Well then, en guard, my good Pallas…!
Glove is picked up. Sword is raised.
First, there is no need to disregard certain types of sexual activities. Any and all types are “fair” game (even if we do not mention all of them by their colloquial name, to protect the innocent). The only difference we need to examine is whether they are performed
within a marriage or
outside marriage. To start on a lighthearted node, let me recall a nice joke. “A guy tells his friend: when my partner wants to have sex, she reaches over and strokes me once. When she does not want to have sex, she reaches over and strokes me twenty five times”. I hope you had a smile over this, because it is very important. People might not be equally “charged” to have fun, but they can show their LOVE by giving it one day, and receiving the next day. There is nothing degrading about it. It is NOT using or exploiting the other person.
And it leads to the first question: “why would this activity be harmful for an unmarried couple and harmless for a married one”? You should be aware that in testing procedure only one parameter can be modified at a time. In our case it means that the ONLY difference is the “married” vs. “unmarried” status. Everything else should be equal.
Next observation. The paperwork does not create commitment. One can be faithfully committed to a relationship without going through the ceremony. Now you might ask, why NOT go through with the ceremony, if both parties are committed. The answer is simple: it is none of our business. The only thing that matters is the commitment, with or without the legal or religious ceremony. Where is the “harm” for the unmarried couple, which is absent for the married one?
You might object that it is more “difficult” to stray when one is married, but that does not seem to be the case. As I said: “the paper does not create commitment”. In the very religious Victorian era infidelity was rampant, though well hidden. According to a story, a member of the House of Lords was asked if he would permit his daughter to read “Lady Chatterley’s Lover”. He answered: “of course I would let her read it. But I would not let my gardener to read it”.
Different cultures had different norms. In the medieval German culture pre-marital sex was not just strongly encouraged, it was expected. The bride was supposed to be visibly pregnant, to provide evidence that the couple is fertile. No nonsense about having two virgins try to figure out what should be put where. This reminds me of another excellent joke, but I don’t dare to tell it… someone might get upset about it.
Based upon the rest of your post you seem to equate unmarried sex with uninhibited bed-hopping. Of course such behavior MIGHT carry risks, but taking
risks does not equal harmful result. The question was not about which behavior MIGHT carry more risks, rather which result WILL be inherently harmful.
There is a distinct possibility that a male, particularly early-on in the relationship, might seek to gain access to sex by merely appearing to be as appealing or appeasing as possible to the female…potentially disguising his true motivations and/or personality in order to succeed at his actual goal: namely conquest of the maiden’s body rather than of her heart.
Yes, this is another POSSIBILITY. As long as both parties agree and accept this, there is no harm. Actually, the courtship ritual is a two-edged sword. When the “final harbor” - the marriage is reached, people rend to lower their hair - so to speak - and the procedure might degenerate into a ho-hum ritual.
For in whom might one have the greater confidence: one who has faced strong temptation in the past and yet resisted heroically, or one who has done what felt pleasing to the senses upon the first opportunity?
And herein lies another misconception. The greatest confidence is given to someone who has tried and tested several partners, and who KNOWINGLY stays in a faithful relationship, precisely because they KNOW the value of their current partner. The otherwise normal and ever-present curiosity of “how would it be with someone else?” is absent, because they both are aware of the greatness of the current relationship.
There is the atavistic desire to “own” someone, body and “soul”, to keep them for one’s exclusive “use”, as if having had prior relationship would wash off the “farina” from the wings of the “maiden”. Nonsense. Sex is not instinctive, it needs to be learned and practiced. No one would expect a future violin player just to pick up the violin and the fiddlestick and become a Yehudi Menuhin. Practice makes perfect in every facet of life.
