« 回到论坛
版主：
AminaYasmine, aymanelhakea, Liamjod, mnopq, Shweta-sj
 作者 |
 发布
|
 |
|
Mikael
连接： Apr 12, 2002
邮件 15
帖子等级
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 27
国家：Canada
Province/State: Quebec
城市: Montréal
|
Re: well done
August 21, 2003 - 05:32 AM
|
|
Originally posted by farhadali
One more thing I want to say here. The trend of experimenting and enjoying it with multipartner has given rise to the world a curse which people called Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome(AIDS).
You're actually confusing two different issues here - just because people have sex before marriage doesn't imply that they've spread AIDS. What has spread AIDS is the lack of proper precautions during sex, which is another issue entirely. In terms of having sex with someone before marriage, I don't think that it's wrong... as long as you're safe and considerate of the other person, then it should not be frowned upon. From a biblical standpoint, it makes sense not to have sex with multiple partners because there was no way to avoid sexually transmitted diseases back then. Now, however, it's possible to have sexual relations with someone you care about without worrying about disease (as much), even if you're not married.
I don't think that it's right to be very promiscuous, but I definitely don't believe that marriage is a prerequisite for that kind of intimacy. Many people who are not married are already at a stage where they feel the sort of bond they might feel while married - they just don't have an official marriage certificate. In many ways marriage is important, but it also shouldn't be a huge change in someone's life, because when you get married you should already be at the point where you're able to be intimate with your partner...
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Shavkatjon Muhammadjonov
连接： Apr 9, 2003
邮件 7
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别： 男性
国家：Tajikistan
Province/State: Sughd
城市: Khujand
|
To Luke and Wallflower
August 21, 2003 - 06:35 AM
|
|
Hey guys,
I was reading and observing the development of this discussion you have had and it brought some dieas and inspired me to share my experience and thoughts with you.
I myself come from Tajikistan (former soviet republic), spent most of my lifetime there and now since three or four years I am travelling around europe.
It has been a great challenge from the cultural religious and mental perspective for I grew up in a traditional family but still open minded.
When it comes to sex before marriage, I would agree and disagree with it.
Love and sex is something very holly for me. It is not just something you can play around with. Unfortunately in the West as I experienced sex, especialy among young people, is accepted as somethign Fun without any deep further thoughts about like, like spiritual connection and onness.
I had a relationship for two and half years in my country with the girl, we Loved each other and respected this Love and us. But we never had a sexual contact for the entire time we were together. There was more beautifull thing then sex though I don´t exclude the beauty of sex either.
We were developing and discovering each other by sharing our formost deep thoughts, feelings, who we are and were as well having fun. I never saw her in the first place as a Sexual object thoguh she is very beautifull. It is a matter of your will. I loved and Love her for who she is. Inner beauty. Unfortuantelly this is lost in this so Called Capitalistic Modern world the concept of Love as a Divine and Sex as Holly.
It is hard for me to explain my thoguth for I am speaking foreign language.
Experience of course is a very good lesson and needed but it depends how you approach your experience.
I have had somemore more thoughts but I somehow got lost.
haope to share it later,
To be open minded and awre is the way to develop - I think.
shavkat
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Faddy
连接： Jun 9, 2003
邮件 8
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别： 男性
国家：India
Province/State: Bihar
城市: Patna New City
|
well done
August 21, 2003 - 10:02 AM
|
|
Well quoted dear. I appreciate your words. I just want to add that if two persons are getting marriage who had sex never in their life, would be more happeier in their thereafter. As everything would be new, there, sex will play an important role in make a strong bond. This is one of the reasons why in country like India, the cases of divorse are less as compare to the countries where there is open sex. I don't understand the difference in the marriage life of two persons living together before marriage and having sex together.
One more thing I want to say here. The trend of experimenting and enjoying it with multipartner has given rise to the world a curse which people called Acquired Immuno Deficiency Syndrome(AIDS).
