Beauty

[Ickmeister]

Why do so many people think that looking at the beauty of a woman is lustful? Why cant you just look at what God has given you, and the rest of the world?

[Chardata]

b/c God said "Be in this world but not of it" WE are human so the idea of lustfullness and beauty is something that we all struggle with. I have trouble wearing clothes that don't cling to my body...that is the style but it's not morally right. Beauty can also be personality, ideas, POV, etc. Beauty doesn't necessarily have to be looks and a face. I'm beautiful in the eyes of God b/c i'm His child. I don't have a bf so does that mean i'm ugly?

Like i said this is something that humans struggle with...you may want to ask Shea for exact Bible refrences...she always has her Bible open when she comes to this forum. :D

8)

[Tigerlily]

I don't believe that God intended us to avert our eyes to the natural beauty of a woman's form that He created for us. I think that what is meant by the verses about lust is what the spirits eye sees, not the physical one. I think it's the thoughts and feelings that we attach to what we observe that are in question here; in other words, if you can't look at the beauty of a woman, or anything else for that matter, without becoming aroused and lustful, then you have a problem. I believe it is perfectly alright to appreciate God's work of creation in every form. I don't know how clear I'm making myself here, so if you have any thoughts or questions about what I've posted here, please let me know.

[Shea]

You posed a difficult topic to reference Ickmeister, but I must agree with Tigerlily. Biblically speaking, lust is most definately a sin, but appreciating beauty of all forms is perfectly all right.

Of course, as Chardata explained, I have references! :D The biggest one would be Song of Soloman. It's a short OT book, and to me a beautiful love poem. There are many refrences to beauty in the OT; many are innocent, and others lead to lust to teach as an example why it is so wrong. A good example of this is the story of David and Bathsheba. David is said to be handsome in 1 Samuel 16:12,18, and Bathsheba is said to be beautiful in 2 Samuel 11:2. There is nothing wrong with the observance of this beauty, but the sinful act they commited (which you can read about in 2 Samuel 11 and 12) was most definately wrong.

[Chardata]

wow you read my mind, Shea! I was just about to come back on and suggest that! :P Everything that has been said is correct and i agree with. 8)

[Ickmeister]

Thank you

[wastinaway]

I know action stopped on this discussion in May, but I was reading over your questions about masculinity and beauty. You're probably not even thinking about this stuff any more, but I just wanted to add from a male's point of view concerning lust. The big thing to remember is that guy's are hot-wired much differently than girls, and, unfortunately, many of us lack the strength to just stop at admiring a woman's beauty--our thoughts usually lead elsewhere. Sometimes it's our fault, and a woman's bare arm will get us going. Sometimes a girl walks out wearing something so tight and low-cut that there's nothing left to the imagination. Since self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, much of the responsibility falls on guys to pray for strength to acknowledge and move on. But I encourage you as my sister in Christ to remember your brothers, and remember that there is a big difference in dressing attractively and dressing to attract. My girlfriend makes a conscious effort not to wear super short shorts or shirts that show her midrif, because she knows that her waist is incredibly sexy to me. She does this because she loves me and wants to keep me pure--to her, that's more important than being in style or sexy, and that's very sexy. Two of our chief responsibilities in our relationships are to grow in closeness through Christ (not rushed intimacy due to raging hormones from a shirt to deep or shorts to high) and to guard each other's hearts (not our status as defined by culture--you must be sexy, etc.). To look upon a woman's beauty and praise God for creating something so awesome is worship--to delight in God and his works. But to look upon the beauty of a woman and make it an idol--the thing you constantly think about, search for and chase after because you think it will bring you happiness--is sin. As men we must save our passion and desire for marriage, and as women, you guys must help us out by not awakening desire before it is ready. Men are created to initiate and lead, women are created to encourage, help and nourish. Sure, some feminist is having chest pains now, but it's scripture. And both roles are awesome and indespensable. Nothing makes a man want to be a man more than a woman.

