what IS sex?

[JamesR]

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

[biro]

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Are you kidding?

[JamesR]

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Are you kidding?

No, I'm asking a serious question. According to the Church, how far is "too far"? How "far" can you go until it's considered fornication?

[Asteriktos]

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Are you kidding?

No, I'm asking a serious question. According to the Church, how far is "too far"? How "far" can you go until it's considered fornication?

You want the position of the early Church, medieval Church, or modern Church? 

[JamesR]

How about all three?

[Asteriktos]

Things got more permissive as time went on, but handjobs and oral sex are still out. You could probably french kiss a bit (I said a bit!) without getting into too much trouble though.

[JamesR]

So basically anything that could cause an orgasm is out?

[biro]

So basically anything that could cause an orgasm is out?

No, go and do whatever you want because you want it.

That's what you want to hear.

[JamesR]

Psychologically, we feel attached to the person we have sex with. "Liberal" people think this is childish and something to be outgrown from in order to do it just like friends have drinks. It is not. It is what sex is meant to be: something that makes us feel closer to our partner. To "outgrow" this feeling, is the same as to "outgrow" the sensation of pain when we touch fire or the sensation of pleasure when feeling the wind blow on a sunny summer morning.

No offense, but this feeling of attachment you are mentioning seems to actually have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history, and is actually very animalistic in nature. It's about selfishness and the evolutionary desire to pass on your genes "I want to be the one to pass on my genes", "I want to be the one with the mates", "I want to own you", "You are MINE and I want you to only have sex with me". There is really nothing "spiritual" or "sacred" about this. It's the precise reason why women throughout history have been viewed more as a sexual commodity than as people, and why people kill each other over a partner, because no one wants to share. THEY want to be the only one with the partner to pass their genes onto. There is also the possibility that this--along with monogamy in general--originated from when prehistoric women--just like chimpanzees--would have promiscuous sex with everyone, and thus, whatever male she settled down with was forced to take care of her children--even if they were not his. Monogamy and this feeling of attachment--along with the social taboo against being promiscuous--solved this problem for males by forcing females to have sex with only one male and staying committed to him, that way the male would only have to provide for his children opposed to the children from another male.

[Dominika]

I strongly disagree with you, James. This feeling of attachments is because having sex demands being totally open and naked (also figuratively - psychologically) for the other person and what's more, this feeling also takes place with other gestures - if your personality is developed properly, you feel a kind of connection even after e.g a kiss or close hug and you keep it in mind. The person with whom you've been close, can't be totally indifferent to you. For sure, biology has its role in it, but not primary. That's why such things like oral shouldn't happen outside the marriage.

I know I probably haven't put clear what I mean.

[Melodist]

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Without defining "fornication", I would say that anything involving or requiring the removal of clothing would be inappropriate.

[JamesR]

So pretty much anything that involves our "private areas"?

[WPM]

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Sex is the intercourse between male and female.

It happens when the man gets an erection and the woman inserts the penis into the vagina.

[JamesR]

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Sex is the intercourse between male and female.

It happens when the man gets an erection and the woman inserts the penis into the vagina.

So basically anal, oral and every other sexual practice doesn't count then? The Church has to have a more concise definition than that.

[WPM]

I'm just going to ask, do sexual practices like oral or handjobs etc. or anything that causes an ejaculation count as sex in Orthodoxy? In other words, can two people do all those things and technically not be considered fornicators in the Church?

Sex is the intercourse between male and female.

It happens when the man gets an erection and the woman inserts the penis into the vagina.

So basically anal, oral and every other sexual practice doesn't count then? The Church has to have a more concise definition than that.

Other stuff that tickles your sexual fancy is meant to be within the confines of privacy.

[Melodist]

The Church has to have a more concise definition than that.

Why do you need such a concise definition? Just avoid anything of that general nature outside of marriage, and if you stumble go to confession.

[Kerdy]

Anyone who isn't a small child and asks what is sex mostly likely is looking for loopholes or reading from Bill Clintons dictionary.

[Asteriktos]

reading from Bill Clintons dictionary.

Well "IS" is capitalized in the title... 

[Kerdy]

reading from Bill Clintons dictionary.

Well "IS" is capitalized in the title... 

I know!

