Pig in a poke
There was a brief item on the AP wire the other day about a couple of Chicagoans, Melody LaLuz and Claudaniel Fabian, who shared their first kiss. Why would the AP devote time to that? Because that first kiss occurred after the two were pronounced man and wife on Saturday. The two teach abstinence in Chicago public schools and decided to practice what they preached. She's 28, and he's 30. Was it really necessary for them to abstain from kissing in advance of their marriage? Their story reminded me of a program I saw on TV recently about "purity balls," which are fancy dinner-dances where fathers and their young daughters vow to protect the girls' chastity until marriage. The creepiness factor of these events is off the charts. (See photo above) The people doing the documentary interviewed some of the participants in the ball, and the girls, even those who were adults in the eyes of the law, were allowed to date only boys or men approved by their fathers. Also, they were never allowed to be alone together unless they eventually got married. I don't understand how two people can build a one-on-one relationship if they are never given any time to themselves. I'm totally in favor of couples taking a "test drive" when it comes to sex. Half of marriages end in divorce, and sexual problems and incompatibility are part of that equation. I'm also a proponent of people living together before they tie the knot. One of the truest sayings of all time is that you really don't know someone until you live with them. How many horrible matches could be avoided if people just used the same due diligence they would if they were buying a house or a new car?
Labels: Life in General
posted by Brant at
10:24 AM
17 Comments:
Brant, your post suggests this practice of "no kiss" before marriage is unusual. Not so much. I recently heard of two cases of friends who attended weddings with this as background. Their stories never reached the news. I don't know why this story was even printed. There is nothing unique here that warrants this attention.
As for the "test drive" and the discussion about divorce, statistics prove over and over that those who live together before marriage are more likely to be divorced. If the two parties regard the marriage covenant that lightly before getting married, why would they consider it more important afterward? In other words, wayward before hand, wayward afterward.
Also, statistics show repeatedly those who have the most satisfying sexual marital relationship are those who hold to fundamental Christian beliefs. The irony is that many those considered to be prudes, are the ones with the greatest sexual marital satisfaction. Most likely, these are the same folks who either abstained before marriage, or did not generate a long list of sexual exploits either.
Why is this so?
As in most cases, a perceived freedom manifests itself with pitfalls in the end.
I just know what I've seen. Whatever the divorce stats may be, they don't take into account the number of people who might have been scared away from marriage after living together. And, as for statistics, we know what Disraeli said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."
Do you think that perhaps people who are devout christians are less likely to divorce based on being devout christians as opposed to it having anything to do with sex, kissing or living together?
"Devout" Christians are probably more likely to endure a bad marriage because they made a vow to each other before God...
Speaking of statistics... chicks that take a vow of abstinence are more likely to engage in oral and anal sex than others in their peer group.
And... i would say that this is, indeed, news... since something like 96% of people have sex before marriage...
Holy furballs! What if the kiss was lousy? That's taking a hell of chance. Of course I guess if you've never kissed anyone but the person you just married, you would have no way to judge the quality of the kiss. Same for the sex-to-be. Maybe ignorance IS bliss after all.
I am not standing up for the whole fathers choosing whom their daughter can date, I feel that should be her choice, nor am I defending the fact that your first kiss should waite until marriage. What I am defending is a persons choice to abstane from sex until they are married. I have a 13 year old son and a 6 year old daughter and I hope that through my values and life lessons that they will waite until they are married to have sex. I say life lessons because I became pregnant when I was 18 years old, just barely out of highschool and there I was preparing to become a mother, with the childs 25 year old father waiting to decide if he wanted to grow up and take responsability(which he never did). I wish I would have waited for my furture husband, maybe things would be easier for my son growing up with a father. So I hope that my children will learn from life lessons and waite until they are married to share something as special as sex with someone that they are totally sure that they are in love with, it will save them many heartbreaks in the end.
We do wish that our children would wait until they are ready - emotionally, financially, etc. - to become sexually active, but we have to confront the reality that most of them will not. And with that being the case, we have to do a better job of educating our children about the consequences of being sexually active and providing them with effective birth control, if needed. Abstinence-only preaching and teaching sounds great in a vacuum, but it doesn't work in the real world. As Ellipses noted, young people who feel compelled, whether through religious or parental pressure, to avoid sexual intercourse very often turn to other sexual practices that can be even more dangerous to them. Most people, the vast majority, are going to have sex before they are married. We need to accept that reality and minimize the negative effects.
A couple thoughts:
The divorce rate might be at 50 percent but it is somewhat skewed by people who divorce two, three, maybe four times in their lives. A lot of people remain in a marriage not because of love but because of convenience and comfort.
Living together with someone won't give you any indication about whether you will be happy in a long marriage because there is no commitment there. You have nothing to lose but your now-insignifance other.
As for the sex-before-marriage debate, more should be made of the lack of sex (and or passion) after marriage. That is the root cause of many divorces and the reason prostitution still thrives.
To Anonymous with the Furball comment...There's an old Benny Hill skit in which a husband and wife are talking and suddenly she smacks him. He asks, "What's that for?" She says, "That's for being a lousy lover." He pauses, then smacks HER. She asks, "What's that for?" and he says, "That's for knowing the difference!"
One more thought...marriage is the leading cause of divorce.
I agree with those who say, "Make it harder to get married and easier to divorce." Of course this flies in the face of commitment, which is whole 'nother problem. Unfortunately, unless we get back to being a religion-driven nation, divorce will always be a viable alternative for many. I'm not a proponent of getting divorced just because you can't adapt to living with someone's quirks, but I do believe that if you have absolutely no common ground left in your marriage, for whatever reasons, you should be able to get out if it. Many years ago there was an aborted effort in Pennsylvania to stop anyone who had been divorced three times from marrying in PA again. Why would someone married three times without success want a fourth?
There's some truth to the notion that if you have sex only after you're married and only with one person, you have no way to judge the quality of it. After all, if you've only drunk Starbuck's coffee, how do you know if Bruegger's is better? It's not right to condemn kids or adults who choose abstinence till marriage, but I don't think it's right to condemn those who do not choose it. These are personal decisions that can't be legislated. I'm with Brant in that we have to recognize that kids will have intercourse and should educate them to use proper precautions if they do.
Anonymous-
Why would someone get married a fourth time?
Because marriage creates a union that is legally recognized and bestows certain privileges that singlehood does not. You could get married a fourth time for estate planning reasons, to prolong social security benefits, or to extend medical benefits...
Ellipses baby:
Wha hoppen to love?? (He said sarcastically.)
Hey! Wha Hoppen!?
Love that movie!
As a woman who waited for sex until marriage (28 years old) I am very glad that I waited. Honestly, the thought of ever being with another man is pretty gross.
As a man that waited till he was married (24 years old at the time), it is not impossible. It does not lead to dangerous sexual behaviors and it does enable one to stay in your marriage because you are making a real commitment.
The interesting part is that those that have not lived this life condemn and/or state it is not realistic.
Given that many of us have done it makes it realistic. The fact that something is hard does not make it possible or less desirable.
And Brant, that photo is creepy.
As a man who waited until he was married to have sex (43 years old), I have to say it sucked. No matter what I tried, what bar I went to, I just couldn't get no play. Luckily, I got a nice foreign wife on the internet before my stuff stopped working.
-forearms like popeye
Here’s a video of this couple after their wedding on Good Day Chicago.
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/myfox/pages/ContentDetail?contentId=8194118
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home