|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:36 pm
nathan_ngl Link_of_Hylia Maybe this is what you didn't want to hear, but you blew it. Though there is one way. And that is to have your sins forgiven. One person of 3 can so that. The father. Adonai. The Son. Yeshua. And the Holy Spirit. What does Jesus and the holy spirit have to do with anything? G-d is one and only in the world, and that's what we beleive in. Please stick to the jewish beliefs, this is a jewish community. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who was thinking that. At first I thought I was just being a b***h about it. To D Girl. You have an EXCELLENT point. I too think that you have to have sex with a person before you marry them for those reasons, not for vanity or anything. Yay us...We think alike!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:59 pm
I don't mean to be rude, but I completely disagree with you guys. So let's say the guy you're with doesn't want to have sex before marriage because his views are as strange as mine; does that mean you wouldn't marry him? sweatdrop
Another point of not having sex with somebody before marriage is because you do see them at their most vulnerable point- it makes marriage more sacred and special. People can just go around (and please pardon my bluntness here) having sex with each other- does that mean they are seeing if they want to marry them? No! It merely means they give into lust and physical desire too easily.
Also, does that mean you are against gay or lesbian marriage? They can't exactly have sex with each other (though I will admit- that strikes me as strange and awkward. sweatdrop ), but does that mean they can't be together as a couple because they haven't?
I do agree that you definitely need to have an emotional bond before a sexual one; part of the reason that bond is created is because you know each other so well spiritually and emotionally before you know them physically. You may just find you like having sex with that person, and mistake that for love; love and lust are easily mixed up. If you were truly meant for each other, you would love them emotionally, not for whatever kind of sex you had together.
Maybe you find out that you eventually don't love them. But the physical bond between you has already been created, and you can't exactly take that back. Abstaining until marriage makes sure you really do want to be with them, no matter what they are like. Sex means so much more then that, and it's insulting to its importance to have it with so many people. sweatdrop
Anyway, I don't mean to offend with my views, and I'm sorry if I do. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkphoenix1247 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 3:00 pm
darkphoenix1247 DarkHalcyon Honestly, you ( I mean in the general sense) Would let what your partner did in the past ruin what you have together? Sex, like all things in a relationship, means exactly what you want it to mean. and if the partner's previous experience takes away from the relationship, then your heart's in the wrong place. That's my opinion, anyway. You will probably think it very silly, but yes, I would not want my partner to have had sex with somebody else; in my view, it would make whatever we share less special. Why would I be any different then the girl he was with and dumped? What if he's just in the relationship for pure physical intimacy? To me, there would just be something special and pure about a partner being the other's first and likewise. If you don't mind my asking, why would you not mind it if a partner had been with somebody before? Couldn't they be carrying STDs or something as well? sweatdrop And a question for Yvette: Why is pressure put on girls to be virgins? There's a enormous amount of people in my school who could care less, and are constantly talking about their sexual exploits, so it seems to be they really don't care. sweatdrop I'm personally rather proud of being one, yes, but you either care or you don't, and that's all there is to it. sweatdrop Anyway, I don't mean to offend anybody with my opinion, and sorry if I do. sweatdrop Lastly, a note to Akilles: Are you being sarcastic or serious? Sorry- it's hard to tell on the Internet, so I'm sorry if I did something to offend you. sweatdrop I was beeing serious But DP, you can't always think so negative, oh, the person hade sex before, i might get Stds. It's almost like saying hey, they hade sex, now there gonna have a baby. What you shoul do, and i suggest, get to know the person before having sex with them, make shure that you meen something to him, cuz even thow people throw it around like if its an everyday a new person thing, it really shouldnt be *i feel like a hypocrite*. If your not shure about him having STD for having sex with other women, ask him, "Eh, bub, did you use condoms, where you safe, where any of the other girls where you with a slut" and last but not least, if you can't put your trust in him "I Want you to get an STD test, if you really care about me you would" Theres always something special or pure, but it has to be a mutual feeling. If your just thinking wow i love this guy, he might be thinking "Alright awsome, im doing sexy time!!!" What makes you different with the girl he was with and he dumped 1. Your DarkPhoenix the Almighty 2. Hes with you now, why?! because shes a thing of the past, your the now, you and him.. now. But like i said, dont take that and be like alright thats great then open your legs. give it time, let the relationship grow, make him wait, if he really cares for you, he wouldn't mind waiting a few months, if not, then next time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 5:41 pm
