe pinching him hard enough to make him cry (once) will teach him to stop hurting other people. I assume you've tried time-outs already and if that hasn't worked, sometimes it takes giving a child "a dose of their own medicine" to teach them a lesson about being kind and respecting other people, especially adults. And a child who is allowed to bite and pinch will do so once they reach school age, and it's better to "nip this in the bud" long before school age is reached.
Comment: #87
Posted by: Jean
Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:57 AM
Re: Yoshi Mama
Thank you... I TRY to be open-minded, as in looking at all angles of an issue, and non-judgmental, in the sense that what works for one doesn't necessarily work for another - people are not one-zised panty-hose. I can get develop strong opinions about an issue I care about, but when I find new facts, I'm perfectly capable of changing my mind.

I know that it is possible to have fulfilling sex after marrying a virgin because the man I care about did it - he comes from a different culture and both his ex-wife and him were virgins when they married. The marriage ended, but he tells me sex was very gratifying for both of them.

The point from one of the posters that "he wouldn't buy a pair of shoes without trying them on" is a very valid argument - not to mention that, once you're become sexually active, sex becomes very difficult to give up. It becomes a normal, integral part of the relationship and you both want and need it - not only physically but also emotionally, because it is one of the ways to express love, and one of the ways to build intimacy.

However, one of the things I learned from experience is that whatever you know about anyone is not complete until you live with them. Even people who lived together for many years before marrying have been known to change once there was a paper signed - people can be weird about all sorts of things. Whether you keep yourself for the Big Day or insist on trying on the shoes before you buy them does not guarantee that you know all you need to know about the other, nor that neither of you will change over the years and grow apart. Failure in marriage can be caused by many thing and sex is only one of them.

Unfortunately, sex in one of the subjects that is often so full of unresolved issues that a lot of people are incapable of being rational about it. It is NOT okay to feel pressured either way. The presence of sex in every day media these days is appalling and I cringe when I see the kind of clothing on store racks for ten year old girls these days. Especially considering since the attitudes have not changed at all - a womanizing


Comment: #88
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Oct 21, 2010 8:48 AM
Aimai - As stated earlier I agree with your perspective on this issue up to your use of the word fetish. No one was discussing the santity of virginity in waiting until marriage. I can't speak for other religions but as you pointed out, in my religion if that were an issue we would not allow people who had sex to become Jehovah's Witnesses later in life and allow widows and even divorcees to remarry. Of course that is not the case - exactly because virginity is not a fetish or a sexual compulsion - but rather a vow we make to respect ourselves and the institution of marriage. Trust me, your reasoning in many cases is as bizarre to me as mine is to you. To each his own.
Comment: #89
Posted by: sharnee
Thu Oct 21, 2010 9:01 AM
Crissy: Thanks for reminding me yet again why I'm not a christian. Who are you to decide what every single person on this planet MUST do? Your religion says so? Well, pardon my rudeness, but...Big. freaking. Whoop! Not everyone buys your version of the man in the sky, dearie.

Sarah is right. Sexual compatibility is a huge make-or-break in relationships. The people that claim we're supposed to wait until we're married to have sex also claim that marriage is to one person until death. Sex is a big part of a healthy relationship and it's also a big part of your health as a person. Yet christians seem to expect me to marry a person having no idea if the relationship will be healthy for us or for me as a person. And you wonder why more than half of all marriages end in divorce....
Comment: #90
Posted by: Candi Anne
Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:37 PM
Re: Yoshi Mama
. Especially considering since the attitudes have not changed at all - a womanizing man is considered virile and desirable, boys will be boys, sowing hias wild oats and all that fort of thing, but a "manizing" woman is a slut.
Comment: #91
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Thu Oct 21, 2010 6:23 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
Other similar columns
Amy Alkon
The Advice Goddess
by Amy Alkon
Margo Howard
Dear Margo®
by Margo Howard
Ann Landers
Classic Ann Landers
by Ann Landers
More
Kathy Mitchell and Marcy Sugar
Nov. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 1 2 3 4 5 6
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month