Originally posted by wallflower
luke...
did you give that pompous and ridiculously immature response more than two seconds thought? Your quick reply must have missed something....listen closely and i'll fill you in....
let's say that two "non-virgins" marry and have significant experience...sexual of course...they enjoy each other as they always have and of course there is a new element to the relationship in marraige. But they get bored, for really the only difference in marraige and their head-strong dating relationship is that now they live together under the roof of binding commitment. Pretty exciting? not in the physical level. you see for nothing was saved and therefore nothing changed, and boredom may (definitely not always-i'm not that subjective) set in.
Now, two virgins marry....and i believe you said something along the virtuous lines of "hell no. that's like telling a blind person to pick out their favorite color." (something like that)
But here's the beautiful picture you missed. You see, in this story the couple has yet to experience one of the greatest creations in life, and yes, they have no experience or expertise. But the catch is that they have the rest of their lives to get better with each other, and the kicker is that the element of marriage brings upon a whole new level of newness and commitment void in the previous story.
Now of course these are theoretical situations, but i hope you may have slowed down enough to see my point. First of all, if a blind person was to pick out a color, they would be no more satisfied with black than blue, for they had no prior knowledge or experience with picking a favorite color(wonderful example though). Next time don't be so quick to a shallow response. Think about it and give the one who posted the thread a little more respect. Of course if that fits into your seemingly busy mental operation.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
tim
连接： Jul 10, 2003
邮件 6
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 23
国家：United States
Province/State: Texas
城市: Texarkana
|
Re: sex before marriage
August 21, 2003 - 12:25 PM
|
|
may i inform everyone that just because Luke bids us farewell, that he is finished with this discussion, does not mean that this discussion is finished, for i believe the discussion is a very in depth and interesting one and should not be ended quite yet. i appreciate Luke's involvement in the discussion while he was here for it gives us all a glimpse of the different thoughts, beliefs, and behaviors of people in the world. having said that, shall the discussion continue...? Luke said this:
"any way to all you poor souls who are denying yourselves one of lifes greatest wonders for some antiquated religious dictates - I feel sorry for you."
in every single one of my thoughts and ideas contained in the posts above, not once did i mention religion. the aspect i am trying to support is love, not religion.
it's just that the love that i consider to be the most true, is the love that is patient. ANYONE can have sex in their pre-marriage dating relationships (please don't take me too seriously, you know what i mean) but not everyone can SAVE their sex for marriage. it is the easy thing to do to have sex, because it is natural to have that desire. However, that's what makes the love so strong to your future spouse, that you contained yourself! even though your body wanted to, your spirit and the love that you had for the person you hoped to find (which your particular date COULD be your future spouse but you don't know for sure yet, you see...) was stronger, and that has to be unbelievably strong considering the body's wants and urges.
actually, i care not whatsoever whether the person i marry is a virgin or not. why would carpediem want to do this? i mean, didn't he believe that such intimate love should wait for the such intimate commitment of mariage?? so he must not have any interest or even social association with any person who is not a virgin simply because of his beliefs...
um, no. that would be closed-minded. just because a girl that i may ultimately fall in love with in the future missed out on the possibility of experiencing love in its highest form (according to my belief, mind you) doesn't mean that i can't give my gift to her. she might even probably be more utmostly thankful for my loyalty to her when i didn't even know her, but was thinking of her nevertheless, and for that, i may even PREFER to marry one who is not a virgin. not that i won't marry a virgin, but to think that i could hold her in my arms and her being the first and only one for me, just the fact that she knows that i waited because i had so much love, even though she did not wait for me, because my heart is so full of love it has abundant forgiveness and once she sees the love that i have she will want it and in return give what she has left to me. she will want to strive to have that same love. she will regret so fully wasting her intimacy on someone who is in the past and matters not simply because someone told her she needed the experience in order to get to know herself better. i would love to share my true love with someone who had never been introduced to this idea of true love before. i think if everyone would just be blatantly honest with themselves, just go and stare at themselves in the mirror for ten minutes to see who they are, would finally come to the conclusion that they would rather experience love with only one person because that is so magnificently lovely. like i said, anyone can fulfill their bodily desires and have sex, but only the ones with pure love in their hearts can save those desires for the perfect person for them. in the end, it is the pure love that matters, not the times when you got stuck in the moment and gave in to your lustful desires, though it may have felt good and you may even learned about yourself, no, that stuff passes away. i believe love, not lust, lasts. but just because someone does give in to those sexual pleasures in an (i believe) unloving way (because i don't view it as love but as lust) doesn't mean that i won't lend an eye towards them. i will still have my gift to offer her, if you see what i mean.
