Why is Sex Before Marriage Wrong?

[TheeGoatPig]

I'm seriously curious about this. I have always heard ultra-religious types claiming that it is sinful to have sex before marriage, and I am beginning to wonder if any of the major religious texts actually says anything to that effect. I am also wonder, if they do say anything at all like that, what is actually said?

Anyone have any answers? I really don't even know where to begin looking other than reading through the entire bible, and I'm just not up to it

 

[rgraham666]

It's a rule a bunch of men with weak egos made up so they could make themselves feel special. A "gone where no man has gone before" feeling.

Then they handed the idea to God so no one could argue against it.

 

[Guest]

It's a rule a bunch of men with weak egos made up so they could make themselves feel special. A "gone where no man has gone before" feeling.

Then they handed the idea to God so no one could argue against it.

Brilliantly put.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Brilliantly put.

A little exaggerated. However, if you go back and look carefully into the early parts of Leviticus, you will see that in the days of the Patriarchs women were implicitely property. For example, "You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour." The wife is listed as 'belonging' to the neighbor. She is a possession. Hence any woman who is not virgin at marriage is damaged goods and not worth as much.

Now, if we turn to the New Testament, there is nothing that can be accurately translated from the Koine Greek to imply a condemnation of sexual activity on the behalf of non-married people, nothing! So what happened?

My take is that 'virginity' took on a symbolism completely out of line with its physical reality. I mean, the Roman Catholic supersitician that Mary remained virgin her whole life when Scripture clearly points out to Jesus having brothers and implying that he also had sisters is too bizarre for words. And since the Early Fathers honestly believed that the Second Coming was just around the corner they were obsessed with removing from people's concentration anything that might distract from the Spiritual. Keep that in mind when people try to use the Book of Romans to condemn homosexuality. No one in today's world can prove that homosexuality is what that particular word meant to Paul, or to his followers. More likely he was condemning temple prostitution by the devotees of other gods, a much more serious crime, indeed.

 

[xssve]

Has to do with patralineal succession and inheritance Thee: men in previous ages in order to produce heirs - one could only be assured that ones firstborn son was really his if his wife was a virgin when they got married - the selfish gene and kin selection at work.

Remember, this was before everybody had calenders, reliable birth control, paternity tests, etc., or even basic knowledge of reproductive biology.

Naturally, some system of social control was required to make this happen, people being what they are, and the shame of premarital sex was invented.

That, and guys hate the idea of being compared to another guy, that probably didn't help, i.e., male vanity gives it a certain impetus, if women are property, nobody wants "used goods", i.e., it's also a status thing, which might be part of the reason it persists, in spite of scientific and knowledge advances.

These social controls are promulgated in the form of oral traditions mostly, and are often associated with magical overtones, so they don't have to necessarily have a definitive source, or make sense in order to be believed and promulgated.

Along the way, this got syncretized with Christian duallism through Paul, and later Augustine, as well as a sort of supernatural narcissistic obsession with "purity" that has been handed down in the form of guilt and shame for any sort of sexual activity not officially endorsed by church and state.

In other cultures, more experienced women were often prized - in fact they've always been prized, just not always officially, or as wives.

 

[xssve]

It's also intertwined with notions of class - in patrimonial inheritance systems, the firstborn male child inherits everything - thus the more inheritable property one has, the greater the paternity assurances required - somebody with little or no property to pass along to his children need not be as strict about it, thus, "good girls" protect their virginity, "bad girls" don't, and the notion here is that the "good girls" get the rich guys, i.e., more value on the marriage market, virtue is rewarded, sin is punished, and Chaperones, Douenas, etc., were invented to ensure that good girls stayed good.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

It's also intertwined with notions of class - in patrimonial inheritance systems, the firstborn male child inherits everything - thus the more inheritable property one has, the greater the paternity assurances required - somebody with little or no property to pass along to his children need not be as strict about it, thus, "good girls" protect their virginity, "bad girls" don't, and the notion here is that the "good girls" get the rich guys, i.e., virtue is rewarded, sin is punished, and Chaperones, Douenas, etc., were invented to ensure that good girls stayed good.

That first born inheriting thing isn't Hebraic, it's Medieval European, but that could contribute to the idea as well, especially with the rising 19th Century Middle Classes aping the aristocracy in things that didn't matter at all. They even took them to lengths that the aristcrats never did.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

So what everyone is saying is that religion doesn't really have anything against it?

