Tag Archives: virginity

Auditioning for marriage? How many tryouts is too many for a Christian?

A friend posted a link to My Big Virginity Mistake on Facebook to get me to respond.  For the sake of context, the friend isn’t a Christian but the author of the link claims to be one.  The final line of her article was, “I learned that sex is important enough not to wait.”  So she claims the name of Christ while explicitly opposing God’s word.

The issue isn’t whether people will always meet God’s standards.  We never have, which is why the truths of Jesus and God’s grace are such Good News!  But if we really know and love him we won’t teach the opposite of what He says.

Here’s the comment thread (Snark alert: We go back a long way and aren’t bashful with each other).

  • Me: Yeah, she definitely should have slept with hundreds of guys until she found one that was perfectly compatible with her. That never has any negative consequences. That is so much wiser than doing it God’s way and making a commitment for life. 

    I hope you are smarter with your daughters than you are on Facebook.
  • Him: i think the point of the story was that if she slept with the man she loved prior to marriage, she would not have married him. one is not 100s. and aren’t we being a wee bit hypocritical?
  • Me: If your premise was accurate, it would have been an error on my part, not hypocrisy. But let’s examine your premise more closely. You think that it would be better for the number to be more than zero. So in her case, if this person (who claims Christianity but obviously disagrees with what God clearly said) had premarital sex with the man she “loved” then she wouldn’t have married him. That’s a victory if you are right. 

    But wait, wouldn’t she have to have sex with the next guy as well before she married him? Oops, another one that isn’t perfectly compatible. So another victory for you and her! The system works. 

    On to number 3: D’oh! Still not a match. But your system is working just fine! I mean, once you, in your infinite wisdom, established that God is wrong and the number should be greater than zero, then the burden of proof is on you to establish the upper limit. In this case she would have had to have at least two out-of-wedlock encounters (assuming #2 was “the guy”). So if 2 is OK, why not 3? Or 4? or 100? 

    You haven’t completely suppressed the truth, so deep down you know something is wrong with 100. In fact, you thought it was outrageous that I brought it up. So that’s a good sign! There is hope for you. (Interestingly, the liberal Dear Abby said something similar once. While opposing God’s design for sex she was still aghast that at her current pace a reader would have 100 “lovers” by the age of 25. But she never explained the contradiction in her worldview.)

    But you and the sad author have some work to do to explain precisely what the upper limit is. And you have to explain why 5 is fine, but 6 is not. Or why 99 is fine, but 100 is not. Good luck!

    And then for extra credit you can explain why people who practice violating God’s design for sex before marriage will feel obliged to follow it afterwards. We all sin, so I’m not saying this as an expectation for perfection from anyone, but if we can’t even point to the right standards then that is a sad thing.

    You might consider if your premise is false. Perhaps sex isn’t something you audition for to see if you are compatible (If one is male and the other is female then you are compatible. Trust me.) or good enough. Perhaps it is “God’s wedding gift” so that you can enjoy it under the safest possible conditions — emotionally, physically and spiritually.

Even Dear Abby has limits. Sort of.

But she can’t explain them.  At all.

I remember a column a few years back when Abby did some quick math and informed a girl that if she kept acquiring sexual partners at her current rate, then by the time she was 25 she will have had sex with 100 different men.  Abby thought that was too many, but was a little sheepish in saying so.  And I know why.

Now I think that most rational people would agree that 100 sex partners is too many for a lifetime, let alone a 25 year old. 

Unfortunately, while Abby knew that 100 was too high she didn’t elaborate on what the proper limit was.  Abby certainly wasn’t limiting it to 1 partner — only one of those crazy right wing domestic terrorist Bible thumping abstinence promoting Christian freaks would suggest that. 

But what is the proper limit?  Probably not 2, or 3.  Is it 90? 80? 50?

Hey Abby and other Planned Parenthood types who don’t think the ideal is just one: What is the limit, and why is that the limit?  If not 1, then why not 100? 

Here are a few reasons you should not use:

  • Diseases — everyone knows they go up dramatically as you add partners, but they increase a bunch when you go from 1 to 2 as well.  If 100 partners is bad because of the risk of disease, then so is 2.  And the risk doesn’t increase that much when you go from 99 to 100.
  • Emotional attachment — again, if 100 would impact your ability to attach emotionally then so will 2.
  • Pregnancy — having sex 1 time with 100 different people is no more likely to result in pregnancy than 100 times with 1 person.  And we know that if you just do what Planned Parenthood says then you are very, very unlikely to get pregnant, right?!

In short, you need to explain why there would be a specific limit other than 1.

Theological Liberals should also explain why breaking God’s laws for human sexuality is acceptable before marriage, and why if your partner breaks them before the marriage you can still trust that he/she will follow them afterwards. 

I’m sticking with a target of 1 per person per life — other than death of a spouse or a biblical divorce (e.g., abandonment or adultery by your spouse).  I’ve got a bunch of reasons for why that is the ideal — no risk of diseases, built-in male and female parents if you have kids (go figure, and what a convenience!), less stress, more confidence in your relationship, it is the loving thing to do for your spouse, obeying what God says, and so much more.

—–

Another bad bit of reasoning by Dear Abby: She doesn’t recommend Crisis Pregnancy Centers because they “might” show pictures of abortions (I am not aware of centers which show pictures of abortions, but it may be possible.  CareNet pregnancy centers do not maintain any such images nor do they show them to clients).  And CPCs do a wide variety of amazing things to help women in their time of need. 

So Abby basically says that showing the picture of an abortion is so bad that because someone might do it you should ignore the great things they offer women, but the abortion itself is morally acceptable.  Everybody got that?

—–

When you deny the obvious ideal of one man, one woman marriages for life and you ignore the scientific fact that life begins at conception, then you end up trying to support all sorts of bizarre and illogical ideas.  It must be exhausting propping up such a worldview.

Of course many people break these commands of God.  Jesus even noted that lust was akin to adultery, which pretty much convicts us all many times over.  The good news is that forgiveness is possible.  But in the mean time, what ideal are we aiming at?  The consequences are serious.  Countless ills of society can be traced to sexual sin and the breakdown of the family.  And people like Dear Abby are not helping.

Roundup

Virginity in the NBA: Mission Possible — Great article about A.C. Green (former Laker)

 NY nurse forced to assist in late-term abortion, career threatened — that’s courtesy of the pro-abortion crowd, thank you (yes, that’s pro-abortion, not pro-choice)

A history of who thought the world was flat and when they thought it — Guess what?  It wasn’t the Christians or even the West in general.  But I wonder why this myth persists?  Uh, actually, I don’t wonder.  It is one of those myths that helps advance a particular worldview.  (Hat tip: Duane’s Mind)

The 6 Worst Abortion Arguments Jon Stewart made to Mike Huckabee— I appreciate Huckabee’s pro-life views.

YouTube aborts pro-life videos

YouTube allows almost any surgery video imaginable, like gastric bypass, gallbladder removal, toe amputation, appendectomy and brain tumor removal, and gross-out body parts videos like a buttock fecal fistula or peritoneal cancer – but not abortion.

Neither does YouTube have a problem with videos pertaining to the female anatomy like mastectomies, breast augmentations, hysterectomies or even baby deliveries – but not abortion, unless it is in the form of bloodless illustrations.

YouTube also seems to go out of its way to protect the abortion industry, particularly Planned Parenthood

When a nation turns its back on God–Romans 1:18-32 — terrific sermon by Four* Pointer.  Check it out.