I've recently come across a term for people who are involuntarily celibate: "incel." What do I think about incels? Simple. There is no such thing as an incel. Ok, if you are in a coma, have some severe physical deformity, etc. then maybe I can see how the term applies. But for the rest of us? Uh, no. I've already written on the topic of discretionary singleness. The idea behind "discretionary singleness" applies to sexuality as well.
Virtually anyone reading this post can have sex if they want it. The question is: How do you want it and what price will you pay for it? Will you sacrifice ...
1. Your money?
2. Your time?
3. Your emotional welfare?
4. Your health?
5. Your relationship with God?
6. What????
You can throw your religious and social scruples to the wind, take a trip to Nevada and set up a few appointments with some people who are, um, licensed and professionally trained to help your so-called "problem." You can learn some approach techniques from some seduction experts. You can talk pleasantries with a twentysomething office worker in a bar who has had too many cosmos to know better, but not too many that she can't give legal consent. You can learn a new love language to talk to women, such as Japanese, Chinese, Thai, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Romanian, etc. You can upgrade your skills, look for a good-paying job, take on interesting hobbies, work out, eat right, save up for cosmetic surgery if need be.
What if you think sex outside of marriage is a sin? I certainly think it is! So what's your choice? Simple. Get married. Go to church, get active, meet a nice Christian girl, drop your picky preferences, lay yours chips on the table and go for broke! No? Too risky? That girl in the pew is not your type? Well, you could decide it's all not worth it. In that case, you would be voluntarily celibate.
What's your problem? There is no problem. You made the choices. Accept it. Your fear, your laziness, your self-pity, your pickiness, your inflexibility, your ego, and your selfishness are your choices. Likewise, your good sense, your prudence, your dignity, your integrity, your morality, and your spirituality are your choices. Everything has it price. Deal with it.
Ahem …
1 day ago
66 comments:
Speaking of Thai (I speak Thai pretty well) I am doing mission work here and all the western people that come here for the women or the sex industry all freak me out. They all look abnormal. I don't live too far away from Pattaya and when I do see other white people they all look like one would expect deviants to look like. I look at me and my Thai fiance (a Christian) and am blown away sometimes. There is such a difference. Plus, all of the westerners are 30 or over with wives much younger than them. I am 24 and my fiance is 30. So you could say we are the polar opposite of the norm here. I look forward to more good writing from you. Keep it up!
I do think we severely underestimate the role of CHOICE.
This is one reason I'm not convinced the "gift of celibacy" is biblical--because it is presented as if God forces this "gift" on to certain people. Even Paul himself presented marriage as something he had the right to do but chose to forfeit for the kingdom.
If you are not a Christian, then there is no compelling reason to get married. After all, no-strings-attached sex is quite available.
The issue is whether you really want to pay for it. And I'm not talking about money, either.
I recently met a gal who--years ago--had been a regular in a popular Christian Singles chat room. I had dinner with her 9 years ago when I was in Nashville for a conference. She had been quite the nympho back then, bragging about the men from that chat room whom she bedded. Saying "no" to her was a no-brainer.
Well, today, she has grown out of those past endeavors. She's a regular at her church, and is very diligent in her Bible studies. She's my age, and wants to be married.
Unfortunately, she is paying a horrendous price for her past. She's been on several antidepressants, and regularly sees a therapist. She still gets offers from some of the shadier guys in her church. She wonders why the good guys in her church will shake her hand, and even talk nice to her, but won't even so much as ask her out.
As for the guys she bedded, almost all of them are out of church today.
If only the real price they are paying were quantifiable in dollars...
There's a choice, I don't disagree with that.
However, as you point out, the choices for a person that does not want to be celibate have extreme costs associated with them. That's the problem.
I think many celibate men would like a long term relationship with a woman of quality (what used to be the idea of marriage). Realizing this is essentially impossible is disheartening for a lot of men.
They pick celibacy (or feel it is forced on them) because the price tag for sex is way to high for such a meager transitory reward.
As for the woman Amir describes, what sane man would want to be married to a reformed nympho? She's damaged goods and well past her prime.
As for the woman Amir describes, what sane man would want to be married to a reformed nympho? She's damaged goods and well past her prime.
If a Christian she is a forgiven sinner who has been washed clean through the blood of Christ.
Yes, she will probably have a lot of emotional, spiritual (and perhaps physical) baggage as result of her sinful past - those may be real obstacles to her future marriage prospects. But she is not damaged goods in Christ eyes. She is a new creation - just like the 'sane man' who might consider being married to her.
This is one reason I'm not convinced the "gift of celibacy" is biblical--because it is presented as if God forces this "gift" on to certain people. Even Paul himself presented marriage as something he had the right to do but chose to forfeit for the kingdom.
I agree with you Kevin. But I do also think that this choice can be nuanced in different ways.
