Practically speaking, don't we need to "test drive the car before we buy it?"

[BlueEyedLady]

I can tell you that I have never met a mother, let alone a Catholic mother, who would encourage their child to have sex with their boyfriend. It just isn’t what you want for your daughter. The world of premarital relationships is a quagmire unless you keep them all locked up in a dome with like minded families like the Amish. Even non religious mothers are only really bending to risk management and advocating the lesser of two evils when they assist what they see as the ‘inevitable’.

Are you sure about that? When I brought my now-husband home to meet my parents, I think that my mom would have raised an eyebrow if I told her that we were in a serious relationship but that we weren’t going to have sex until marriage. My brother would have similar concerns if one of his daughters (currently ranging in age from elementary school to adulthood) brought home a man that she was serious with and then announced that they were waiting until marriage to have sex. I actually think that my brother and SIL would have even more concerns than I would. I’m not talking about encouraging teenagers to explore their sexuality. I’m talking about raising my children with certain beliefs and values about marriage-just as you raised your children to believe certain things about marriage. One of my (and my husband’s, and my family of origin’s, and many other people’s) beliefs about marriage is that you should have a full, complete, and honest relationship before marriage, not after. It’s actually a VERY common belief these days, and I’m surprised you’ve never met anyone who thinks that.

This has far less to do with my attitude towards sex than it does my beliefs about marriage. I would be extremely concerned if my child were about to enter into a marriage with someone who had been holding things back from her, or vice-versa.

Perhaps there is a movement of mothers so radically pro sex for their kids that they can turn off their maternal natures, but I fail to see what you are gaining from advocating such a thing on a Catholic forum unless your scouting for weak links to convert to some other agenda?

That’s a very uncharitable thing to say. I can assure you that my mother’s maternal instincts are, and have always been extremely strong. She just doesn’t have instincts regarding her 20-something and 40-something children’s virginity.

As for why I’m “advocating”, if you will go back and read the conversation, I made a statement to the OP with a caveat of “as someone who believes in premarital sex, I don’t think_____” and I was asked to explain further. And I have continued to answer questions charitably-without advocating for anything, arguing against anyone, or putting down anyone else’s choices or values. Please show me the same charity.

 

[EasterJoy]

…This has far less to do with my attitude towards sex than it does my beliefs about marriage. I would be extremely concerned if my child were about to enter into a marriage with someone who had been holding things back from her, or vice-versa…

I do not get you. What if your intended spouse expects sex as a condition of agreeing to give consent to a marriage, then “holds things back” such as a willingness to make final vows? You have someone who wants you to consummate a marriage without ratifying it first, and somehow this is inherently more worthy of trust than someone who insists the marriage be ratified before it is consummated? How could that be? After all, how many couples, after they set up housekeeping and have consummated their relationship sit in the situation where one or the other is “not ready” to make permanent vows? On what basis, then, should there be more concern that the other party won’t consent to have sex than there is that the other party is going to back out and refuse to promise a lifetime of exclusive fidelity? I don’t think we need to wonder which sort of backing out is the more prevalent, or ever has been the more prevalent.

Mind you, if a couple were to ratify a marriage (make the vows in good faith and with understanding of what they were promising), and then refuse to consummate, either singly or by joint decision, the marriage would not yet be indissoluble. A marriage that has been ratified (valid vows exchanged by the spouses) but never consummated (in a human manner, engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring), may be dissolved, although not automatically.

 

[Rau]

…I have continued to answer questions charitably-without advocating for anything, arguing against anyone, or putting down anyone else’s choices or values…

Nothing wrong with arguing positions contrary to others…we’re all doing that. However you **have explicitly advocated **in favour of pre-marital sex, and against the idea of reserving sex for marriage. Not just for yourself, but for others, including your future children. And you **have indirectly put down other peoples’ choices and values **by the way in which you describe those choices - by describing the one who chooses to reserve sex for marriage as one who is “putting up artificial, unilateral barriers”. That is completely dismissive of the values of another.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

I’m going to respond in this format-please don’t take it as aggressive or combative, I just want to make sure that I address each separate question clearly.

Though you did say plainly before that you would discourage your daughter from an inclination to wait until marriage.

Yes, if asked for my thoughts or advice. I don’t advocate approaching an adult child about their sex life. It’s invasive and inappropriate, IMO.

Perhaps your child is attracted to the idea of the intimacy of sex being a dimension that belongs solely in the unique and committed relationship of marriage, rather than in (possibly) several relationships? I appreciate that isn’t your perspective. But, I’m not sure why you’d wish to **dissuade **a daughter (or anyone) from holding that view about sex.