darkphoenix1247 Quote: I don't mean to be rude, but I completely disagree with you guys. So let's say the guy you're with doesn't want to have sex before marriage because his views are as strange as mine; does that mean you wouldn't marry him? sweatdrop In all actuality and bluntness, yes...I probably wouldn't marry a guy who wouldn't have sex before marriage. Of course I think that the chances of me actually going for a guy that strict about those things is very slim. If there was a boy who was perfect in every single way but that, I would probably suck it up until we got married. Quote: Another point of not having sex with somebody before marriage is because you do see them at their most vulnerable point- it makes marriage more sacred and special. People can just go around (and please pardon my bluntness here) having sex with each other- does that mean they are seeing if they want to marry them? No! It merely means they give into lust and physical desire too easily. You do have a point here. I really don't think that people should go around and have sex just to see what that person is like so they can "Marry them". I guess I didn't really make it clear that I don't plan on having sex with more than 1 or MAYBE 2 people in my life. Only if and when it's completely serious to the point of marriage will I have sex with someone. It's not just a willie nillie hit or miss thing. xd Quote: Also, does that mean you are against gay or lesbian marriage? They can't exactly have sex with each other (though I will admit- that strikes me as strange and awkward. sweatdrop ), but does that mean they can't be together as a couple because they haven't? That's a completely different level dear. They can have types of sex, but I can't really speak for them because I'm not one, and I don't know what it's like/how they think. Quote: I do agree that you definitely need to have an emotional bond before a sexual one; part of the reason that bond is created is because you know each other so well spiritually and emotionally before you know them physically. You may just find you like having sex with that person, and mistake that for love; love and lust are easily mixed up. If you were truly meant for each other, you would love them emotionally, not for whatever kind of sex you had together. True, love and lust can easily be mistaken. I, of all people, know that. And yeah, I was extremely blinded by that and made really bad decisions. But at the same time, it was part of a growing experience for me. I know now to be 100% sure of myself before I ever step foot in another male bedroom. Haha, I guess I'm just weird, but all of this really goes back to individual decision. If you really have thought about it in an intelligent way, and you are completely sure of yourself, why not? If it ends up being lust, you know from then on what not to base what love really is on. Does that make any sense? Quote: Maybe you find out that you eventually don't love them. But the physical bond between you has already been created, and you can't exactly take that back. Abstaining until marriage makes sure you really do want to be with them, no matter what they are like. Sex means so much more then that, and it's insulting to its importance to have it with so many people. sweatdrop Love is important, and so is a sexual relationship. I'm a firm believer in that. However, what's to say that you really love someone enough to marry them. Is that not the same thing? They are both extremely hard decisions in my opinion. Neither are taken lightly. And yeah, they're completely different, but pretty much put you in the same boat. *Shrug* I'm not saying you have to understand my logic! It's all very complex and personalize...I just want you to understand where I come from. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:56 pm
I've had sex before marriage, and I've ended each relationship feeling used as a person. I think, after doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results, that qualifies me as insane. So from now on, I'm taking a different approach to relationships that doesn't include allowing other people to use me, including not having sex. It's just not worth it, anymore.
Someone's past sexual history doesn't matter much to me, beyond being tested for STDs, though. I'm not a virgin and I've no right to expect anyone else to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:36 pm
I think that it's not so much sex before marriage that is a problem, but rather promiscuous sex. I mean, I had sex with my husband many times before we were married, but we were in a committed relationship, so it wasn't like I was flitting around from guy to guy. I think that monogamy is what really matters. And as for marriage, I doubt Abraham and Sarah had a formal wedding ceremony or anything. Most likely they were just two nomads who pared off to have children.
It's a difficult subject because marriage is mostly about children, especially in Judaism, so having sex within a marriage was probably important over the years because it made it easier to prove paternity. Now that we have birth control and condoms and things like that, it isn't such a big deal anymore.