[Tigerlily]

I know action stopped on this discussion in May, but I was reading over your questions about masculinity and beauty. You're probably not even thinking about this stuff any more, but I just wanted to add from a male's point of view concerning lust. The big thing to remember is that guy's are hot-wired much differently than girls, and, unfortunately, many of us lack the strength to just stop at admiring a woman's beauty--our thoughts usually lead elsewhere. Sometimes it's our fault, and a woman's bare arm will get us going. Sometimes a girl walks out wearing something so tight and low-cut that there's nothing left to the imagination. Since self-control is a fruit of the Spirit, much of the responsibility falls on guys to pray for strength to acknowledge and move on. But I encourage you as my sister in Christ to remember your brothers, and remember that there is a big difference in dressing attractively and dressing to attract. My girlfriend makes a conscious effort not to wear super short shorts or shirts that show her midrif, because she knows that her waist is incredibly sexy to me. She does this because she loves me and wants to keep me pure--to her, that's more important than being in style or sexy, and that's very sexy. Two of our chief

:D I have to commend you for this wastin- what an intelligent and noble stance to take! :D

[DumbLikeAPoet]

But I encourage you as my sister in Christ to remember your brothers, and remember that there is a big difference in dressing attractively and dressing to attract.

Some scriptures that go alond with this quote and the rest of the post.

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Romans 14:21 [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

[DumbLikeAPoet]

But I encourage you as my sister in Christ to remember your brothers, and remember that there is a big difference in dressing attractively and dressing to attract.

Some scriptures that go alond with this quote and the rest of the post.

1 Timothy 2:9 In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

Romans 14:21 [It is] good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor [any thing] whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak.

[Shea]

Like Tigerlily, I also commend you for your attitude on this topic, Wastin. In fact, just yesterday, one of our preachers preached on the subject of sexual immorality. The meat of the message came from Proverbs chapter 5. It was pretty direct even to some of the nameless young ladies of our own congregation.

I understand that this subject can be very difficult for male's. But also it can be difficult in other ways for females, especially in the last few decades of our society. Very, very rarely will I go out shopping for new clothes. To me, it becomes so frustrating to the point that I usually wind up making my own and being thankful that I know how to sew. There are slim pickin's for the modest girl.

One sad thing that I saw just today, a mother came into the coffee shop where I was having lunch, with her two young daughters. One was wearing a pauncho because of the wet weather, but the youngest one who couldn't have been more than five was wearing a very high bare midriff (sp?) and I recalled a news report I saw once where a group of girls her age were in some sort of Brittney Spears dance class. One of the girls was interveiwed saying that she liked the clothes because the shirts were short and showed a lot of skin!!! Five years old!!!

Its things like that which really make me wish I were born 200 years ago. :-?

[AbdoRinbo]

200 years ago?!

What was so great about the 19th century? The Industrial Revolution had already begun and people were generally miserable. Maybe 20,000 years ago would be a better figure.

[Shea]

200 years ago?!

What was so great about the 19th century? The Industrial Revolution had already begun and people were generally miserable. Maybe 20,000 years ago would be a better figure.

First of all, Biblically speaking, it is impossible for the earth to be 20,000 years old. Second, your going to have miserable people in any century. I was referring to a desire for the higher standard of morality and modesty in general at the time.

[AbdoRinbo]

The Bible! The Bible!

[Shea]

And the message that your trying to get across is...?

[AbdoRinbo]

I just want us all to get along famously.

[fayefaye]

it's so cute how y'all quote bible references! ) i agree with tigerlily- u can look at a girl and go 'hey, she's pretty' but not to that sick point that many guys take it too.

also shea has a point-i've started buying tops 2 sizes bigger than i used to just because they design them to be really clingy - it's like any top with elastane is 'sized down' just so it's clingy. i really detest that.

but honestly what is it sometimes with guys? hardwired differently or just constantly thinking about sex? is it true they think about it once every 5mins? shouldn't they learn to stop doing that?