[JamesRottnek]

Anyone who isn't a small child and asks what is sex mostly likely is looking for loopholes or reading from Bill Clintons dictionary.

Not necessarily.  I know a certain board member, who may have already chimed in (I didn't bother to read the whole thread), and if not hopefully will, has some interesting views on the matter, from what I recall.

[JamesR]

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.

[SolEX01]

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.

There have been thousands of posts dedicated to the subject of fornication.  Why do you persist?  We can't bless your activity; in fact, we don't care what you do in your bedroom or bathroom as long as you are prepared to account for your actions on Judgment Day.

[Asteriktos]

Look, I hate when people say "ask your priest," because maybe your priest is a jerk or an idiot. But this really is a situation where we can't answer these questions when you get down to the nitty gritty of slapping a butt or french kissing or necking. I can't tell you whether that's ok or not. In the past probably not. Today, maybe it is, I don't know. If you really want an ecclesiastical answer, then ask your priest, or even ask your bishop(s). Here's the thing though--if you ask, be prepared to follow their guidance. If not, then set some type of rule that seems sensible, like no activity involving things generally covered in underwear. That's my 2 cents anyway.

[Asteriktos]

I didn't bother to read the whole thread

You missed my argument with alive? Aww man... 

[Kerdy]

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.

A good rule of thumb when it comes to this sort of thing is, if you have to ask if its wrong, it probably is wrong.

I'm not trying to be ugly toward you James.  I hope you know this, but I'm wondering how many times it will take for us to tell you to talk to your priest about these things before you actually do instead of asking total strangers on the Internet.  A spiritual father has a purpose.  At least give him the opportunity to fulfill that purpose.

[Alpo]

People, please. Get a room.

[Melodist]

going off on me

I apologize if I came across this way.

what is "too far" according to the Church?

I was just trying to offer some guidance to this in 145. My point in 150 was that instead of creating precise definitions and loopholes to justify acting out on our desires, we should acknowledge a sinful act as sinful and seek God when we fall to it.

[WPM]

A spiritual father has a purpose.  At least give him the opportunity to fulfill that purpose.

That happened about the 5th or 6th time I spoke with a priest. After that happens you stop going back

[Kerdy]

A spiritual father has a purpose.  At least give him the opportunity to fulfill that purpose.

That happened about the 5th or 6th time I spoke with a priest. After that happens you stop going back

After what happens?

[Asteriktos]

I think WPM is taking "fulfill" as meaning "complete" or "accomplish"... so WPM is saying that the priest had his role, completed it, and now they have moved on...

[biro]

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.

No, it's not.

You're trying to find out how much you can get away with.

You already know what the church teaches, and what supporters of that are probably going to say. But you want it to be special for you, because no one else has ever been 16 and had sexual feelings or something.

Give me a break.

I'm not a perfect person either. It's just that I gave up trying to b.s. about it a long time ago.

Do you really think, that if the Church says it supports virginity until marriage, that it means something else? Do you really think that 'sexual practices' you mentioned haven't been around as long as there have been people?

There are no special rules for you or anyone else.

[Kerdy]

I think WPM is taking "fulfill" as meaning "complete" or "accomplish"... so WPM is saying that the priest had his role, completed it, and now they have moved on...

I see.  Thanks for explaining for me.

[NicholasMyra]

No offense, but this feeling of attachment you are mentioning seems to actually have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history

What of value hasn't?

, and is actually very animalistic in nature. It's about selfishness and the evolutionary desire to pass on your genes "I want to be the one to pass on my genes", "I want to be the one with the mates", "I want to own you", "You are MINE and I want you to only have sex with me".

1. Evolution is not a sentient being capable of selfishness. It is no more selfish than an ionic bond between two atoms.

2 Actually, hominid pair bonds insured the survival of the offspring by giving providing fathers an advantage in chance of paternity. Later hominids were not chimpanzees.

There is really nothing "spiritual" or "sacred" about this.

Biological drives and causes do not preclude spirituality or sacredness.

It's the precise reason why women throughout history have been viewed more as a sexual commodity than as people

No, that has to do, largely, with the fact that men are, on average, physically stronger than women, and how that plays into hunter-gatherer society, pastoral nomadic society, and agricultural society.

There is also the possibility that this--along with monogamy in general--originated from when prehistoric women--just like chimpanzees--would have promiscuous sex with everyone, and thus, whatever male she settled down with was forced to take care of her children--even if they were not his.