 

[sweetness6280]

Religions have a lot against it, but there's no evidence that God agrees with them.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Religions have a lot against it, but there's no evidence that God agrees with them.

Nicely put, Sweetness. Sigh! Now I'm in love with your brain, as well.

 

[Emerald_Dragon]

Not just religion but society as well.

Daughters were property.

If a daughter is not a virgin then she may be a "slut" and her future husband may have doubts that any children she has are his.

If a daughter got pregnant then it would be her family that would have to support her and her offspring. The woman would be concidered damaged goods and they might not be able to marry her off, thus they have to support her through out her life.

Daughters were married for political and monitary gain. By having a baby out of wedlock the family would lose out on the benefits that they would have gained from a profitable marriage.

It was all about money and social standing.

 

[xssve]

That first born inheriting thing isn't Hebraic, it's Medieval European, but that could contribute to the idea as well, especially with the rising 19th Century Middle Classes aping the aristocracy in things that didn't matter at all. They even took them to lengths that the aristcrats never did.

Possibly, but throw in the fact that among the upper classes, and even the middle and lower, marriage as often, or more often, represents an alliance between families as it does two people wanting to be together - marriages are still arranged in a lot of contemporary cultures, and even in this one there is still some lingering sense that parental approval is required in some circles.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Possibly, but throw in the fact that among the upper classes, and even the middle and lower, marriage as often, or more often, represents an alliance between families as it does two people wanting to be together - marriages are still arranged in a lot of contemporary cultures, and even in this one there is still some lingering sense that parental approval is required in some circles.

Absolutely. Marriage has always been about money and kids, both of which aim to further the interests of the families over those of the betrothed. In the ancient times, unless you had money, you didn't bother to officially get married, you just moved in. A ceremony in the temple was for those who needed to be seen. This was true clear up to the Middle Ages where all getting married meant to most people was that you stood on the cathedral steps and told everyone coming out of Mass that the two of you were hitched. It was only when certain "dubious pairsons" in the Vatican figured out that they could raise even more money by declaring marriage a Sacrament and charging for it that it became something To Be Done by all classes.

And let there be no mistake, in U.S. law marriage is a civil contract between two people. All the church does, by law, is bless the union. Most mainstream churches know this and make no bones about it. It's only the theologically illiterate/ignorant who still believe that "yo' gotta be in church t'git hitched."

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

I'll veer off from the discussion slightly and discuss why some people might decide that sex before marriage is wrong for them personally, rather than biblically or socially. Some folks view it as a lifestyle choice. I mean, they believe that they would rather be married to and presumably in love with the person they are having sex with. They feel that there is a higher level of commitment afforded by the marriage bond and that somehow this gives their sexual love a higher meaning. Whether that is true or not is in the mind of the individual making the choice to remain virginal until marriage.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I'll veer off from the discussion slightly and discuss why some people might decide that sex before marriage is wrong for them personally, rather than biblically or socially. Some folks view it as a lifestyle choice. I mean, they believe that they would rather be married to and presumably in love with the person they are having sex with. They feel that there is a higher level of commitment afforded by the marriage bond and that somehow this gives their sexual love a higher meaning. Whether that is true or not is in the mind of the individual making the choice to remain virginal until marriage.

Quite. The entirety of sexual relations in this society should be what is satisfying to Consenting Adults. If sex before marriage starts to involve 12-year-olds, then perhaps society has a legitimate interest in stepping in but once the participants are of legal age (another entire wormcan, IMO) it's up to them, not us.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Sex before marriage comes with lotsa potential problems that can truly fuck things up...unwanted children, disease, sterilization from abortions, etc.

Premarital sex is common, but it does come with lotsa problems.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Sex before marriage comes with lotsa potential problems that can truly fuck things up...unwanted children, disease, sterilization from abortions, etc.

Premarital sex is common, but it does come with lotsa problems.

All of which are due to enforced ignorance and sex before adulthood. "Just say no" must be three stupidest words in the language.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

I just want to point out what got me thinking was a comment on another forum.

All holy books in the world says that Sex before married is a sin. A really big sin.

To be honest,

I prefer having beautifull virgin girl to be my wife to unvirgin.

His words just seemed juvenile and really irritated me to no end. I just had to know if his first statement was at all true.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I just want to point out what got me thinking was a comment on another forum.