"any way to all you poor souls who are denying yourselves one of lifes greatest wonders"
i am not a poor soul who is denying himself of one of life's greatest wonders. i wish you could see and maybe even appreciate my point (because i am not being critical against anyone else's points) that it is because sex is one of life's greatest wonders that i do not have the desire to treat sex as anything less. i have the desire to be loyal, responsible, and respectful to that wonder. i think Luke stated it very well when he defined sex as one of life's greatest wonders. it is a wonder how someone can save their virginity their entire life because they have a love that is so incredibly stong. and i believe i can experience all the wonder meant to be experienced within this great wonder of sexual intimacy by living the way my beliefs have stated.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
tim
连接： Jul 10, 2003
邮件 6
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 23
国家：United States
Province/State: Texas
城市: Texarkana
|
Re: sex before marriage
August 22, 2003 - 05:18 AM
|
|
mikael says this:
-Many people who are not married are already at a stage where they feel the sort of bond they might feel while married - they just don't have an official marriage certificate. In many ways marriage is important, but it also shouldn't be a huge change in someone's life, because when you get married you should already be at the point where you're able to be intimate with your partner...
well, first of all, let me say how joyful i am to hear someone on the opposite end of the discussion who is not critical or antagonistic or defensive/offensive in their ideas. so, thank you, mikael, you automatically get more respect from viewers (me in particular) simply because you were respectful yourself. (and i think that's how all the TIG discussions should be) but back to what mikael said...
i agree with everything he said. i think that when a couple gets engaged (or the eqivalent to this stage) that they should be ready (emotionally, mentally, spiritually, physically) to get married right then. it doesn't mean they have to get married right then, but they should even then have the level of intimacy required in order to have a successful marriage.
i don't know if my views have changed here or not...
i still believe that sex should be saved for one other person, and i have already explained my reasons why, and i believe they are overflowing with validity concerning the idea of true love and how special one can make a sexual relationship by not sharing it with anyone else.
during this whole discussion, i have viewed marriage as something more than just having an officical marriage license... i have viewed it as the ultimate commitment. making it totally final to your spouse that you love them no matter what (i know about the whole divorce thing and everything, but i have hope that marriage can still work)
anyway, my views remain the same despite mikael's ideas, UNLESS, unless the only weight and meaning to marriage is simply having a certificate... if that's all that marriage means, then i would have to change my views to where i don't even believe in marriage... (maybe, i don't know for sure...) so tell me, viewers, (including mikael) is there more to marriage than just a legal acknowledgement?