Except prehistoric humans, and later pre-human ancestors, were not chimpanzees, and were not harem-based. Furthermore, chimpanzee females don't "settle down" with a male, they are brought into harems based on dominance.

Monogamy and this feeling of attachment--along with the social taboo against being promiscuous--solved this problem for males by forcing females to have sex with only one male and staying committed to him, that way the male would only have to provide for his children opposed to the children from another male.

Monogamy did not originate as a Homo sapiens cultural taboo designed to subjugate women. It precedes Homo sapiens and has some degree of biological basis.

[NicholasMyra]

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.

According to the Church, you are only allowed to have sex with a person. The Church tells us how to relate to people as persons.

There are many conditions, practices, etc. in the world where you can have sex with a thing.

That said, it's a gradient.

You can't say that rape or a one night stand are indistinguishable from committed lovers who exchange some form of self sacrifice. We try to see the good in people trying to work things out the way they know how with what they've been given. Will not the Lord salvage what is redeemable from every moment of history somehow in his Kingdom?

We are given a standard by Christ to hold to, and are to bear witness to the world by holding to it. So Orthodox Christians don't have the practice of impersonal sex, of "dehypostasized" sexual activity. Sure, Orthodox Christians do it, we all sin. I sin. Regardless, the Sermon on the Mount is still written somewhere upon our hearts.

[Hiwot]

I'm just asking an honest question and all of you--at least Biro and Kerdy to an extent--are going off on me like I asked a bad question or something. I'm just asking an honest question. In this modern day and age, how are we to know what is "too far" according to the Church? Sure, we obviously know that literal sexual intercourse is condemned except for married persons, but there are so many other sexual practices nowadays that it is hard to know where to draw the line from saving your virginity to being a downright prude.

According to the Church, you are only allowed to have sex with a person. The Church tells us how to relate to people as persons.

There are many conditions, practices, etc. in the world where you can have sex with a thing.

That said, it's a gradient.

You can't say that rape or a one night stand are indistinguishable from committed lovers who exchange some form of self sacrifice. We try to see the good in people trying to work things out the way they know how with what they've been given. Will not the Lord salvage what is redeemable from every moment of history somehow in his Kingdom?

We are given a standard by Christ to hold to, and are to bear witness to the world by holding to it. So Orthodox Christians don't have the practice of impersonal sex, of "dehypostasized" sexual activity. Sure, Orthodox Christians do it, we all sin. I sin. Regardless, the Sermon on the Mount is still written somewhere upon our hearts.

Oh Nicholas! Profound points, beautifully made! a gem, in its soundness and its compassion. indeed in many ways and varying degrees each one of us is broken, but not irredeemable.for every sentence in the post thank you.

[Fabio Leite]

Psychologically, we feel attached to the person we have sex with. "Liberal" people think this is childish and something to be outgrown from in order to do it just like friends have drinks. It is not. It is what sex is meant to be: something that makes us feel closer to our partner. To "outgrow" this feeling, is the same as to "outgrow" the sensation of pain when we touch fire or the sensation of pleasure when feeling the wind blow on a sunny summer morning.

No offense, but this feeling of attachment you are mentioning seems to actually have been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history, and is actually very animalistic in nature. It's about selfishness and the evolutionary desire to pass on your genes "I want to be the one to pass on my genes", "I want to be the one with the mates", "I want to own you", "You are MINE and I want you to only have sex with me".

Nobody knew about genes until the 20th century. People *never* thought of sex in terms of passing genes. At most they would think of their "names", keeping such and such property in the family, but definetly nothing of modern pseudo-biological rationalizations.

James, I would suggest you take a more existential approach to life. What is it that you experience when in this kind of situation? Do you really feel you want to pass your genes? Or it is simply the attachment? Never in my life, even when it was the basest of feelings I thought in genetic terms. In fact, most of the time people actively try to avoid having any babies in the process, some even getting to the point of killing their children in the womb.