[Stanislaw]

I think the reason that "gazing" at a "hot" woman is considered, bad to put it simply is because sociaty has changed since two thousand years ago and the definition of what is apropriat has drastically changed. Women wear less close and men are somewhat brainwashed to instictivly be atracted to revealing cloathes. I can not claim that I do not look, I am merely pointing out a fact.

[AbdoRinbo]

I think about sex every 5 seconds. :D

I'm in my prime years, it can't be helped.

[Stanislaw]

I think it is more of a personal submition to popular belief to do so Mr. Rinbo. It is not the driving force in my life, personally it is against my religiouse beliefs to have sex out of wedlock. Sex is for procreation, not for pleasure.

[AbdoRinbo]

And religion isn't popular belief? Moreover, I never said I act on it, it's just there.

[Stanislaw]

No offence intended abdo.
Just pointing out my beliefs, however I do blame popular society for such priorities. I actually prefeer a long lasting relationship and then perhaps marriage. People should be mentally conected befor sexually.

[AbdoRinbo]

You're the Man, Stan. :D

[DumbLikeAPoet]

Sex is for procreation, not for pleasure.

You should read Songs of Solomon. Although procreation is the main reason for sex, the bible does NOT say that is the only reason people should have sex.

Jonus

Edit for Grammar

[Stanislaw]

I believe it comes down to morals and how one interperats the Bible.

[Shea]

I need my topical Bible to help with this one, but I'm at school right now and don't have it. I'll try to get things going tomorrow.

But on the topic of revealing clothes... I saw a sign yesterday, some kind of voting ad, and the picture was of a woman walking in a mall, and one of the stores had a sign out front that said, "Parental guidance required for all clothing purchases."

[fayefaye]

I think the reason that "gazing" at a "hot" woman is considered, bad to put it simply is because sociaty has changed since two thousand years ago and the definition of what is apropriat has drastically changed.

I don't think it would have been considered appropriate in Jesus' time, either.

[Ickmeister]

Two things. First, I am male, second, Shea you are cool!

[fayefaye]

And that is relevant because...? -?

[AbdoRinbo]

LOL! :D ;)

Be nice, fayefaye.

[Koa]

But on the topic of revealing clothes... I saw a sign yesterday, some kind of voting ad, and the picture was of a woman walking in a mall, and one of the stores had a sign out front that said, "Parental guidance required for all clothing purchases."

LOL very appropriate! And I don't thing this has to do with religion etc, it should be common sense! Girls nowadays are scary, at 14 they dress and wear make up like they were 25...that's why I look like I'm 12 instead...
At the beginning of last summer I was disappointed about the heat also because I had to wear summer clothes and reveal arms and even sometimes legs... now that's because I'm paranoid but I really wonder how can people go aorund half-naked...

Oops sorry getting off-topic...

[Ickmeister]

This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be insulting. Do you really think that it is wrong to go around with your arms and\or legs bare?

[DumbLikeAPoet]

It is wrong(sinfull) to be immodest. You can be immodest wearing a ankle length skirt if it is to tight around the.......hips :) Or pants that are to tight also. I don't think it is immodest to show your leg or arms however, I do think it's immodest to show anything above the thigh. As far as the arms go they are not sexually desirable in our society so no its not wrong to show them(IMO) but, with some tank tops women wear you can see their bra, which I think is immodest.

Exodus 28:42 And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their nakedness; from the loins even unto the thighs they shall reach:

Jonus

[Koa]

This is an honest question, I'm not trying to be insulting. Do you really think that it is wrong to go around with your arms and\or legs bare?

No it isn't! You misunderstood me. Just I prefer to HIDE everything I can :evil:

[Ickmeister]

Oh, I'm sorry. Your just real modest. Again, not an insult.

[AbdoRinbo]

What is there to cover up, anyway? The Body is nothing more than an over-heated factory, an oven to bake the disgusting waste we eat and **** it out again, as waste. It is a machine composed of smaller machines. In it, there is no distinction between the machines that we plug into our walls or use to drop bombs.