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Aurallica
连接： Aug 15, 2003
邮件 1
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
国家：United States
|
let's not forget the BIGGEST picture
August 22, 2003 - 05:20 AM
|
|
hey, i'm not sure if someone already mentioned it...but (o first off, that was cool ubono and your first one wallflower was beautiful..p.s. i love the witty turnabout witht the color, blind metaphor) but yeah...um, hey
whatever you guys do: b4 or after
just remember...you're making a binding committment with that individual ANYTIME you decided to be intimate with him or her...you're intrusting them with your life...it's almost like Russion Roulette...is their a little bullet called AIDS, HIV, Chlamydia, Ghonorrea, Syphlis, Herpes, etc etc etc...in that little trigger? It's some big scary consequences involved but unlike playing with a potentially fatal gunshot wound...you've now got 6 mo. of anticipation on seeing whether you've been shot or not...AND in those 6 mo., you could unconciously, unbeknownst unto yourself fatally render your same death sentence upon another. Yeah, if you can't marry the person, how the h-e-double hockystick are you going to, in that other hand...say...HEY, i trust you with my life, even though i don't trust you with my life (living our lives together...i don't know you/trust you well enough to marry you, but i do know you well enough to know you/trust you well enough to play Russian Roulette with you
i've pulled the trigger and had the trigger pulled on me before and I think that I was stupid, and I DID want to remain a virgin until I was married...but I needed a spiritural or internal root to maintain and i neglected it so I could potentially be infected....It's stupid, it wasn't worth it, but hey, you live, you learn, you die...and if you to to hell...you burn...(a little dark humor)
um, ok, loveyouguys
love,
Aurelia *smootches* p.s. i hope that none of that came off harsh...i just hope it helps someone make some decision someday...adios!
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Mikael
连接： Apr 12, 2002
邮件 15
帖子等级
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 27
国家：Canada
Province/State: Quebec
城市: Montréal
|
Re: sex before marriage
August 22, 2003 - 05:39 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Ubono2carpediem
well, first of all, let me say how joyful i am to hear someone on the opposite end of the discussion who is not critical or antagonistic or defensive/offensive in their ideas. so, thank you, mikael, you automatically get more respect from viewers (me in particular) simply because you were respectful yourself. (and i think that's how all the TIG discussions should be)
Thanks Tim, I appreciate the comment and agree wholeheartedly - respect is primordial in any discussion even though it's easy sometimes to get antagonized!
...they should even then have the level of intimacy required in order to have a successful marriage.
That's the essence of the argument - that when you get married to someone, you're giving yourself completely to them and to no one else. How can you do so if you aren't intimate on a sexual level yet? If you consider that sexual intimacy is an important part of a relationship, and is rooted in trust and care, then it seems to that it's important to share in this kind of intimacy before you commit to spending the rest of your life with someone. Otherwise you can't know that the two of you will be on the same page with these things. While it's by no means the most important part of a relationship, it still plays a role that can't be ignored, and can't be left up to chance by waiting until after the commitment of marriage!
so tell me, viewers, (including mikael) is there more to marriage than just a legal acknowledgement?
I think that many people don't consider marriage to be as binding as it used to be. When I look at the time period in which my grandparents grew up, there's a marked difference - people back then married when they were very young and stayed with their partner for the rest of their life. I don't see how you can know, at the age of 22, that you'll want to stay with the same person for the rest of your life... that kind of decision is premature. I think that, if my grandparents were growing up now, they may have gotten married but probably never would have lasted for very long as a couple. There's something to be said for selfless devotion, but there's also a logic to being able to leave a relationship if it's not healthy, despite being married legally.
Also, I think that it's possible to have a deep commitment without being legally married. I know some couples who have been together for years but are not in a rush to get married - apart from legal benefits, why do they need a piece of paper to prove that they're in love? Not to say, by any means, that marriage isn't worthwhile, because it may be for many. I just don't think that it's essential!
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Mikael
连接： Apr 12, 2002
邮件 15
帖子等级
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 27
国家：Canada
Province/State: Quebec
城市: Montréal
|
Re: let's not forget the BIGGEST picture
August 22, 2003 - 05:52 AM
|
|
Originally posted by Aurallica
i hope that none of that came off harsh...i just hope it helps someone make some decision someday...adios!
Thanks for sharing your story with us! 