For the same reason that you would dissuade your child (or anyone) from holding my view about sex. I don’t think that abstinence until marriage is the best way to go. I don’t want to debate on this forum whether it is or isn’t, so I’m going to have to agree to disagree on this one with virtually every other poster.

For many, after the watershed commitment of marriage is that time. I appreciate that wouldn’t be acceptable to you. For others, it’s probably “natural” from the first opportunity, if the chemistry is flowing. Though, I note later that you indicate “love” is a necessary precondition (though not sure why you say that…).

Love is not a necessary precondition for sex. But I do think that if a couple is going to be in an exclusive, committed relationship where they are declaring their love for each other, then they should be at the point where they are no longer holding anything back from each other. I realize that Catholics believe that you should only give yourself completely after the wedding. It’s not a view I share and not one I want to pass on.

Natural could be when the chemistry is flowing. It could be after the couple has fallen in love. It could be somewhere in between, it will depend on the couple. But if there are declarations of love and talks of lifelong commitment, and one person is saying “I love you too, and I want to be with you forever”, then the natural way to show that is to completely give yourself to that person, and I’m not by any means just talking sexually. A LOT goes into it, as I’m sure you and every other married person out there is aware. Saying those things but then insisting on holding back parts of yourself even when the other person is wanting to move forward indicates a problem to me.

For me and my husband, this point in our relationship would have been about the 6 month mark. That’s when we decided to go from ‘exclusive’ to actively working toward marriage. It was when we first said I love you, we started spending holidays together, attending family functions together, being open about our financial situations and sharing resources (not joining finances, but definitely sharing). Had we not been having sex at that point, I would probably say that something was wrong.

Is the key point here that the ‘objection’ to having sex is “artificial”, or that it is a view of only “one of the couple”? I guess it is a “problem” that only one wants sex now, as this may be a source of difficulty in the relationship. And I suppose that the particular reason to defer sex - that one views sex as special and for marriage only - is a problem too, since the other doesn’t share that view/value.

It’s definitely an issue of compatability. When I see threads on here about one person wanting premarital sex and the other not, I have to wonder why it’s even a question. If you can’t agree on that, you probably have a lot more differences in values that you haven’t even touched on. Not being on the same page about premarital sex is a far bigger red flagand more consequential (in my mind) than whether the couple chooses to engaI tge in sex or not.

It seems that your view that the “right” (or better) solution is that the reluctant party yields (as per the advice you indicated you’d give to your daughter), really just reflects your own code of morality, which is that sex is fine so long as the pair have love, and any other thinking is suggestive of a deficiency on the part of the one who wishes to wait, or in the relationship. That you describe a personal view about the rightful place of sex as “to keep putting up artificial, unilateral, barriers” seems one-eyed and dismissive of the other party. I appreciate atheism likely means a rejection of a range of values and beliefs for self, but it does not imply an inability or unwillingness to respect them, or even to accommodate them, in others.

I don’t think that you would be super willing to respect or accommodate your adult child choosing to have premarital sex. Of course what I teach my children will be reflect my values.

But regardless, this is not about my moral code. (My sexual moral code is actually far more liberal than sex-is-fine-if-you’re-in-love). Like I told LongingSoul, this has next to nothing to do with my feelings on sex and a lot more to do with marriage. I want my children to have the best possible shot at the best possible life. Every good person wants that for their kids. It has been my personal experience, the experience of many that I’m closest to, and the experience of my husband that this is the best way. I understand that you disagree-that’s why our kids will be brought up differently.

Yes, I do think that there is a moral element in play when it comes to not withholding yourself from the person you love. But my bigger concern is about the wisdom of it.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Sorry, there was a character limit. The rest of the response is below.

If your child and their partner both were of a mind to wait till marriage, would you be completely happy, or would you be uneasy?

Of course I would be uneasy! Again, you would be uneasy if your child decided not to wait for marriage. But if they are both happy and on the same page, then my advice has been neither asked for, nor has it been needed. I really don’t believe in volunteering your feelings about someone else’s sex life, even if it is your adult child. And I also don’t believe in insulting people or their choices when it comes to their personal lives. I hope I’m the kind of mom my mother is. She’s very able to say to her kids: “Well, that’s not what I think is best, but after having me as your mother for X years, you already know that” and then drop it.

 

[jmcrae]

An overreaction. My whole original post was about a couple considering marriage. Shouldn’t a couple have sex before marriage to understand their sexual compatibility, to prevent disaster later on??

They should discuss sex, especially as they approach the wedding date, but they don’t actually need to have sex in order to find out each other’s attitudes toward sex. In fact I would expect the conversation to be a lot more educational than the actual act itself.