[fayefaye]

LOL! lol wink

Be nice, fayefaye.

Ok... but i never mean to be mean, ever. I didn't think I was.. well, whatever.

It depends on HOW they show they're body at least as much as WHAT they show. That's why nude ppl can still count as artwork- it's ok if it's not sexually provocative. Hence most ppl are ok with nude beaches in parts of europe. It's just open and out there. Surely you can see the difference between that and dressing skanky?

But I can totally see Koa's point. I'm a jeans and t-shirt girl, in that that's literally my whole wardrobe. Jeans and t-shirts in lotsa different colours. roll I don't suppose anyone's seen the cartoon 'rocko's modern life'? and he opens up his wardrobe and they're all the same clothes, in multiples? mine's JUST like that. Koa made a really good point about summer clothes. I can never find clothes in summer at all. It's incredibly frustrating. i didn't even realise it was because they were all naasssty until i was talking to my friend about my shopping inability (on a slightly related topic, I HATE SHOPPING, for pretty much anything) and she said, 'it's because only skanks wear them' I spose on the one hand, a lot of ppl have poor dress sense, and on the other hand it's all the shops provide. Do you have any idea what australian summers are like? standing around in jeans in 37'C heat, and having ppl come up to u and say, 'aren't you hot ?' every five seconds. I can see why some otherwise modest girls would wear somewhat wrong clothes. I just don't feel comfortable doing it at all.

Actually, I formed a little conspiracy theory on this (i love conspiracy theories evil ). ok, the advertisers make girls insecure about their appearance and weight by putting out their ads, right? that's very well established now within our society. nothing new. then, they start making clothes more clingly and tight- girls will still buy them because they don't want the psychological impact of thinking they've gotten fatter. then, they start bringing in more revealing clothes. apart from the few who actually like them, the vast female population will still buy them because what else would they wear? meanwhile, the whole time the manufacturers are trying to tell us that they're giving us what we want by dictating 'fashion'. why? well, did you ever hear about the airline that saved tens of thousands of dollars by eliminating one olive from every meal in first class? By cutting down on material, they're literally saving tens of millions of dollars. Maybe hundreds. Sounds like a nice holiday bonus for some CEO, don't you think?

[Ickmeister]

ooh, I think your right. And, do you know the conversion equation for farenhiet (I think I misspelled that) because that's what I go by.

[fayefaye]

urr.. from memory? i think it's like multiply by 1.8 and add 32. from a memory that always forgets.

[Koa]

Fayefaye, for the 3rd time today I feel you're my lost sister. I hate shopping most of the time (though I used to hate it more), I wore only jeans for the whole of my teenage years (now I do vary a bit but my mum wonders everytime why do I buy always similar things...grr)...But since I hate summer so much, I do try to wear something lighter lately (our summer mustn't be too different from yours, and I don't know fahrenheit ;))

Sorry about hijacking the topic :(:(:(

[fayefaye]

D That's fine Koa!! I'd LOVE to be your forum-sister. D I always used to want to be Italian. The fooood!! I gave the temp in 'C, btw. (37 in summer) Oh, the funny thing is, I go shopping with friends, and I'll be looking at a top, and someone'll have to tell me, 'that's identical to what you're currently wearing' before I rush off to buy it because I actually found something I like. I've lost count of the number of jeans I have, they're all piled up in my wardrobe. -? )

[Munro]

I wear pretty much the same clothes every day - same pair of long pants, a t-shirt with a picture of Astro Boy or some band on it, a jacket when I go out, and some crappy black shoes.

I find revealing clothes intimidating in real life, and I think it says a lot about the girl I see before I even talk to her (a nice flitering system, really). At my age, what you wear says a lot about who or what you are. I like a bit of mystery behind the firgure, and anything else doesn't even get a third look.
I look forward to one day meeting a girl who doesn't care too much about fashion, and wears an Astro Boy t-shirt cos she liked the show.

If only all Religion classes discussed clothes in society.