We all start of single by default. At some point:
- Some of us will choose to make a yes or no decision about whether we will get married to one particular person (ie. when a specific someone asks us to marry them)
- Some of us will choose to make a decision to forgo purusing marriage in either the short, medium or long term, in favour of remaining single.
- Some of us will choose to pursue, or not pursue, a relationship with a particular person on the basis of whether we could potentially see ourselves marrying them or not.
- Some of us will choose particular options and paths and make particular decisions desiring that the result might be that marriage is a more likely outcome than had we not chosen that particular option. For example, joined an online dating service, reconsidered what we are looking for in a potential spouse, endeavored to make ourselves a more attractive potential spouse (whether on the inside or outside) etc.
However, this latter category may not ever have the absolute option of choosing to get married or not. They can certainly act in such a way that may open up more possibilities, but that does not guarantee that they will ever have the occasion to make an absolute choice.
And so whilst I don't think God 'forces' the gift of not being married onto them, I do think that it is the gift they have by default. And like any gift from God it is good and should be used for the building up of the Body of Christ.
I also wonder whether this is a more common situation amongst Christian women than men? It seems to me that there are a lot of Christian women who would eagerly make the choice to be married than remain unmarried but are not given the occasion to make that choice. Could it perhaps be a result of the inequity of numbers between single christian men and women? Or perhaps a result of the relational order and differentiation between them? I'm not sure. Any ideas? (Of course it may be that this of observation of mine might be flawed, or nothing more than a gross generalisation!)
Talleyrand asks: "As for the woman Amir describes, what sane man would want to be married to a reformed nympho? She's damaged goods and well past her prime."
Careful, dude, as that level of cynicism can be directed both ways. It does, after all, take two to tango.
If you were one of those men she bedded, and later received the grace of repentance, would you want Christian women casting you off as "damaged goods, well past his prime"?
She's not the only culprit there. And the "men" she bedded--all of whom were also regulars at the Christian singles chat room--are exactly the types that give the Debbie Makens of the world ammo to use against the guys.
If a Christian she is a forgiven sinner who has been washed clean through the blood of Christ.
Yes, she will probably have a lot of emotional, spiritual (and perhaps physical) baggage as result of her sinful past - those may be real obstacles to her future marriage prospects. But she is not damaged goods in Christ eyes. She is a new creation - just like the 'sane man' who might consider being married to her.
Yes, of course, which is why Amir noted that men treat her nicely. She is a sister in Christ. But that doesn't at all mean men want to be married to someone with that history. It is a personal thing, but I can say that I think most men would, knowing that history, not want to marry her, and particularly most Christian men. Not really because they "judge" her past in a harsher way than God does, but because it has probably damaged her as a person, and he would rather not deal with that particular set of baggage. Baggage around sex and intimacy and so on is incredibly difficult to unpack and deal with in the context of a healthy relationship.
I also wonder whether this is a more common situation amongst Christian women than men? It seems to me that there are a lot of Christian women who would eagerly make the choice to be married than remain unmarried but are not given the occasion to make that choice. Could it perhaps be a result of the inequity of numbers between single christian men and women? Or perhaps a result of the relational order and differentiation between them? I'm not sure. Any ideas?
My guess is that this is mostly due to the numbers. There are simply more Christian young women than there are (practicing) Christian young men. That right there creates a lot of pressure.
Novaseeker says: Yes, of course, which is why Amir noted that men treat her nicely. She is a sister in Christ. But that doesn't at all mean men want to be married to someone with that history. It is a personal thing, but I can say that I think most men would, knowing that history, not want to marry her, and particularly most Christian men. Not really because they "judge" her past in a harsher way than God does, but because it has probably damaged her as a person, and he would rather not deal with that particular set of baggage. Baggage around sex and intimacy and so on is incredibly difficult to unpack and deal with in the context of a healthy relationship."
That last part is very important, as we have an evangelical culture that glosses over the damages wrought by sexual sin.
Yes, God forgives. Yes, the same blood that atones for other sins, also atones for those of the body.
It is also true that there are very real consequences of sexual sin (both promiscuity and porn). Guys may find that gals may not trust them so easily. They may have to answer otherwise embarrassing questions about their pasts.
They may even--in a worst-case scenario--find themselves rejected by more mature Christian women. They may even find themselves reluctant to pursue a good christian gal because of their guilt over their past.
(I know of one such case where a guy--who had a shady history--had a Christian gal who was deeply interested in him. But he decided he wasn't good enough.)
Ditto for the women.
Of the women I've dated, some were virgins while others had prior promiscuity issues. I can't say any of them had a past on the scale of the gal I described.
Would I date--or consider marrying--such a Jane Doe? I'm taken now, so it's irrelevant.
All things being equal, my first-glance answer would be no way.
Still, I would not rule out God's capacity to kick both of our butts and prod me and incline my heart.