Being intimate with someone does involve a large amount of trust, but there are also things you can do to make sure that you won't wind up getting some horrible disease, like using protection, which is the most important step... but also, if someone loves you, then they should accept to be tested if you're really concerned about these things. It's only fair, and I know it can be misinterpreted but I'm sure it could make a couple feel much more comfortable with each other if they were sure that they were both disease-free.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Hannah Pappenheim
连接： Jul 12, 2003
邮件
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 21
国家：United States
Province/State: Wisconsin
城市: Milwaukee
|
Re: sex before marriage
August 22, 2003 - 11:35 AM
|
|
wallflower-
thanks for your response, and dont worry, i was not offended at all. i really had to think awhile to come up with a response, and here is what i have come up with:
you said not to enter a cycle that i was tired of. i am not positive to which cycle you were referring to, but i took it to mean the marriage one. the one where millions of people get married(in the us) and only half of them actually stick to their commitment. you are right. i dont want to become part of that cycle. so for now, i am living my life with the intent of never getting married. why? not because i want to be able to fool around with every guy that comes my way. i am just a coward. i dont have the trust and faith required to give my whole life to someone. i dont trust that they will never get tired of me. i dont trust that they would never leave me. the surprising part is, i am not a girl with a broken heart(at least in a romantic sense). i just see too many children, and peers with screwed up parents. and believe me, it hurts. i am not trying to become anyone's pity case, just making my point. and the point, i guess, is this. i am not looking to get married, but that does not mean that i will never have a mature, commited relationship in which sex would be appropriate(to me).
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
tim
连接： Jul 10, 2003
邮件 6
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 23
国家：United States
Province/State: Texas
城市: Texarkana
|
Re: sex before marriage
August 23, 2003 - 10:17 AM
|
|
quote from mikael:
"The physical aspect of a relationship does, however, play a role - it's like a way of totally fulfilling both members of a couple, both emotionally and physically. This is not an 'un-sacred' act in any way - it is simply the expression of mutual love."
i agree with this, but i think our disagreement is concerned with the timing. see, i think that this "totally fulfilling both members of a couple, both emotionally and physically" should come after you know that they are the one you have decided to give your life to. i don't want to belittle sex. if you consider how sacred i am viewing sex, then you can see why i think it shouldn't be shared with anyone but your spouse. this "mutual love" we are talking about is i believe the result of the positive decision you have made on wanting that person based on the time you have spent knowing that person. i don't think the couple should totally fulfill each other when they are not for sure that the other individual is the one that they really want to totally fulfill. forget the marriage thing, okay, because i'm tired of trying to determine the sacredness of marriage itself. all i'm saying is that your sex life should be saved for the one whom you desire to give your heart and soul to, and that is a very tough decision i think, but i'm not going to go about deciding who it is by totally fulfilling each girl i become romantically close to. i only want to totally fulfill one person. i just think that this is true love.
let's say one writes a love poem to someone they love. it is full of deep emotions and is overflowing with passionate love. it makes the recipient feel fulfilled and satisfied. also, it makes the writer fulfilled and satisfied to know that their gift was accepted with total joy... blah blah blah. the point is, it wouldn't be right for that poem to be given to another person besides the person whom it was originally wtitten to. if the poem is given to multiple persons, it no longer holds the significane, sacredness, and specialness that it once did since it has been used on more than one person. it was written to one individual, yet it has been given to more than one individuals. that's not right, is it? but what if that poem, which was only written to the one who the writer knew for sure was the one he wanted to give it to, did keep its purpose. the purpose of expressing to that ONE how the writer felt. now that is special, because it has been given to no one else, and out of trust and faith (let's try to live as they did back in the day, not giving divorce an option (unless you just really realize you made a mistake with this one..)) that this poem won't be given to anyone else. doesn't that seem like true love? that the writer spent so much time in discerning and determining who the special one was going to be, and he never gave the poem to anyone else, and when he finally did discover the one he would decide to love forever he was able to share this gift straight from his heart as special as he had originally intended . that is sacred love.