[fayefaye]

I wear pretty much the same clothes every day - same pair of long pants, a t-shirt with a picture of Astro Boy or some band on it, a jacket when I go out, and some crappy black shoes.

I find revealing clothes intimidating in real life, and I think it says a lot about the girl I see before I even talk to her (a nice flitering system, really). At my age, what you wear says a lot about who or what you are. I like a bit of mystery behind the firgure, and anything else doesn't even get a third look.
I look forward to one day meeting a girl who doesn't care too much about fashion, and wears an Astro Boy t-shirt cos she liked the show.

If only all Religion classes discussed clothes in society.

D astro boy?! that guy's so cute. D never seen the show though. actually munro, there're a helluva lot of girls who couldn't care less about fashion. I used to flick through fashion magazines just to take the piss out of the inane articles. (but that gets boring quickly) if religion classes discussed clothes in society, it would just make some ppl want to dress even worse.

[Shea]

Koa and Fayefaye, consider us an anti-shopping trio. I get so frustrated and uptight shopping in regular stores, the only place I can relax in is a fabric store. ( I love sewing!) It's much more rewarding to wear something you made yourself.

[fayefaye]

I hate sewing. i can't do any of that home ec type stuff. i'm useless at it. i just hope i can be rich enough to have servants who do it for me. D either way, shopping is annoying. i think i brought up the topic of beauty magazines earlier. does anyone else hate them? they're like picture books for adults.

[fayefaye]

oh, but you know what? it's not just shopping. it's spending time in crowded shopping malls too. i hate that.

[Ickmeister]

*cough* bump *cough*

[fayefaye]

yesss icky. (u never said if i can call u that or not so i'm just gonna assume i can) i totally get what u mean. (?) oh: off subject again? beauty. society values it too much. people are too shallow. beauty magazines are a waste of trees.

[Shea]

One reason why winter is my favorite season, (and why I dislike Florida, because we only have it for about two months) is because women here are forced to put on clothes. Though I can tell that they are fighting it.

The other morning, while walking across campus, I was wearing a sweater over my shirt and my teeth were still chattering. But lo and behold! one of the die hard exhibitionist girls was walking in the opposite direction, looking like she was ready for a day at the beach. She had a jacket, but in an effort to show off more skin, she tied it around her waist. How shallow!

[fayefaye]

mm.. well here it's summer. *sigh* looks like i'm going to be experiencing my annual shopping trouble.

as for beauty-you think that's bad? A few weeks ago I found out my friend has a malignant skin cancer on her nose and she doesn't want to get it cut out in case it leaves a scar. that is so thoroughly RIDICULOUS and SHALLOW. Since when were people willing to risk their lives for beauty? I didn't get over it for about an hour. If she doesn't get that thing cut out I'll tie her down and take her to the hospital myself.

[Stanislaw]

That is very sad. I think fasion is a waste of time, it is merely corperate money grubbing.

[BloodStaindRose]

looking is fine!
it is not lust
if you have great desires to be with a person but only because of their sexuality--this is lust!
i mean people look at flowers and stuff and say they are beautiful
all it is-is admiration! every person is beautiful in their own little way - we just have to look deep, sometimes, to find it!

[AbdoRinbo]

Lust is deeply beautiful.

[surf boy]

The pain I went through to keep AbdoRinbo's parents from ever having sex.

[AbdoRinbo]

Now you know what the Catholic Church feels like.

Ba-ZZZING!

[subterranean]

It's kinda funny that the discuccion is focused merely about woman's beauty and lust. So I suppose that there'd be such thing as sin for woman when she looks at a man. I remember a line in this movie "People vs Larry Flint", Larry argued with his phoographer who refused to take a picture of this she-model's womanhood. Larry said that it's a sin to refuse to take such a "beautiful" thing since the same God (whom the photographer believe, which is Jesus) was the one who created it. Of course, Mr. Flint said that as justification of his own hidden intention.

I want to comment what Stanislaw said that "sex is just for procreation". There's a philosophical arguments about this issue and I agree with this thingking by Christine Gudorf , a Christian theologian.

