Premarital Sex

[JamesR]

In this modern world couples are shacking up left and right. Sex outside of marriage is perfectly normal and fine in our society.

I am actually happy with this. For starters, you have less moral watchdogs neglecting and discriminating against bastard children and single mothers like you did in the old days. Social taboos get in the way of progress

Does it really matter, if two people love each other? Or who cares why not have sex whenever you are in the mood? Does the teaching of the Church really apply to the modern world? Or are they just outdated?

Having sex with anyone whenever you want can be harmful, but I don't see what is wrong with it if you love each other.

[dzheremi]

What's wrong with it is that the Church teaches that there is a spiritual union that takes place at the uniting of the flesh. Hence, St. Paul writes (in 1 Corinthians 6:16) that if you lie with a prostitute, you become one body with her. That's something other than what most people (sadly, I'd guess both Christian and non) have in mind these days when they say they love whoever they're currently sleeping with, so it's okay.

If you will not be one body with the person, you should not sleep with them. If you will be one body with the person, you will marry them before sleeping with them, as is right and honorable. I am at a loss as to how people cannot see the wisdom of the Church in such matters. Even my atheistic/agnostic friends will admit that even if "no strings attached" sex (which is not a thing, by the way) or "hookups" (which are a thing, but shouldn't be) might seem like fun for a little while, they're ultimately really empty and soul-destroying. And for many people nowadays, there is no essential difference between being in a relationship (or even, Lord have mercy, a marriage) and essentially "hooking up", given the ease with which people float in and out of each other's lives at the slightest twinge of unhappiness (or even just "I'm not 100% happy all the time with this person"-ness), professed 'love' notwithstanding.

[JamesR]

What's wrong with it is that the Church teaches that there is a spiritual union that takes place at the uniting of the flesh. Hence, St. Paul writes (in 1 Corinthians 6:16) that if you lie with a prostitute, you become one body with her. That's something other than what most people (sadly, I'd guess both Christian and non) have in mind these days when they say they love whoever they're currently sleeping with, so it's okay.

And what exactly would be wrong with two people who love each other but aren't formally married having sex with each other in a committed relationship and becoming "one flesh" (weirdo existential term)? As long as you plan on staying together and none of you are prostitutes or excessively promiscuous, what would be wrong with it? Admittedly, many fornicators DO cop out by saying "they love each other" but what about the ones who genuinely do love each other and are committed to each other? Why do they need marriage? Who says you have to be married to love each other? If anything, I see many married people who seem to hate each other. Plus, the whole notion that love is associated with marriage is a new concept anyhow. At the time of the Bible and through most of human history, love has had NOTHING to do with marriage, hence why they were arranged during most of human history. Marriage was just the legal recognition of that union. Marriage is just a legal thing. Monogamy even newer.

If you will not be one body with the person, you should not sleep with them.

I agree, but what if you plan to "be one body" with them and stay committed? Why do you need formal marriage?

If you will be one body with the person, you will marry them before sleeping with them, as is right and honorable.

And why is that? Because our modern western semi-Victorian Protestant ethics tell us that it is? Because society has declared it a taboo? I find all of these to be unconvincing reasons. If you love them, you will stay with them and sleep with them. I don't see why you need to marry them first. Maybe in the olden times marriage was important because of the legal aspect, but modern society is different now and the legal aspect isn't really a problem anymore, so formal marriage seems to be an outdated concept today.

I am at a loss as to how people cannot see the wisdom of the Church in such matters.

I can't see the wisdom of the Church in several matters because most of the time it is at conflict with good ol' rationalistic empirical reasoning--which is the ultimate way to attain knowledge of truth whether you want to admit it or not.

Even my atheistic/agnostic friends will admit that even if "no strings attached" sex (which is not a thing, by the way) or "hookups" (which are a thing, but shouldn't be) might seem like fun for a little while, they're ultimately really empty and soul-destroying.

I'm not denying that they are, you keep trying to degrade every non-marital relationship down to the level of mere "hook-ups" and "one-nighters".

And for many people nowadays, there is no essential difference between being in a relationship (or even, Lord have mercy, a marriage) and essentially "hooking up", given the ease with which people float in and out of each other's lives at the slightest twinge of unhappiness (or even just "I'm not 100% happy all the time with this person"-ness), professed 'love' notwithstanding.