i hope this was a good analogy of the beliefs i'm trying to portray.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
tim
连接： Jul 10, 2003
邮件 6
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 23
国家：United States
Province/State: Texas
城市: Texarkana
|
reply mainly to mikael
August 23, 2003 - 12:11 PM
|
|
i am thoroughly enjoying this discussion for i am learing many ideas which i am considering heavily in my mind whether i believe in them or not. everything said has defenitely caused me to question what i believe and has made me look deeper for what i believe is right. i hope my ideas are doing the same for you, for we are sharpening one another. shall we all be open-minded.
after reading mikael's thoughts and ideas (with an open-mind, mind you), i stil feel that we are going about this the wrong way. basically, i think you're saying that you become intimate with the significant other in order to know if you want to spend your life with them. but i don't think the intimacy is a test of love. i think intimacy is love. the way you find out if he/she is who you want to marry is to learn about them and learn their heart, their passions, their likes and dislikes, their best qualities and worst qualities, etc., and through spending abundant time with them i believe these things can be learned. a dating relationship can be considered a "test" to see if the other is your future spouse. but why do you have to test their sex? what are you learning from that? that is too far a level of intimacy because you have not yet made your decision of giving your life to them. then, if later you decide that he/she is not the one you want because of some qualities you have discovered in them by spending time with them, well, you already gave your intimacy to them, and now it is no longer as sacred for the spouse you hopefully will find in the future as it could have been if you would have restricted your lustful passions. i just don't think intimacy is the way to learn, i think intimacy is the result of learning about them through time spent with them. (i beg of you to be open-minded and see my point... for i am being open-minded to everyone else's (particularly mikael's) ideas.)
mikael said this:
"people back then married when they were very young and stayed with their partner for the rest of their life. I don't see how you can know, at the age of 22, that you'll want to stay with the same person for the rest of your life... that kind of decision is premature. "
well, if making a marriage decision at the age of 22 is premature, then shouldn't your grandparents' ages, of which was even younger, also be considered premature as well..? yet their marriage lasted.
and just because society today doesn't consider marriage to be as binding as it used to be, does that change the binds of marriage? if anything, i want to go against the majority's ways of thinking. just like wallflower told hannahbear, one shouldn't base their decisions on the flow of other people's ideas.
no, i defenitely don't need a sheet of paper telling me that i am in love, but i just feel that marriage is more than that (though maybe it is not viewed as so by society; that matters not to me)
please respond, one and all.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
tim
连接： Jul 10, 2003
邮件 6
帖子等级
说话温和
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 23
国家：United States
Province/State: Texas
城市: Texarkana
|
Re: Hannahbear
August 23, 2003 - 12:20 PM
|
|
hannah:
you said:
"i am not looking to get married, but that does not mean that i will never have a mature, commited relationship in which sex would be appropriate(to me)."
i am just wondering, not to get in the way of Wallflower's surely anticipated response or anything, but how is marriage different than "a mature, commited relationship in which sex would be appropriate."
there is still a possible separation in what you are willing to commit yourself to. but how is that separation different than a separation within a marriage. either way there will be heartache. you imlpy that you will have a commited relationship, how is this going to be different than marriage?
i mean no offense. (reminder: friendly intelligent discussion)
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Mikael
连接： Apr 12, 2002
邮件 15
帖子等级
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 27
国家：Canada
Province/State: Quebec
城市: Montréal
|
Re: reply mainly to mikael
August 23, 2003 - 12:44 PM
|
|
Originally posted by Ubono2carpediem
i don't think the intimacy is a test of love. i think intimacy is love. the way you find out if he/she is who you want to marry is to learn about them and learn their heart, their passions, their likes and dislikes, their best qualities and worst qualities, etc., and through spending abundant time with them i believe these things can be learned. a dating relationship can be considered a "test" to see if the other is your future spouse. but why do you have to test their sex? what are you learning from that? that is too far a level of intimacy because you have not yet made your decision of giving your life to them. then, if later you decide that he/she is not the one you want because of some qualities you have discovered in them by spending time with them, well, you already gave your intimacy to them, and now it is no longer as sacred for the spouse you hopefully will find in the future as it could have been if you would have restricted your lustful passions.