Gudorf said: The study of human anatomy and physiology yields insights into God's plan and design, and that human sexual behavior should conform with God's creative intentions. If we take a careful look at the anatomy and physiology of the female sexual organs, and especially the clitoris, instead of focusing exclusively on the male's penis (which is what Thomas Aquinas did, and therefore He stated that sex is only for procreation), quite different conclusions about God's plan and design emerge and hence Christian sexual ethics turns out to be less restrictive. In particular, the female's clitoris is an organ whose only purpose is the production of sexual pleasure and, unlike the mixed or dual functionality of the penis, has no connection with procreation. Therefore, the existence of the clitoris in the female body suggests that God intended that the purpose of sexual activity was as much for sexual pleasure for its own sake as it was for procreation.

[fayefaye]

Maybe it was with the idea that otherwise people would never do it, and the race would die out and become extinct.

[subterranean]

Well I do think that God wants us humans to also feel enjoyment in this so-called procreation activity

[fayefaye]

I read somewhere that other than humans, dolphins are the only animals to enjoy sex. Explain that one. What possible reason could there be for DOLPHINS to enjoy sex??

[Dyrwen]

I look at women, men, and all things in a sense of beauty.

Lust is a waste I don't attend to, just happen to be a celibate person who can find the art in nudity at times. Unlike those that oggle foolishly just for lust.

[subterranean]

Originally posted by fayefaye
I read somewhere that other than humans, dolphins are the only animals to enjoy sex. Explain that one. What possible reason could there be for DOLPHINS to enjoy sex??

I have no idea, but who knows, they are smart animals. And in a way, I dont see the correlation between dolphins and philosophical arguments about sex.
My point was I don't agree that sex is just for precreation activity.

[AbdoRinbo]

I like to slip my one-eyed cat bootsy into the old stovepipe of my grandmother's cabin.

[MacBeth]

I deeply enjoy the lucrative discussion about beauty, yet we must first define beauty before we discuss it. What makes one woman beautiful, and another ugly? And if soemthing is truly beautiful, why would we want to ruin it with lust? Sexuality is an ironic existance; it kills what we truly want in the end: to be closer to beauty.

[azmuse]

And i would argue, MacBeth, that sex/sexuality isn't always about lust, AND that it has a sublime beauty all of its own. It is fully capable of augmenting beauty.
Your comments and mine are of course simple opinions. I'd hate to see them offered up as Facts...

[AbdoRinbo]

Feeding grandma bacon in the bathtub . . . she always looked so beautiful.

[fayefaye]

There's a mathematical way to define beauty. A ratio of 1:1.618 I think it was... but it's supposed to involve a surd too, in it's exact form. Called divine proportions, or something.

[atiguhya padma]

Isn't that what is called The Golden Ratio?

[crisaor]

Yep. :)

[Ickmeister]

Dudes, beauty isn't just the body. That is only the lure that draws you in, if beauty is only skin deep... then I'm taking a vow of chastity tonight!

[serpico]

Are you sure? You always say that.

You mean it this time?

[Koa]

Originally posted by subterranean
It's kinda funny that the discuccion is focused merely about woman's beauty and lust. So I suppose that there'd be such thing as sin for woman when she looks at a man. I remember a line in this movie "People vs Larry Flint", Larry argued with his phoographer who refused to take a picture of this she-model's womanhood. Larry said that it's a sin to refuse to take such a "beautiful" thing since the same God (whom the photographer believe, which is Jesus) was the one who created it. Of course, Mr. Flint said that as justification of his own hidden intention.

I want to comment what Stanislaw said that "sex is just for procreation". There's a philosophical arguments about this issue and I agree with this thingking by Christine Gudorf , a Christian theologian.

