Here is a Christian point of view of such a "standard" offered yesterday by FreakyKBH [on the "What if...?" thread]:
"Sexual relations are meant to be shared with one person and one person only throughout their lives".
I personally go along with this as my "standard" but only after choosing a mate and making that monogamous commitment to her. So, I do not subscribe to the notion that having 'only one sexual partner throughout life' is something that can be called "sexual purity".
In fact, "sexual purity" strikes me as rather opaque terminology and is perhaps best replaced with "sexual morality" for the purposes of this OP.
Putting to one side the "sexual morality" of pedophiles, rapists and perpetrators of domestic violence [and so not trying to include them in any consensus]...
and putting aside ~ for the sake of discussion ~ the notion of a supernatural being being concerned with people's sexual relations [though I eyes-openly accept that there will be posters who will not want to put it aside for the sake of this discussion!]...
What consensus can be reached by Christians and non-Christians alike about what would constitute a common [shared] and common sense view on the morality of sexual relations?
I would suggest:
Do not deceive your partner. [e.g. Lies, false promises, misrepresenting circumstances, intentions, the past, commitment, feelings etc.]
Do not coerce your partner. [e.g. No emotional blackmail, no violence or use of strength to negate the issue of considered consent, no undue pressure to go from a non-sexual relationship to a sexual one]
Do not harm your partner. [e.g. knowingly spread STDs, create children that one is not willing to take responsibility for, betray or cheat, or abandon after obligations have been entered into]
Can we pretty much all agree that these three 'rules' provide a basis for a consensus regarding a practical "morality" to govern behaviour in sexual relations [and one that Christians and non-Christians could share, supernatural imperatives aside]?
Originally posted by FMF Here is a Christian point of view of such a "standard" offered yesterday by FreakyKBH [on the "What if...?" thread]:
[b]"Sexual relations are meant to be shared with one person and one person only throughout their lives".
I personally go along with this as my "standard" but only after choosing a mate and making that monogamous commitment to her. So, I ...[text shortened]... ations [and one that Christians and non-Christians could share, supernatural imperatives aside]?[/b]
I'm more of a do-er than a do not-er.
On that line, I'd say there ought to be something inserted (ha!) which includes both an unyielding commitment to pleasing your partner and an absolute abandon in the pursuit of pleasure within the relationship.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH an unyielding commitment to pleasing your partner and an absolute abandon in the pursuit of pleasure within the relationship
Originally posted by FMF Here is a Christian point of view of such a "standard" offered yesterday by FreakyKBH [on the "What if...?" thread]:
[b]"Sexual relations are meant to be shared with one person and one person only throughout their lives".
I personally go along with this as my "standard" but only after choosing a mate and making that monogamous commitment to her. So, I ...[text shortened]... ations [and one that Christians and non-Christians could share, supernatural imperatives aside]?[/b]
Those guidelines aren't simple. Especially when you throw in things like the past. That has to be handled with delicacy. On the one hand, I don't want to be deceived. On the other, I do not need to know most of the details of her sexual past.
The only questions I really need to know (some are already covered in your post):
-Kids?
-No STD's, right?
-This whole monogamy thing is something you have tried before and are committed to?
-This probably is not true, but the probability is not 0. You had better tell me if you were formerly a guy and got an operation to become female.
Originally posted by FMF Here is a Christian point of view of such a "standard" offered yesterday by FreakyKBH [on the "What if...?" thread]:
[b]"Sexual relations are meant to be shared with one person and one person only throughout their lives".
I personally go along with this as my "standard" but only after choosing a mate and making that monogamous commitment to her. So, I ...[text shortened]... ations [and one that Christians and non-Christians could share, supernatural imperatives aside]?[/b]
I don't know if it is advanced of you or just oversight but your definitions do not exclude same sex marriages, if not an oversight, good for you.
Originally posted by FMF Here is a Christian point of view of such a "standard" offered yesterday by FreakyKBH [on the "What if...?" thread]:
[b]"Sexual relations are meant to be shared with one person and one person only throughout their lives".
I personally go along with this as my "standard" but only after choosing a mate and making that monogamous commitment to her. So, I ...[text shortened]... ations [and one that Christians and non-Christians could share, supernatural imperatives aside]?[/b]
I don't believe that there is one person in the world for you; or any of that romantic clap-trap. Nor do I believe that God is firmly against polygamy, but I believe he did at some point say that "it was not like that in the beginning". In the beginning, not at the beginning, but in the beginning, was a period or dispensation when God talked about "we", but did not talk about how many "we" are. God, through Jesus, also seeks his Bride --singular and yet clearly plural as we are many. God sees his Bride as singular and yet comprising millions of people; this is something I've pondered. Sexual purity can be defined not by the numbers within the bride but the commitment to the bride, the contract, the joining.
I little oblique I know, but I'm just stirring this interesting soup a little.
Originally posted by divegeester I don't believe that there is one person in the world for you; or any of that romantic clap-trap. Nor do I believe that God is firmly against polygamy, but I believe he did at some point say that "it was not like that in the beginning". In the beginning, not at the beginning, but in the beginning, was a period or dispensation when God talked about "we", ...[text shortened]... ct, the joining.
I little oblique I know, but I'm just stirring this interesting soup a little.
I was working on my obliques the other day; they're still sore.
A "higher standard" of sexual purity
02 Apr '14 02:38
Back to Top