You are right that that love can be corrupted and become possessive. Just like reason can become cold and psychopathic, peace can become apathy, faith can become idolatry, discernment can become self-righteousness and so on. Also, the feeling of attachment we have in and after sex is not spousal love itself, but it is meant to reinforce it.  And of course it is a sacred thing:

15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.” 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit. 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies. (1 Cor. 6:19-20)

See the warning? We are one body with every single person with whom we have had sex with in our lives and that remains so unless we have repented. And God does not unite Himself with such amorphic non-individuals. We must repent of every single intercourse with every single person that is not our wife/husband, even if done before marriage with consent. Each of those acts was an aggression to ourselves, to the other person, to our spouse and to God.

Our bodies don’t stop being the temples of the Holy Spirit during the sexual intercourse. And not only that, God’s very act of creating a soul may be materialized out of this act. And we are – or should be - undressing not only our bodies, but our very hearts before our spouse, letting the nakedness of the body be an icon of how we put ourselves before our spouses: without masks, clothes, in fragility, being vulnerable to the other out of love. In the Philokalia nakedness is classified as a *virtue*. Adam and Eve were created naked because “God saw it was good”.  And in that nakedness we proceed to a whole “ritual” of tenderness, of exchange of affection and pleasure that, despite any belief, is an icon of the union of God and the Church as seen in Canticle of Canticles.

Now, of course, we don’t live sex in that way. It is used as just one more toy to play with, even among spouses. But the way people live and use it is not what God meant it for. Surely, sex is necessary only as a provision for this fallen world. But that does not prevent God from sanctifying it, just like He sanctifies other such provisions as food, shelter and so on.  What we do with our bodies and hearts in these promiscuous fornications we live (and I include even heterosexual serial monogamy -  of which I am guilty too - rationalized as “necessary experiments to find out the ‘right’ person”) is exactly what we see in Daniel 5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%205&version=NIV ), a profanation of the Temple of God, an abomination put in the innermost altar of the temple, misusing that which is meant for God for mundane blasphemous frivolity. God have mercy on me for that, sin over sin!  Not only do we profane the temple of the Holy Spirit and use its chalices for debauchery, we do that in the name of using our sisters (or brothers in the case of girls) as “experiments” depriving them and us of the proper dignity of our personhood. That is why like a temple, it must be dedicated first in marriage, and be one and just one.

18 May your fountain be blessed,
    and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer—
    may her breasts satisfy you always,
    may you ever be intoxicated with her love.
Proverbs 5

13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring.[a] So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.
16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the Lord Almighty.
So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.
Malachi 2

We mustn’t, of course, go to the radical opposite and make our bodies or sex more than sacred and an idol in itself. There are indeed people for whom sex is the “alpha and omega” of their lives, the core of their self-identity, the activity in which they have a sense of self-realization. That is idolatry if not outright a disease.

[Fabio Leite]

Now for what limit it is too far... it's always "difficult" with pleasurable things to define that because the real question our appetite is asking "how much can I do and still get away with it?" The spiritual danger is hidden under carnal pleasure so we are deceived. So let's think in terms of carnal danger to have a point of comparison.

Friends, specially very young ones, sometimes punch each other playfully. But when a punch is not a playful show of friendship but an actual punch? Can we "define" it by mere description of the mechanical act? It has to do with pain inflicted, intention and so on. There is no clear well-defined border. That's why sometimes the receiving end may get hurt even if the punching side did not mean to do it. One was playing, the other was being attacked, although the act is the very same one. That's where most date rapes start. It's "nothing" for the boy, but it's everything for the girl.

So, where is the limit between physical demonstrations of affection such as hugging and kissing, and sex? There is a physical side to it and a subjective side, but the latter is more important. For example, lust can be triggered by a mere thought, without any physical contact. That is already a sexual temptation. But no one would really accept the concept that an intercourse without desire is not sexual for the lack of lust. Actually, this can be even sicker than normal intercourse.

I personally think that any kind of contact beyond a kiss *is* sex even if not completed. Sex is not an individual act, but a series of acts. You can interrupt it, but a half-done cake is a cake not a pie. I don't for a second believe a person is virgin for just the lack of contact of male and female genitals. Virginity is not about that at all.

[Jonathan]

How far is too far is the wrong question. Is it sex or is it not sex is the wrong question.

Christ told us that if we look at a woman with lust we are committing fornication in our hearts. If one allows one's self to become wilfully aroused outside of marriage, this is not affection, it is erotic, and outside of marriage it has no place in the Christian life.

What is the purpose of any of the acts you've asked about outside of marriage?