Gudorf said: The study of human anatomy and physiology yields insights into God's plan and design, and that human sexual behavior should conform with God's creative intentions. If we take a careful look at the anatomy and physiology of the female sexual organs, and especially the clitoris, instead of focusing exclusively on the male's penis (which is what Thomas Aquinas did, and therefore He stated that sex is only for procreation), quite different conclusions about God's plan and design emerge and hence Christian sexual ethics turns out to be less restrictive. In particular, the female's clitoris is an organ whose only purpose is the production of sexual pleasure and, unlike the mixed or dual functionality of the penis, has no connection with procreation. Therefore, the existence of the clitoris in the female body suggests that God intended that the purpose of sexual activity was as much for sexual pleasure for its own sake as it was for procreation.

Not that I was particularly bothered about what God, or rather the Church (which are unfortunately 2 very distinct things) say about pleasure, but reading this really made my day :D

[MacBeth]

Sex and beauty are two very different things; ask one of those sublime fellows who is constantly being manipulated by an ugly spouse.

[azmuse]

suit yourself

[star blue]

you think that sex isn't beautiful?! let me just tell you, you've been conditioned by the puritans.

[syntax edit]

[subterranean]

Originally posted by Koa
Not that I was particularly bothered about what God, or rather the Church (which are unfortunately 2 very distinct things) say about pleasure, but reading this really made my day :D


Really Koa ? :D

Well, I don't really know what u mean by "made your day", but I take that as something amusing ;)

[Cassandra]

Beauty is multilayered and i think we should be able to appreciate it without lust but that doesn't make sex a bad thing or only for procreation. However I do agree that sex should be after 'marriage' as it is more meaningful if you acctually know and love the person. By the way, I feel the need to stick up for those of us who don't always wear jeans and don't mind wearing a vaguely short skirt in Summer, not for guys, but cus they're fun and it's hot.

[subterranean]

Here here..:D

for the skirt I mean

[atiguhya padma]

Cassandra,

<However I do agree that sex should be after 'marriage' as it is more meaningful if you acctually know and love the person.>

I'm sure you are not trying to denigrate us people who are not married, but have lived with our partners for some time. So you might like to reconsider that view, as it does tend to read like you are saying that you can only love and know a person when you are married to them. Anyway, I would have thought that you might believe that you should only marry someone you know and love, so your posting doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Hope I haven't offended you with this critical observation, as with some people round here, it would appear that I offend them with almost every post I make.:)

[Cassandra]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Cassandra,

<However I do agree that sex should be after 'marriage' as it is more meaningful if you acctually know and love the person.>

I'm sure you are not trying to denigrate us people who are not married, but have lived with our partners for some time. So you might like to reconsider that view, as it does tend to read like you are saying that you can only love and know a person when you are married to them. Anyway, I would have thought that you might believe that you should only marry someone you know and love, so your posting doesn't seem to make much sense to me.

Hope I haven't offended you with this critical observation, as with some people round here, it would appear that I offend them with almost every post I make.:)

Thats why I put marriage in ' '. i don't mean just marriage in the legal sense or the having a wedding sense, I mean it as in the binding of souls sense i.e. a very well loved long term partner. Anyway, although I personally don't agree with sex before 'marriage' (note the ' ' ) it's up to people to chose their own couse and I won't condemn them for their choices, I just don't agree.

[atiguhya padma]

Cassandra,

How is it more meaningful? and why should it be more meaningful?

I think that sex with an experienced lover is far more meaningful than sex with a virgin.

But of course it all depends on what you mean by meaningful. It does sound a little like a well-worn hackneyed phrase to me.

(IWilKiku - is this a little too harsh d'ya think? am I overstepping the boundaries here a little? You see, you seem to be a bit of an expert on these things, so I thought I'd ask your advice! I mean I'm not belittling Cassandra here am I? Please let me know if I am. I do love to read your highly instructive posts)

[Cassandra]

I don't feel belittled, just be careful. Why is experianced sex more meaningful? I thought it would be most meaningful with someone you love reagardless of sexual experiance.

[atiguhya padma]

Cassandra,

What do you mean by meaningful?

[Cassandra]

Good question. Kind of a deep physical mental rightness? I can't really explain. i often know what I mean in feeleings(?) but find it hard to say in english, words can be very limiting.