On the other hand, I am thankful that I am not faced with such a dilemma.
But that doesn't at all mean men want to be married to someone with that history. It is a personal thing, but I can say that I think most men would, knowing that history, not want to marry her, and particularly most Christian men. Not really because they "judge" her past in a harsher way than God does, but because it has probably damaged her as a person, and he would rather not deal with that particular set of baggage. Baggage around sex and intimacy and so on is incredibly difficult to unpack and deal with in the context of a healthy relationship.
Yes, I totally get that (hence why I said they may be very real obstacles to her future marriage options). I'm not denying that 'baggage' concerning sex and intimacy can be incredibly difficult to unpack and deal with in the context of a healthy relationship at all. What I objected to was the way that Talleyrand so easily dismissed this hypothetical woman as 'damaged goods'.
We are all damaged goods because we have all sinned.
My point was that those who trust in Christ have forgiveness, justification and sanctification in his name. That doesn't automatically undo the ongoing implications of past sin (in this case, specifically sexual sin). Nor does it mean we should gloss over those implications and consequences as if they are not real, do not exist and don't have, at times, devestating continuing effects on relationships.
But it does mean that we should view and treat each other as what we are in God's sight - new creations in Christ.
But it does mean that we should view and treat each other as what we are in God's sight - new creations in Christ.
Agreed.
If you were one of those men she bedded, and later received the grace of repentance, would you want Christian women casting you off as "damaged goods, well past his prime"?
Uh, no. The man would be considered rough enough and get the professional virgins cooing around him. Been there; seen it.
None of you have done this, but I'm going to say it anyway... One should not automatically equate virgnity on the part of either male or females as proof of a strong relationship with God. While I think purity is great, some people are virgins in part, at least, for reasons that don't make them a good marriage candidate at that time. This could include (but may not be limited to):
1. A lack of libido/sexual functionality due to a biological problem
2. Psychological or emotional trauma/problems
3. An extreme porn/romace novel habit (see #2)
(I'm assuming the people you'd approach would be attractive and hadn't been larely isolated most of their lives, and aren't 15 years old. I always get a chuckle when someone proudly says they waited until marriage to have sex... and married at 17.)
I've stated on my blog that all other things being equal, I probably would have chosen a woman with some history as opposed to a virgin, in no small part because I had my own history.
Back in my searching days, a woman with an extensive sexual history would not have automatically turned me off to her as a marriage prospect, as long as I could be reasonably certain that those sins, like mine, were in the past and had been confronted and dealt with and were being worked through in how she was living going forward.
This would include not having her be "over" sex, with a bored "been there, done that" attitude, or having the attitude that since she did something with someone outside of marriage, she shouldn't or couldn't do it with her husband.
Ken said (emphasis mine): None of you have done this, but I'm going to say it anyway... One should not automatically equate virgnity on the part of either male or females as proof of a strong relationship with God.
Absolutely. In fact, that virginity--for many of them--becomes an idol in itself.
Henry Cloud, a Christian psychologist who wrote the very sensible "How to Get a Date Worth Keeping", said something similar during a Beliefnet interview where he was asked about virginity:
"That's one of the problems. While I hold to that value and believe in it, sometimes that's seen as the only value that's important for single people to think about. It's so myopic. There are a lot of really chaste people who are relational nightmares.
But I think if someone walks the walk and isn't just giving lip service to their faith, then sexual integrity is something that they do practice. But it gets held up as a sort of golden calf."
"And so whilst I don't think God 'forces' the gift of not being married onto them, I do think that it is the gift they have by default."
There's no such thing as a "gift by default", unless you're getting the consolation prize on a TV game show.
I agree with trusting God when things you want don't come to fruition, that it can be a good thing when you don't get something (or someone) you've prayed for, or that a seemingly negative thing used in a positive way. But the scriptures are not so pollyanna as to call any lack a "gift". Look the word up in a concordance and see what the scriptures do and do not refer to as "a gift".
If calling your singleness a gift is helpful to you, then far be it from anyone to discourage you from that. But pastorally, "gift of singleness" and "the gift of celibacy" as pointed out by Kevin are not biblical, because they are terms that obscure the literal messages about singleness and marriage that puts the onus on personal choice and human effort, creating ambivilence and confusion. Fortunately, these terms have come under scrutiny in recent years and are falling out of favour.
"There is no problem. You made the choices. Accept it. Your fear, your laziness, your self-pity, your pickiness, your inflexibility, your ego, and your selfishness are your choices. Likewise, your good sense, your prudence, your dignity, your integrity, your morality, and your spirituality are your choices. Everything has it price. Deal with it."
Agreed. "Involuntary Celibacy" should really only refer to those who are rendered that way physically (Matthew 19:11-12). As for those of us who are single, but not due to religious choice, there can be a whole host of both virtuous and sinful reasons that factor into why we opted out of whatever marital alternatives (be they meager or plentiful) were available to us.