One can retain one’s virginity while becoming educated about human anatomy, especially one’s own, and finding out these things, and discussing them with one’s intended before the fact. (And calling the whole thing off with no harm done if one’s intended has no interest in the subject, or is not physically attracted.)

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Nothing wrong with arguing positions contrary to others…we’re all doing that.]

For the same reason that I don’t debate abortion and whether or not homosexuality is moral is on this site-I am not going to debate whether or not it is better to have premarital sex before marriage. I will outline what I believe, but I refuse to get into “You should because XYZ”, or “If you don’t XYZ”. It’s disrespectful to do so because this is a Catholic site, and because the OP didn’t ask for that. So no, I don’t want to argue. What I’m happy to do is clarify my position, as you asked me to do pages ago. But if you want to argue against what I say, I won’t respond. So far, you haven’t really argued, and I appreciate that.

However you **have explicitly advocated **in favour of pre-marital sex, and against the idea of reserving sex for marriage. Not just for yourself, but for others, including your future children.

No, I made a comment about my attitudes and beliefs to clarify where I was coming from when I told Gordon that I didn’t think that the attitude that he was talking about was a common one. That is not advocating. Saying that I am a vegan and I will raise my children as vegans is not the same as as publicly advocating veganism. Now the OP advocated for premarital sex and has argued against chastity. I’ve made an effort not to do that.

And you **have indirectly put down other peoples’ choices and values **by the way in which you describe those choices - by describing the one who chooses to reserve sex for marriage as one who is “putting up artificial, unilateral barriers”. That is completely dismissive of the values of another.

I apologize if that’s how I came across. But if the only barrier to sex is that my child is saying no solely on the grounds that they want to wait until marriage-and they aren’t a member of a faith that mandates it-then yes, it does seem arbitrary. And unilateral isn’t offensive-that’s what it’s called when one person makes a rule without the agreement of the other.

 

[Rau]

…I would be extremely concerned if my child were about to enter into a marriage with someone who had been holding things back from her, or vice-versa.

As to holding things back, there would be exceptions though, right? The couple may desire a house and a family. This ordinarily is thought to follow the marriage, rather than to be experienced first in the name of “not holding back”.*

 

[Xantippe]

I would find it worrisome if my kids chose to discuss their intimate life with me when they were planning to get married. Too much information!

I would regard that as a sign of immaturity and that they need better boundaries.

 

[Rau]

Of course I would be uneasy [if both members of the couple prefer to wait for marriage to have sex]!

The purpose of my question was to understand whether a difference of opinion of the couple (about premarital sex) was key, or whether it was the actual “not having sex” that was the problem (for you). I now understand it is actually the latter.

 

[Rau]

I do not get you. What if your intended spouse expects sex as a condition of agreeing to give consent to a marriage, then “holds things back” such as a willingness to make final vows? You have someone who wants you to consummate a marriage without ratifying it first, and somehow this is inherently more worthy of trust than someone who insists the marriage be ratified before it is consummated? How could that be? After all, how many couples, after they set up housekeeping and have consummated their relationship sit in the situation where one or the other is “not ready” to make permanent vows? On what basis, then, should there be more concern that the other party won’t consent to have sex than there is that the other party is going to back out and refuse to promise a lifetime of exclusive fidelity? I don’t think we need to wonder which sort of backing out is the more prevalent, or ever has been the more prevalent.

Mind you, if a couple were to ratify a marriage (make the vows in good faith and with understanding of what they were promising), and then refuse to consummate, either singly or by joint decision, the marriage would not yet be indissoluble. A marriage that has been ratified (valid vows exchanged by the spouses) but never consummated (in a human manner, engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring), may be dissolved, although not automatically.

While I’m sympathetic to your point, BEL’s view is not that sex is being made available because “we’re on a promise to get married”, but because after some point in romance, that is the next step (her view). [Though she also says: “Love is not a necessary precondition for sex” - which I guess means it’s also OK as a means to have fun, say, instead of going to a movie.] She further comments that having sex before the marriage (“not holding back anything”) improves the prospect of a good marriage - but makes clear she will not be debating that view.

Of course, there might not be any marriage, as the couple might ‘break-up’ before reaching that step. So then, the process repeats through the sequence of steps: Meet, Romance, Sex, [possibly] Marriage.

 

[EasterJoy]

While I’m sympathetic to your point, BEL’s view is not that sex is being made available because “we’re on a promise to get married”, but because after some point in romance, that is the next step (her view). [Though she also says: “Love is not a necessary precondition for sex” - which I guess means it’s also OK as a means to have fun, say, instead of going to a movie.] She further comments that having sex before the marriage (“not holding back anything”) improves the prospect of a good marriage - but makes clear she will not be debating that view.