Anyhow, that's my two cents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:36 am
darkphoenix1247 I do agree that you definitely need to have an emotional bond before a sexual one; part of the reason that bond is created is because you know each other so well spiritually and emotionally before you know them physically. You may just find you like having sex with that person, and mistake that for love; love and lust are easily mixed up. If you were truly meant for each other, you would love them emotionally, not for whatever kind of sex you had together. Maybe you find out that you eventually don't love them. But the physical bond between you has already been created, and you can't exactly take that back. Abstaining until marriage makes sure you really do want to be with them, no matter what they are like. Sex means so much more then that, and it's insulting to its importance to have it with so many people. sweatdrop I agree with you in every way possible on this 3nodding . There is a point to be made though... Sex consists of two major points, yet the question is, whether both points are important. Sex is, and will always be: 1. A deep emotional connection, physically becomming one with your partner. 2. Creation of life, a spiritual elevation, while becomming one with your spouse, and binding with G-d. Some people see the second point as "optional". I think that creation of life is NOT optional at all... On the contrary, it's our obligation, and I shall quote from the book of Genesis: "Be fruitful and prosper" - This is not only a blessing, it is a requirement. Sex is a gift. Sex is holy. Sex is a way to become one with your spouse. Sex is a way to bind to elevate yourself spiritualy and bind to G-d. If people just turn it into a way to show their attraction to someone else, then it looses the whole point! The point is not the sex itself, it's what comes out of it! Usually, on it's own, it also brings an important bond between a man and his wife, but first you should elevate yourself spiritually before increasing the physical bond. The rabbies knew what they were talking about when they said: "A bond based on a physical basis is a bond bound to collapse. A bond based on spirtuality will prosper". STDs really doesn't even come into the equation for me... Sorry sweatdrop . I hope I didn't offend anyone!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 7:47 am
roothands And as for marriage, I doubt Abraham and Sarah had a formal wedding ceremony or anything. Most likely they were just two nomads who pared off to have children. Once upon a time, a woman would be sanctified to a man in three ways: 1. A Shtar (=certificate). 2. Money. 3. Cohabation. That was what it was like then. That was once upon a time. Today, you have to go through engagement, and the whole kaboodle. The rabbies set laws, and I beleive they were very smart in doing so. If a woman today would be sanctified to a man by just having sex with him, that would mean that most girls today would practically be sanctified to 50 men, while violating a very serious law in the torah each and every time for every man she ever had sex with!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkphoenix1247 Vice Captain
|
Posted: Tue Oct 24, 2006 2:17 pm
Sorry, guys. I have nothing against anybody's view, and I truly hope nobody thinks that I do (I actually enjoy having an intelligent debate, contrary to popular belief sweatdrop ) but I've received actually 6 complaints now about this thread, and am thus locking it.
I'm really sorry and I don't mean to offend anybody, nor suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to state their opinions (I feel the total contrary), but this is getting people a bit too upset and the atmosphere too tense. Again, I'm sorry if this upsets anybody- it is completely not my intention.
Thank you for your cooperation- thread *locked* sweatdrop
EDIT: I'm pleased to announce I can unlock this thread, as I've received a suggestion for this to be moved into a subforum, and a few who have complained have agreed. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Oct 26, 2006 4:34 pm
darkphoenix1247 I'm pleased to announce I can unlock this thread, as I've received a suggestion for this to be moved into a subforum, and a few who have complained have agreed. 3nodding Thanks for everyone's understanding!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2006 3:06 pm
That seems kind of strange. WHy would it not bother people if it was just somewhere else.
That's like sweeping dirt under a rug.
Not that I'm against this thread, I just don't see how it fixes things.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 1:12 pm
kingpinsqeezels That seems kind of strange. WHy would it not bother people if it was just somewhere else. That's like sweeping dirt under a rug. Not that I'm against this thread, I just don't see how it fixes things. Don't ask me- I just do what's suggested to me. xp
|
|
|
|
|
|
darkphoenix1247 Vice Captain
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 5:21 pm
kingpinsqeezels That seems kind of strange. WHy would it not bother people if it was just somewhere else. That's like sweeping dirt under a rug. Not that I'm against this thread, I just don't see how it fixes things. I guess it bothered some people that it was on the front page, glaring at them sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:29 pm
nathan_ngl kingpinsqeezels That seems kind of strange. WHy would it not bother people if it was just somewhere else. That's like sweeping dirt under a rug. Not that I'm against this thread, I just don't see how it fixes things. I guess it bothered some people that it was on the front page, glaring at them sweatdrop That's a shame, we were actually having a civil discussion about it. It wasn't really even that raunchy! (and I'm sure we've all seen some pretty raunchy pg-13 stuff xp )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Oct 29, 2006 6:48 pm
DarkHalcyon nathan_ngl kingpinsqeezels That seems kind of strange. WHy would it not bother people if it was just somewhere else. That's like sweeping dirt under a rug. Not that I'm against this thread, I just don't see how it fixes things. I guess it bothered some people that it was on the front page, glaring at them sweatdrop That's a shame, we were actually having a civil discussion about it. It wasn't really even that raunchy! (and I'm sure we've all seen some pretty raunchy pg-13 stuff xp ) It's called the CB. Christ. whee
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