Anon,
If you are Catwoman then you know I won't be responding to any of your comments made in response to any of mine until you stop hiding behind stubborn anonymity and start owning your opinions by putting your name to them.
Your ongoing refusal to do so only indicates that you are not interested in genuine christian discussion but prefer instead to spark anonymous argument just for the sake of it.
I'm not interested in the latter.
Dani,
You made some good points (re: "gift of celibacy").
Now, as to the whole issue of virginity and sexual history:
Let's remember that those who choose to wait (virgins) usually dream of finding someone else who has waited. I think it is a bit ridiculous to accuse them of "idolizing" virginity or making it a "golden calf."
Once again it comes down to choice: if you can accept someone's "history," fine and good. If you can't, then I also think it's understandable.
In either scenario, the choice is not easy: accept someone's past and you have to go through the painful process of dealing with the baggage. Let the relationship go and you may be losing an otherwise good guy/girl who has just made some bad decisions in the past.
But I don't think we should say one choice is more "Christian" than the other. I think many pastors/authors are too quick to gloss over and dismiss this issue.
My friend and I dealt with it in the April 9th episode of our show, the episode is called Dealing with the Past:
http://kuyakevin.libsyn.com
We tried to really deal with this on a biblical and practical level.
Note: I don't allow comments on my podcast page (just don't have time to moderate another blog).
You harp on the word choice as if choosing between bad and worse is a choice worth discussing...
Yes, I've made the choice to not have sex and for all of the reasons you've listed--but this is as much of a choice as it is to say not pounding my thumb with a hammer is a choice!
In my case it is more of a cold rational decision whereby I've weighed my options and decided the risk-benefit ratio is just not there, but again in a decision between bad and worse is abstaining all that much of a CHOICE there? The choice of a lesser evil is still evil.
--happy one
Happy One,
I'm referring to the choice of accepting someone's sexual history or deciding to end the relationship in hopes of finding a virgin. Not sure if you are talking to me or one of the others.
Let's remember that those who choose to wait (virgins) usually dream of finding someone else who has waited. I think it is a bit ridiculous to accuse them of "idolizing" virginity or making it a "golden calf."
It's more of a stalking horse for women's rights than anything else, because virginity is much more praised and valued in women than it is in men, even among Christians. Calls for placing less of an emphasis on it are basically calls for more female freedom and so on -- it's feminism lite, for Christians.
I am unsure about how to balance a person's past with their commitment and walk with the Lord, but I am thinking I should err toward the latter. We are all broken and sinful, just some of us are held up by our Lord and Savior.
Remaining a virgin is obviously good and proper. But worshiping virginity is more pagan than Christian.
Trey
Whoredom is an abomination, it ain't like merging into a lane without signaling.
Forgiveness is a given through the redeeming work of Christ but repentance is (life long)conforming to the likeness of Christ.
You just can't slut it around, feel bad about it (usually because you can't land a stud) accept Christ and then whine why some poor beta shmuck won't commit to you (that doesn't sound like repentance to me).
True repentance is accepting the trials by fire and renewal through the Spirit. That's why Mary Magdalene and Mary of Egypt are such an anathema to the modern woman.
Niko,
Repentance and sanctification are not interchangeable terms.
Repentance is the turning from our sin, to Christ. We repent initially at the time of our conversion and then continue to repent of ongoing sin, throughout our lives.
Sanctification is the life-long endeavour to conform to the likeness of Christ (an endeavour which is only possible because God brings it about in us).
That depends if you subscribe to a Monistic or Synergistic view of salvation. Theosis and sanctification isn't the topic here.
A reformed nympho past her prime closing her legs for 5 minutes to catch a 'good man' ain't repentant. It just goes to prove their is no such thing as an incel.
Desiring to marry a virgin or even using it as one criteria for choosing a spouse is a far cry from "worshiping" virginity.
A reformed nympho past her prime closing her legs for 5 minutes to catch a 'good man' ain't repentant. It just goes to prove their is no such thing as an incel.
I can't help but think that your language and description is entirely inappropriate when speaking about a woman who confesses with her mouth that Jesus is Lord and believes in her heart that God raised him from the dead - a woman who would describe herself as your sister in Christ.
"A reformed nympho past her prime closing her legs for 5 minutes to catch a 'good man' ain't repentant. It just goes to prove their is no such thing as an incel."
Exactly Niko.
Same goes for the guy who beds as many women as he possibly can while in his youthful prime, and then repents and wants to marry a virgin.
Fornication is an abomination after all.
The man who "whores" around is just as damned as the woman who indulges in the same behaviour.
" Though shalt not commit adultery " is a commandment that both sexes should adhere to!