[atiguhya padma]

Well quite frankly, if you get the best lay of your life, I rckon that probably fits the bill of <Kind of a deep physical mental rightness?>

[Cassandra]

But it's surely it's just sex then. Meaningful I guess means deep impact lasting relationship to me. Obviously it's different for you and I can repect that even if we can't agree or really understand each other. I can respect that your views just what is important for you and I is completely different.

[atiguhya padma]

Do you think you can have a deep impact lasting relationship (of the marriage kind) without sex?

Don't you think that there is never a situation where something is just sex? It appears to me that there is a huge gap between 'just sex' and a 'totally loving relationship', and that most of us lie somewhere in between.

I would go so far as to say that many people who think they have a 'totally loving relationship' would not know how to evaluate such a thing. It would just be some temporary feeling that happens with the frequency to suggest 'totally loving relationship'.

[Cassandra]

I think that you possibly could but it could be hard. There is a huge gap between just sex and totally loving relationship and a lot do lie in between but I would never allow myself do so. I believe sex is part of a totally loving relationship (assuming talking partners here not other relationships) and a totally loving relationship should be the foundation of sex. I agree that many people cannot allways evaluate relationships otherwise why divorce, but you never know that until afterwards, if you think you're in a loving realationship then for the duration isn't it like being in one.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Do you think you can have a deep impact lasting relationship (of the marriage kind) without sex?
I definitely couldn't. And I think that it would be pretty damn hard for any other person. But it would still be possible (albeit very unlikely).

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Don't you think that there is never a situation where something is just sex? It appears to me that there is a huge gap between 'just sex' and a 'totally loving relationship', and that most of us lie somewhere in between.
I agree 100% (unless of course you're paying for sex).

[atiguhya padma]

Crisaor,

we agree on something. That's quite.... remarkable!:)

[wastinaway]

Take these all with a grain of salt because I can't remember the exact format or percentages of the study. I do recall that it was a very large sample--several thousand--and the studies were carried out by universities with no religious affiliations:
(1) Couples that co-habitated before marriage showed a fifty percent higher divorce rate than couples that did not.
(2) Couples that were virgins before marriage reported a 30% higher rate of satisfaction with their sex lives.
(3) Females that are in marriages where both partners were virgins before marriage report a 33% higher frequency of orgasm than so-called couples with previous "experience."

Again, I don't remember the exact percentages, but these are in the ballpark. And just for the record since this is a religious forum and the majority of the discussions seem to revolve around Christianity, lets not forget that Christ told the woman at the well that she had five husbands--you mate, then you're married, at least that what God says happens. Two become one.

[atiguhya padma]

wastinaway,

my response to your 3 points is as follows:

1) probably because if someone has been co-habiting for a significant period of time, marriage doesn't really add anything more to their relationship. Yet, if that person has undertaken marriage vows after co-habiting for some time, then I presume they will think that marriage does add value. Therefore, marriage becomes disappointing.

2) and 3) if someone has no experience of sex prior to marriage, they have nothing to compare their current sex life with. This may well mean that they will be happy with what they've got. Also, I think nowadays, the marriage of two virgins is a pretty much extreme situation. It is most likely to occur between religious couples. Their faith will put an extra emphasis on them staying together, no matter what their marriage is like.

I think it is interesting the way our society puts so much emphasis on staying together. I've heard people talk about splitting up, as if living alone is some kind of hell. Even after only a few weeks together.

[blazeofglory]

Why do so many people think that looking at the beauty of a woman is lustful? Why cant you just look at what God has given you, and the rest of the world?

Not at all. This idea of lustiness is our invention and see in nature there is nothing called lust. A thing of beauty is something worthy of beholding and it is for beholders that beauty exists or it has no meaning.

It is the church or some gurus or popes define it that way. It is indeed virtuous to see a thing of beauty. It is the onlooker who values the beauty of a woman. Otherwise her beauty will not be priced at all.