Here's where I disagree with you - the 'sacredness' of physical intimacy. You see, I do agree that the way you find out about a person is spending time with them and learning about their likes/dislikes etc. The physical aspect of a relationship does, however, play a role - it's like a way of totally fulfilling both members of a couple, both emotionally and physically. This is not an 'un-sacred' act in any way - it is simply the expression of mutual love.
What I'd like to know is how you find sexual experience with a previous partner will diminish the 'sacredness' of the intimacy for the person that you choose to marry. In my opinion, knowing what you're doing sexually can only be a good thing, because then you can please your partner... whereas if you have no experience at all then this side of the relationship might be lacking. I don't think that having shared a physical intimacy with someone previously will in any way diminish the intensity of the bond with the person you marry - the bond should, in fact, be stronger, because the relationship is built around a love which is present, and a physical intimacy which in a way, concretizes this love.
well, if making a marriage decision at the age of 22 is premature, then shouldn't your grandparents' ages, of which was even younger, also be considered premature as well..? yet their marriage lasted.
That's the thing though - because they were brought up in a time when divorce was unacceptable, they knew they were in for the long haul. The concept of divorce has never occurred to them because it's never been a viable option - however, had they been raised now, the 'glue' to the relationship wouldn't have been the rigid binding of marriage, but the expression of true love and well-being.
and just because society today doesn't consider marriage to be as binding as it used to be, does that change the binds of marriage? if anything, i want to go against the majority's ways of thinking. just like wallflower told hannahbear, one shouldn't base their decisions on the flow of other people's ideas.
I don't think that anyone is saying that marriage itself can't be a beautiful thing. We're just pointing out that in general it's lost some of its significance; this also puts more emphasis, in my mind, on personal responsibility in terms of getting along with someone, rather than staying with them because you are married and have no choice (not being able to divorce them.) This is definitely a case-by-case type of thing, however.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Hannah Pappenheim
连接： Jul 12, 2003
邮件
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 21
国家：United States
Province/State: Wisconsin
城市: Milwaukee
|
Re: sex before marriage
August 25, 2003 - 02:31 AM
|
|
i guess the difference would be that although i am in a commited relationship, i am commiting to a person, not a time frame. in otherwords, i would not be in a FOREVER commited relationship. i, as well as my sig. other, would be acknowledging that although we are in love now and commited to eachother, things can change. i can't expect(trust) someone to love me forever. i dont think that i am expressing myself very well...its like...okay. say relationships are like rooms with people. ( just go with me for a second here). marriage would be the equivalent of locking someone in a room with you. my relationship would be with the door closed, but not locked. hope that makes since. it is the best i can do for now.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Hannah Pappenheim
连接： Jul 12, 2003
邮件
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 女性, 21
国家：United States
Province/State: Wisconsin
城市: Milwaukee
|
Re: sex before marriage
August 26, 2003 - 02:43 AM
|
|
i can definitly see where you are coming from when you point out that you could not have peace of mind in a relationship held together by a doorknob. however, i would feel just as uneasy knowing that i had locked someone in there with me. yes, it would hurt whenever someone opens the door and walks away, but that is a risk i will have to take, because for me it would hurt a lot more if we were locked in there, and they asked for the key back. the key that was supposed to never be used again. last thought(for now )...i am not sure i agree with you when you said the "inevitable door knob turning" (or something like that). just because our room people have not promised eachother for life does not mean it could not happen. you dont have to married to stay together forever, it just increases your chances.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
|
从帖子中显示：
|
|
主页
团体