Dani --
Niko comes from the Orthodox tradition -- we don't adhere to the Calvinist categories. I do think there are many more similarities than differences, but our views of soteriology are pretty different from the typical Calvinist/Reformed categories.
I agree with Dani about using respectful and appropriate language.
Trey
Novaseeker- thanks for clarifying. I appreciate it.
A caustic tongue betrays my sinfulness.
Mary of Egypt.
http://www.abbamoses.com/stmarylife.html
A caustic tongue betrays my sinfulness.
It doesn't validate or justify it, however.
I think a lot of us older singles are not looking for purity, but at least honesty.
Amir Larijani makes a perfect point when he gives us an example of many women who give themselves completely to men who couldn't care less about them, then are suddenly ready for a "good man" later on.
I would never judge these women on their efforts to be better individuals, but their past and the baggage it brings is too much for most men to accept.
I feel for them when I meet these types at church groups, but I would never date them. These are the women who turned every good man away for years. Why give them a great relationship when they have already given everything to men who only used them for recreation?
Actions and decisions have consequences. I don't see any difference in women's behavior based on faith or denomination. The same issues exist everywhere.
Well said, anonymous.
This is a point that I believe is completely missed by those who want to completely blame men for "protracted singleness."
Anon wrote: "but their past and the baggage it brings is too much for most men to accept."
This is a tricky spot for me. I do a lot of work with sexually abused children and people who were sexually abused as children. They have baggage. They did not choose the baggage, but there is is.
How much do the men and women with a history of promiscuity choose their baggage, and does it matter? Sure, if it is not rape, it was a choice. That is perfectly logical. But I have compassion for the men and women who choose out of brokeness, which is basically all of us.
And it writing off people with sexual baggage, even those with baggage of their own choosing, are we trying to replace God's grace and His leading us with our own system of being careful?
These are honest questions, I do not know the answers, but you can see that I think the answer the the last question is a definite maybe.
Should we be careful who we marry? Of course!!! But is it more important to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit than our own caution? Amen, it is.
Trey
In the decision about whether or not to consider marrying someone who is a virgin or not, it is important to consider this is one factor among many. Here is my thought (at the risk of being overly analytical).
When you think about making decisions in other areas of life you weigh the costs and benefits. The same is true when deciding whether or not to marry someone.
Someone may be willing to spend $30,000 on a car; another person, $4,000; another person, $2. The person who is only willing to spend $2 on car needs to realize that he may not ever buy a car. This is his loss. The car sellers have no right to force him to spend $10,000 for their car.
I think people (men and women) have the right to make whatever arbitrary decisions about who to marry. They need to realize that this might mean they don't find a spouse. Similarly, someone with a past cannot demand that people take him/her in spite of it. An unemployed virgin man and a 300 pound virgin woman are most likely in the same boat.
I think that the real complaint here is why are the attractive ones so often not virgins, and why are the virgins often not attractive?
Ben says: "I think people (men and women) have the right to make whatever arbitrary decisions about who to marry. They need to realize that this might mean they don't find a spouse. Similarly, someone with a past cannot demand that people take him/her in spite of it. An unemployed virgin man and a 300 pound virgin woman are most likely in the same boat."
Absolutely. I'll never forget the time when we had a gal in the church who was a few years younger than myself. She was slightly taller than me, but was at least 250 pounds. She desperately wanted to get married.
One of the deacons ran down the names of single guys in the church. One "had a past". One "was retarded". One "had issues". Then the deacon mentioned me.
"He's too short. I want someone who is tall, lean, and athletic."
The deacon responded: "Look, honey. You're demanding perfection, when you don't even have that yourself."
But yeah...people have the right to demand what they want. The issue is whether those preferences and expectations are reasonable.
Anonymous says: "I think that the real complaint here is why are the attractive ones so often not virgins, and why are the virgins often not attractive?"
"But she's got a great personality!" LOL
Not sure there is any doubt as to the answer for "why"...
It also logically follows that both sexes operate within what Devlin (I think he's the one who coined it) called "an erotic field of view".
That is, we tend to want someone who fits the standard criteria that we would call virtuous, while falling within an acceptable attractiveness range.
It is on us to evaluate for ourselves whether that range that we allow that "erotic field of view" to define is in fact a reasonable one.
Nova: "Yes, of course, which is why Amir noted that men treat her nicely. She is a sister in Christ. But that doesn't at all mean men want to be married to someone with that history. It is a personal thing, but I can say that I think most men would, knowing that history, not want to marry her, and particularly most Christian men. "Not really because they "judge" her past in a harsher way than God does, but because it has probably damaged her as a person, and he would rather not deal with that particular set of baggage. Baggage around sex and intimacy and so on is incredibly difficult to unpack and deal with in the context of a healthy relationship."
So a guy who has spread his seed around when young is gonna be an appealing proposition to a woman?
Oh yes, I know there are a few men who like to kid themselves that a woman likes a man with experience.