His words just seemed juvenile and really irritated me to no end. I just had to know if his first statement was at all true.

No, it isn't. People tend to assume that it is but it isn't. He's just parroting common buzz without ever looking into what he's repeating. 'Twas ever thus.

Where in the Buddhist Sutras is there any such statement? Where in the New Testament does it say that? Just one more ignorant twerp.

 

[neonlyte]

Women were 'property' until the early 20C.

Only in the early 1900's were women regarded as individuals and granted limited rights. Before then, a woman's virginity had a financial sum equated to its loss, administered by Ecclesiastical Law. I'm paraphrasing so forgive small inaccuracies.

Men, applying commercial value to virginity, created a market for virginity.

Women bore the price.

 

[cloudy]

Women were 'property' until the early 20C.

Only in the early 1900's were women regarded as individuals and granted limited rights. Before then, a woman's virginity had a financial sum equated to its loss, administered by Ecclesiastical Law. I'm paraphrasing so forgive small inaccuracies.

Men, applying commercial value to virginity, created a market for virginity.

Women bore the price.

Not in all cultures.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Not in all cultures.

Now that you bring it up, I am vaguely aware that among the original Southeastern Nations, things were quite strict. However, I don't have any feeling for the rest of the continent. Given the advanced status of women in the Iroquois Confederacy, how were things up in New York? Or the Pacific Northwest, if you happen to know?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I believe there's one more reason to men preferring virgin brides, apart from the fear that they might get another man's child: if a woman is a virgin - which in the old days meant that she hadn't had ANY type of sex, not even handjobs - then she doesn't have any experience and can't tell if the man has a small penis and/or is bad in bed. Thus, it's easy for him to make her believe that he's well-endowed and a great lover, no matter how small and lousy he is.

Fear of being regarded as too small, and a combination of fear of being seen as a bad lover and laziness preventing the man from trying to improve his love-making technique ---> there's my theory on why some men prefer virgins.

I'd like to point out, though, that the whole virginity obsession started in the upper classes and spread down to include the whole socity later on. Before this happened, it wasn't uncommon for young men to go courting to girls on certain nights, sleeping in the same bed, fully dressed, making out and cuddling up to talk and get to know each other, all with the parents' approval. Every now and then, some couples would cuddle a little too intensely, and it would lead to sex before marriage. This wasn't a reason for panic, however, as an unplanned pregnancy was no more than a proof that the woman was fertile and thus would make a fine wife in atleast one or two aspects.

I blame the patriarchality for this ridiculous virginity-idea. I learned rather quickly as a teenager that virginity was more a nuisance than a trasure, since it meant that you had very little experience, and your first time was likely to be something painful and not very satisfying, ie something to get over with asap, so you could start learning how to have GOOD sex later on.

I never had the notion that my first time should be with someone SPECIAL, I just planned to have it with someone kind and considerate, so he could try to ease the pain and make me feel less nervous. That's really the best a virgin can hope for, and that's what I'll tell my future daughters.

 

[gauchecritic]

I've no idea what it says in the bible but all this women being property and so can't have sex sounds like crap to me.

I'm not saying that some fathers/families didn't behave like that but I'd put it down to being born out of protecting a daughter from pregnancy rather than saying who could and couldn't shag her if at all.

Ok, so dowries and such are paid by bride's families but that doesn't mean it's a payment for goods because the expectation of the bride's family is that she will be taken care of for the rest of her life. A much larger obligation by any standard.

This 'still a virgin' tripe is just that, it's merely a side effect of no pre-marital sex, there isn't (and in my opinion) never has been any value to clinical virginity except as supposed proof.

Alright, it says in historical texts, it says in the bible it says anywhere you want it to say that women were chattel. Who wrote these things? Why do you believe them?

In a million years some archaeologist is going to find the Lit server and discover the only remnants of stories to be in the incest category. What's that going to say about the 20/21st century?

Unlike any previous period this is a time where "everybody" can read and only wive's tales are passed down orally. So if everyone can read and it's the only record then it must be true?

 

[TxRad]

Why is Sex Before Marriage Wrong?

Because Daddy said so and he owns a shotgun and knows how to use it.

"Boy, one barrel is loaded with rock salt, the other is buckshot. Are ya feeling lucky?"

And that was said before the first date.