The purpose of our lives are to live as servants of Christ. Finding the right spouse, discerning the calling to marriage is a godly thing. Dating one-on-one, getting to know someone in that context is great. But physical affection doesn't have a role there, there is no marriage yet. Dating for the sake of having companionship right now where there is no thought of marriage in sight is carrying burning coals and expecting not to be burned.

Life should be enjoyed. Finding your spouse should be enjoyable. The thrill of talking for hours and getting to know each other and falling in love and choosing to marry. Being married should be enjoyable. It isn't about denying pleasure. But it is about not taking marital pleasure outside of marriage by way of technicalities and definitions, when what we are called to is internal purity.

We all fall short of the ideal in one place or another or many, so we get up, repent, carry on, fall again, repeat... but we're really in danger if we start lying to ourselves and say we haven't fallen.

No one dealing honestly with themselves things that the sexual acts you mentioned (some of which have no place even within a Christian marriage) are ok because there is no intercourse. Physical displays of affection not leading to arousal, the same affection that could be shown a parent, is fine, even directed towards someone we have a great desire for, but more than that, once you are becoming aroused together and still enjoying each other, is clearly taking what is reserved for marriage outside of it.

This is very dangerous. It is very hard to stop at a level you have picked as ok for you and not move on. It is carrying a burning coal, do it long enough, and you will get burned, you will fall into greater sin. It is perhaps even more dangerous because the bond formed by these actives, being in physical contact with someone, being aroused by them, can cloud your judgement and blind you to incompatibilities that can lead you to a miserable marriage that will ruin the rest of your life. A fall into sin can be easily remedied by repentance. But focusing on pleasure now rather than seeking God's will, allowing yourself to be lead astray from the narrow path of God's calling into the wide path of pleasure for the sake of pleasure can lead you to make a choice that will lead you to a choice God hasn't made for you, and God gives a spouse to help with salvation, choosing another can have dire consequences, can lead to being pushed away from the Church. The irony is that it isn't even about giving up pleasure. The pleasure you can have in marriage with the blessing of God will be far greater than any fleeting pleasure you can snatch illegally through rationalizations, which will leave you feeling empty. And the purer you make yourself before marriage, whether through avoiding a fall, or repenting and getting up if you have previously fallen, and striving for purity, the greater your enjoyment in marriage.

[vamrat]

Both Jonathan and Fabio have made some very good points.  The only thing I will add is that from a biological standpoint there is no such thing as "casual sex".  Orgasms release dopamine and more so when done with another person.  Saying casual sex makes just about as much sense as saying "casual heroin usage". 

If you have gotten to the point that you can screw a woman and feel nothing from it means that you have become totally inured to the emotions and chemicals that it is supposed to release.  Obviously, this is possible, but not a good thing.

[JamesR]

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will  but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.

[Kerdy]

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will  but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.

Did you ever stop to think a struggle such as this is one way God finds out how devoted we are?  If you believe this is hard, stand by for a barrage of other struggles.

[vamrat]

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will   but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.

Dude, I don't like it either.  But I'm not going to lie to myself and to God and say that something that is something is nothing.

If you're going to sin, sin.  Just don't try and sugar coat it.

[Hiwot]

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will  but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.

hehehe my dear James, I think its great you are asking these questions, not only for your sake but for many others as well. I for one got a lot of good stuff out of all these thoughtful and caring replies to your questions people are offering. I think if you from time to time reread these answers and give them some thought as well, they will help you to establish some internal strength and self mastery. you will see that you are more than your hormones ...no matter how powerful they are now. being a teenager can also mean having an ideal and having a nearly inexhaustible drive and zeal to live out that ideal,think about that... so it is not just being a priapic youth 

as to the struggle, we all are in it, look how much people care for you here( both with the tough brotherly love and the patient gentle guidance you have seen) because they understand, they have been there and most of us I would venture are still in there ...struggling...we fall and we get back up again and continue to struggle... so may the Lord help us.

[Sleeper]

All right, all right. Fine, you old people win. Sex is some special spiritual thing and I should struggle and stay abstinent. Fine. I will  but I won't like it. Maybe God shouldn't have given me all these hormones.

Why is God responsible for your hormones?

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox Family Forum (Moderator: Arachne) > Topic: what IS sex?