If he has bedded many women how could he possibly bond with a woman on such an intimate level(if he has not repented)
If you are spreading it around(male or female) how could you possibly value such a gift from God.
It becomes a commodity.
Sex for me has always been intertwined with love..
It is part of my upbringing..
It is why my sister my brother and myself were all virgins when we married..
On the other hand, I truly believe that if a person stumbles and has made a few mistakes..and is sorry.. then they should be forgiven..
Christ said, love your neighbours unconditionally. Forgive them, He said. How many times must I forgive them, his disciples asked, seven times? And He said, Seventy times seven times.
In Israel, the number seven means totality. In essence this means, we must forgive, totally and without condition, no matter what it takes and how many times it is required of us. If forgiveness is sincerely sought, we should not keep that request ungranted, lest we ourselves do not receive pardon from God for our own sins.
To put it another way." Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."
Yep! We are all sinners..
Kathy,
There is a difference between forgiveness and pretending something never happened.
You can forgive someone for not repaying a loan (to you). It doesn't mean that you need to lend them more money. Forgiveness is releasing the obligation for repayment for wrongs done to you.
I don't think I need to forgive a person who had sex before marriage--they have not harmed me and do not owe me anything. They have sinned against God but not me. I don't have anything to forgive them for.
By marrying someone who is not a virgin, I wouldn't see myself as forgiving their sin. By not marrying them, I wouldn't see myself as condemning them.
Whichever choice someone makes it is more a matter of prudence.
As far as "prudence" is concerned, it's one thing to pass up on someone who has had a risky sexual past (has an STD like herpes, or a sexual addiction that they might relapse into) and quite another to reject someone who had what might be considered by secular standards an ordinary sexual past (ex-boyfriends/girlfriends that you could number on one hand). In the latter case, rejection someone just because they're not a virgin isn't prudent at all, it's just being a prude. You'd be excluding many people of quality just for that criteria, thus limiting yourself to the discriminating kind with lot of options and those who are virgins for reasons other than matters of conviction, if you know what I mean.
Besides, the scriptures show many examples of God using people who have sinned sexually to his glory (see Liz Higg's "Bad Girls of the Bible"). So although it may be permissible to set "virgin" as a non-negotiable criteria for marriage, it seems a bit peevish and lacking in grace.
We live in a society which seems to value sex and sexual activity over the person or the relationship. I've seen many an attractive and socially able person not in a relationship and want to be. Who knows what our problems really is. It's quite widespread for those who have no inkling of intentional celibacy. And for those who are trying to wait, it's getting a bit old.
quite another to reject someone who had what might be considered by secular standards an ordinary sexual past
Why should someone be encouraged to accept what might be considered ordinary sexual history by secular standards? Isn't that simply caving in to the secular culture?
I agree that being more restrictive about such things limits options, but I think that's a very personal thing, and certainly not something someone who is Christian should dismiss as being "prudish".
Is Christian morality about sexuality also "prudish" because it differs from the currently accepted secular standard?
Why should someone be encouraged to accept what might be considered ordinary sexual history by secular standards? Isn't that simply caving in to the secular culture?
I agree that being more restrictive about such things limits options, but I think that's a very personal thing, and certainly not something someone who is Christian should dismiss as being "prudish".
Is Christian morality about sexuality also "prudish" because it differs from the currently accepted secular standard?
Nova, you are correct about everything. It's really disturbing just how far gone otherwise serious Bible believing Christians are on this.
Sure, nobody is perfect, and we all have our sins. Sexual sin is the only sin where people who have NOT committed the sin are put on the defensive. We wouldn't say these things about murder or stealing or lying, so why is sexual sin different?
I'm also disturbed by the idea that there needs to be forgiveness for sexual sin. If a sin wasn't committed against me, then there is no way I can forgive it. It's impossible by definition. Why is anyone advocating the idea that third parties that weren't involved must forgive sexual sin? We don't say that about any other sin.
Good grief! Finally, someone gets it right! I agree with the last two posts! Asking me to forgive someone for their sexual past when I'm the third party and 'uninvolved with that person' is like asking me to forgive someone for their continuous gluttony for food and now they're fat. It runs into the category of "not my fault"! While I can OFFER prayer and be their brethren in Christ, that doesn't include my having to DATE THEM. And you are right, PMAFT, why should any third party have to be placed on the defensive side of this.
"Nova, you are correct about everything. It's really disturbing just how far gone otherwise serious Bible believing Christians are on this."
How's "the experiment" going, PMAFT?
How's "the experiment" going, PMAFT?
Why do you care, catwoman?
And you are right, PMAFT, why should any third party have to be placed on the defensive side of this.
I really should have said fourth party since we're talking about people that far away from the occurrence of the sin.