Of course, there might not be any marriage, as the couple might ‘break-up’ before reaching that step. So then, the process repeats through the sequence of steps: Meet, Romance, Sex, [possibly] Marriage.

My concern is that she is wary of someone who does “hold back” in that particular area. It is a long-standing custom in many cultures, and I don’t see why it would be a cause for automatic wariness. Even from a secular point of view, just as some people are going to hold back on getting into real estate deals with someone to whom they have no other legal ties, just so some people are going to hold back on sexual activity. Even if one were ignorant of natural law with regards to marriage–that is, that sexual activity belongs in a relationship in which a truly lifelong commitment is not only intended but has actually been made–to wait for sex until vows have been made is a prudent thing to do.

Not everyone is so careful, true, but I fail to see why care in this area is a cause for suspicion in someone with no moral code that compels it. Does she believe that people who are that reserved tend to have some emotional scarring in the area of sexuality? I don’t know what her reasoning is, that is what I am saying. I certainly can’t understand why there would be a problem when the other person had a tribal cultural taboo in that area. It would be like suspecting a Jew who keeps kosher “in this day and age,” or who was vegan for ethical reasons, or something like that. I don’t get it.

 

[LongingSoul]

Are you sure about that? When I brought my now-husband home to meet my parents, I think that my mom would have raised an eyebrow if I told her that we were in a serious relationship but that we weren’t going to have sex until marriage. My brother would have similar concerns if one of his daughters (currently ranging in age from elementary school to adulthood) brought home a man that she was serious with and then announced that they were waiting until marriage to have sex. I actually think that my brother and SIL would have even more concerns than I would. I’m not talking about encouraging teenagers to explore their sexuality. I’m talking about raising my children with certain beliefs and values about marriage-just as you raised your children to believe certain things about marriage. One of my (and my husband’s, and my family of origin’s, and many other people’s) beliefs about marriage is that you should have a full, complete, and honest relationship before marriage, not after. It’s actually a VERY common belief these days, and I’m surprised you’ve never met anyone who thinks that.

This has far less to do with my attitude towards sex than it does my beliefs about marriage. I would be extremely concerned if my child were about to enter into a marriage with someone who had been holding things back from her, or vice-versa.

This philosophy confuses me no end. It’s fairly new obviously because prior to modern contraception and surgical abortion ‘a full, complete, and honest relationship before marriage’, meant a baby and the consequent responsibility… so I’m assuming that your Grandmother and great Grandmother wouldn’t have advocated such a relationship? We can establish that this is a modern contraceptive innovation about marriage would that be right?

In this modern age where marriage can mean childless sexual availability… where ‘giving yourself completely to another’ is exclusively about non-fertile ‘ecstasies’ …what does the vow and commitment serve? To me it sounds like bondage based on sexual codependency. I have a complete repulsion to the idea of that sort of marriage. If I held your belief system, I would only consider marriage if I fell pregnant. That would present the motivation to forgo my freedom, but never, never, never would I marry from the sense of sexual bondage. I’m more feminist in that regard than the most radical feminists.

Perhaps there is a movement of mothers so radically pro sex for their kids that they can turn off their maternal natures, but I fail to see what you are gaining from advocating such a thing on a Catholic forum unless your scouting for weak links to convert to some other agenda?

That’s a very uncharitable thing to say. I can assure you that my mother’s maternal instincts are, and have always been extremely strong. She just doesn’t have instincts regarding her 20-something and 40-something children’s virginity.

I don’t understand what you mean by ‘charity’ as an atheist? I know that you have been here for some years contributing your atheist perspective, but I’ve been somewhat confused as to why you get away with so much. It often has a benign appearance but the question constantly arises… what is your point? For a Christian, charity constitutes an adherence to the truth and the desire to fight lies that harm the Communion of Saints. You seem to be rewriting charity as not challenging your deceptively benign principles out of some esteem for your specialness… or something?

As for why I’m “advocating”, if you will go back and read the conversation, I made a statement to the OP with a caveat of “as someone who believes in premarital sex, I don’t think_____” and I was asked to explain further. And I have continued to answer questions charitably-without advocating for anything, arguing against anyone, or putting down anyone else’s choices or values. Please show me the same charity.

I would much prefer it if you were more true to your genuine beliefs and stick with your agenda than darting back and forth between your philosophical theories (which are very dependent on modern contraceptive technology) and your vicarious real life examples (your mothers experience of mothering/your brothers experience of parenting). Why are you so concerned with ‘charity’ in all this? It isn’t even an atheistic concept.