A few years ago I heard about this priest (I'm Roman Catholic) and some people had met with him since he was starting a new stint at this particular church. Someone in this conversation with the priest preaching about sex before marriage came up. This priest (who was about 30) said that he would tell teenagers not to have premarital sex, but he wouldn't tell adults premarital sex was wrong.
I realize that he's dealing with a situation where nearly all adult members of the church have had premarital sex. However, that doesn't mean you don't preach against that particular sin. It really doesn't mean that you tell teens one thing and adults another. Before someone says that this is different for some absurd reason, take the sin of lying. We have all done it. It's safe to say that nearly all Christians if not all have done it. However, this does not stop priests/ministers/pastors from preaching how lying is a sin.
And there is a lot of hypocrisy about this. It's not sexual sin in general that's getting a pass in Christian churches. It's sex before marriage. Other sexual sins such as looking at porn are a reason to be drawn and quartered, if you are a man. If a woman uses female porn then you have people bending over backwards to excuse it such as when Boundless recently deleted their article on female porn.
Why is this happening like this? Nova figured it out. It's a stalking horse for women's rights and feminism lite for Christians which is ruining the substance of church teaching.
"Why should someone be encouraged to accept what might be considered ordinary sexual history by secular standards? Isn't that simply caving in to the secular culture?"
That's like asking citing the fourth commandment and asking "why should someone be encouraged to accept what might be considered "ordinary church attendance history"?"
Romans 3:23 is a reality. We all sin. Wouldn't you grant grace in accepting as a marital candidate someone who used to attend church only occasionally, and now attends with as much regularity as you?
"Is Christian morality about sexuality also "prudish" because it differs from the currently accepted secular standard?"
No, because that moral standard is about obedience before God, not how you judge the morality of others.
Don't get me wrong, I think it's good to value high moral standards and that we need to expect that from others so that it remains a high demand characteristic that people will feel some incentive to maintain in order to be considered good spouse material. But perhaps God grants favor to those who grant grace to others. Giving a sinner a chance to redeem him/herself seems to be an important part of the Christian life. My cousin had a questionable past, that her husband overlooked and what an incredible ministry they have now.
Sure, there are people who took similar chances and lived to regret it, but I think there are just as many overly cautious Christian singles who have standards of righteousness so high that no one could meet them. And so they don't receive the blessings that come granting that kind of grace.
Perhaps there is just as much "emotional baggage" that comes with protracted singleness and abstinence, as with the "reborn virgins" of the world.
Of course it is personal, and everyone has the right to their own criteria. This was never about whether or not someone "should" accept someone with a past. It's about whether they should be encouraged to do so, and if so, under what circumstances.
A number of recent posters in this thread have made incorrect assertions about sin. I'd like to attempt a correction, if I may.
The context of these assertions is: person A has 'sinned' against person B.
If 'sin' is defined as disobeying God, it isn't possible to 'sin' against another person. We might trespass against another - i.e. intrude upon their personal communion with God - but this is different to sin.
Our trespasses against each other may be consequences of sin (or ignorance), suggesting that forgiveness for both may be sought, but unlike trespasses against each other - which an individual can forgive - forgiveness for sin is entirely in God's domain.
The Lord's Prayer separates them for a reason:
"Our Father...forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us..."
and then:
"...deliver us from evil..."
Sorry for the preach, but the thread seems to need a reminder.
Matthew 18:15 says we can sin against others as well as against God. Yes, ultimately, God can pardon us and reconcile us to him (regardless of how others feel about us), but the Bible does teach we are to be reconciled with others as well, if possible.
Inevitably, this discussion, in my opinion, seems headed for the idea that if celibate men (whether godly or atheist) who refuse to accept a partner that has chosen to devalue their sexuality, such men are scum for having standards.
Seems a lot like the Many Luxury Vacations entry, He Said She Said
http://manyluxuryvacations.blogspot.com/2008/06/he-said-she-said.html
This is the complete BS of someone who is clueless. Involuntary celibacy is real, pal.
Yeah, sorry, I have to go with the poster immediately above, dude: when you have the omniscience of God who knows the hearts and minds of all men, when you have the compassion of God who treats tenderly regardless of peoples' condition, when you have the supreme authority of God who sets the paths of all men... then I shall listen to blanket statements you make about things you do not understand. Until then, I caution you to keep your tongue firmly in check. For the from the tongue (or fingers) comes much damage.
To clarify, "Incel"ism is a psycho-social condition that you cannot force or will yourself out of. It is NOT people who, for five minutes, haven't gotten laid.
God bless you.
As the two posters above say, involuntary celibacy is real and if you had gone your whole life unable to form relationships with women despite your best and hardest repeated efforts then you would understand too. Many incels have mental health issues and other problems and the suggestion that we are just lazy and picky is rediculous. Millions of men are suffering from this. Many are Christians like myself and a good incel friend of mine. We have gone to many churches over the years and alas a relationship still eludes us despite trying hard. Whoever wrote this blog has no idea and your lazy over simplification is harmful and disrespectful to good men who have cried and felt suicidal over this many times. Also, because I choose not to sleep with a prostitute, it does not make me voluntarily celibate - there is still choice in Incel, you obviously do not understand the term.
Just to clarify what I meant by saying that you can choose not to sleep with someone, a prostitute for example and your celibacy is still involuntary not voluntary.
This is because you cannot volunteer to break moral, ethical or legal boundaries that you yourself believe in.
If someone is starving and refuses to steal food would you say that meant they volunteer to be hungry? And if you believe in something you can't choose not to believe it just because it would solve some of your problems. If you are persecuted for your faith would you be voluntary being persecuted because you chose to keep that faith and if you gave it up your problems would be over?
There is such a thing as an Incel and I am one and I will find it hard to sleep tonight because of your unkind blog.
Stop assuming that a marriage relationship is a sexual one! I married a "Christian" woman who likes to ignore all scriptures about God's plan, if not requirement, for sex in a marriage. You tell me that my only option is to break my covanent and be as rebellious as my wife because I am not really struggling with anything... just my choices. No wonder Christian men have the reputation of being disengenuous and uncompassionate. I'm glad Christ isn't
What if you don't have any money?
I was unable to obtain any sex during my teens. I finally cracked by visiting a brothel on my way to university on the first day of the first term. I at least had the satisfaction of not arriving at university a virgin. The sex in the brothel was quite good, although she would not allow me to touch her breasts – groan – only in England. So I had sexual intercourse before my first kiss or touching a breast. No sexual success at university, other than the occasional brothel visit, which is probably not technically a “success”, and I was well over 25 before I managed a non-prostitute sexual partner. I fear that there are many more cases such as mine than we like to admit. This is not what I had envisaged or hoped for when I was 16. If I had known then what lay ahead I would probably have killed myself. Technically I would not have “died of sex-starvation”, but I fear that this fine legal/medical distinction would have been lost on my corpse.
The sex-starvation interfered with my studies at school and university, with my search for work and with the work itself when I finally did get a job. The deprivation made it difficult to concentrate on anything. Life seemed absolutely pointless. It even interfered with my love of music. It was not until I was 27 going on 28 and had a regular sexual partner that I started to rise from the abyss and was able to think about other things in life.
I am reminded of T.S. Eliot, and the ‘shadow fruit’:
So I find words I never thought to speak
In streets I never thought I should revisit
When I left my body on a distant shore...
Let me disclose the gifts reserved for age
To set a crown upon your lifetime's effort.
First, the cold friction of expiring sense
Without enchantment, offering no promise
But bitter tastelessness of shadow fruit
As body and soul begin to fall asunder.
Second, the conscious impotence of rage
At human folly, and the laceration
Of laughter at what ceases to amuse.
And last, the rending pain of re-enactment
Of all that you have done, and been; the shame
Of motives late revealed, and the awareness
Of things ill done and done to others' harm
Which once you took for exercise of virtue.
Then fools' approval stings, and honour stains.
From wrong to wrong the exasperated spirit
Proceeds, unless restored by that refining fire
Where you must move in measure, like a dancer.
The day was breaking. In the disfigured street
He left me, with a kind of valediction,
And faded on the blowing of the horn.
You have no idea what involuntary celibacy is. What if you go to church and get active, but none of the nice Christian girls that you meet want to have a relationship with you? You're talking about celibacy as a choice, meaning that you CAN have sex, but choose not to. Involuntary celibacy means that you CAN'T have sex because nobody wants to do it with you period. It has nothing to do with choices. Get a clue and stop spewing
nonsense.
Way to criticise other's problems from the safety of your computer, you insensitive fuckwit.
Fuck you.
I don't know how you can call yourself a Christian and have "Niceguy" in your name and write such an insensitive, unsympathetic, arrogant, ignorant, judgmental, and downright mean-spirited blog. You're obviously not someone who speaks from experience, so you have no right to judge people who are incels. You just assume that incels could get a relationship if only they would "go to church, get active, and meet a nice Christian girl". What you obviously don't know is that many incels (including myself) have tried this time and time again and it has gotten us nowhere. The problem isn't that "that girl in the pew isn't my type". It's that that girl in the pew thinks I'm not her type or is already in a relationship with someone else. You're telling me that my only other option is to go against what the Bible says and hire a prostitute. That won't help because it won't fulfill my psychological need for intamacy. I don't want to have sex with a stranger who dosen't care about me. I want a meaningful, loving relationship with someone I care about and someone who cares about me. It's clear to me that very little to no time or effort was put into writing this blog. Maybe you should try being a good Christian and actually helping people who are incels instead of judging them and telling them that their problems are all their faults.
I hope you catch Lou Gehrig's disease. Incel is very real and very painful.
Post a Comment