I'm not denying any of this, but there still is that small minority of people who aren't married but do love each other and are committed. In which case, I don't see how marriage would change anything for them or how they could be "living in sin" just because they aren't formally married.

[OrthoNoob]

In this modern world couples are shacking up left and right. Sex outside of marriage is perfectly normal and fine in our society.

I am actually happy with this. For starters, you have less moral watchdogs neglecting and discriminating against bastard children and single mothers like you did in the old days. Social taboos get in the way of progress

Discrimination against single mothers is (for the most part, and with notable exceptions) the predictable result of their immoral behavior and serves the positive end of discouraging such behavior, so by and large they have no right to complain.

Bastards, being what they are by no fault of their own, are more wronged by such discrimination and the case against it is therefore stronger, but it serves the same end.

Having sex with anyone whenever you want can be harmful, but I don't see what is wrong with it if you love each other.

You just said what's wrong with it, brainiac.

[JamesR]

Discrimination against single mothers is (for the most part, and with notable exceptions) the predictable result of their immoral behavior and serves the positive end of discouraging such behavior, so by and large they have no right to complain.

They sure do have the right to complain. What they did is no one else's business provided it did not harm them. If anything, this stigma against them only turns people into Pharisees by causing them to reject Jesus' message of forgiveness and seeing themselves as superior. Being discriminatory against them only causes more damage in the long run. Would you rather them become prostitutes to provide for themselves and their baby because no one will give them a helping hand?

Bastards, being what they are by no fault of their own, are more wronged by such discrimination and the case against it is therefore stronger, but it serves the same end.

Screw you

I--being a bastard child during the early years of my life--shouldn't have had to have been stigmatized and taboo'd against for something that was no fault of my own just to "discourage immoral behavior". Ends do not justify the means. See how you like being stigmatized for something that wasn't your fault.

[Kerdy]

The Christian life is only suggestive.  Do what you want, when you want.  Nothing bad ever happens...

[OrthoNoob]

Discrimination against single mothers is (for the most part, and with notable exceptions) the predictable result of their immoral behavior and serves the positive end of discouraging such behavior, so by and large they have no right to complain.

They sure do have the right to complain.

Right. When you do something immoral, and it harms other people, and still other people don't approve, you have a right to complain. What was I thinking?

What they did is no one else's business provided it did not harm them.

If I murder my neighbor, it does not harm you. You can't stigmatize me for murdering my neighbor.

If anything, this stigma against them only turns people into Pharisees by causing them to reject Jesus' message of forgiveness and seeing themselves as superior.

Why not remove all stigmas against immorality then?

Being discriminatory against them only causes more damage in the long run.

Assertions, assertions.

Would you rather them become prostitutes to provide for themselves and their baby because no one will give them a helping hand?

I'm not against charity. But when you subsidize things, you get more of them.

Screw you

 

I--being a bastard child during the early years of my life--shouldn't have had to have been stigmatized and taboo'd against for something that was no fault of my own just to "discourage immoral behavior". Ends do not justify the means. See how you like being stigmatized for something that wasn't your fault.

Did you read what I wrote? I acknowledged that you have a claim to having been wronged here. Single mothers don't.

[Cavaradossi]

I can't see the wisdom of the Church in several matters because most of the time it is at conflict with good ol' rationalistic empirical reasoning--which is the ultimate way to attain knowledge of truth whether you want to admit it or not.

What manner of sophistry is this? If you truly have faith in the risen Christ, you will cease entertaining such senseless notions, and instead put your faith in Him to guide you to the truth rather than in your own faculty of reason. Tell me, if reason is so capable of discerning the truth (which we know is to be found in Christ), then how is it that the ancient Greeks were fooled by their faculty of reason into worshipping demons, and into believing all manner of foolish notions, like the notion that inanimate things like stones, streams, and even the world have souls, or the insane notion that time is caused by the motion of the stars? Why, if reason were so powerful as to be able to discern the truth, was man trapped in the darkness of sin and in need of a Savior? And if man could ascertain the truth through reason, for what reason did the Savor come? If you truly love Christ, you will put your hope in Him, and cease to hope so vainly in your faculty of reason. Reason does not make the truth manifest, and philosophy does not save.

[JamesR]

If I murder my neighbor, it does not harm you. You can't stigmatize me for murdering my neighbor.

False dichotomy. Murder harms a non-consenting person (the victim) whereas fornication harms no one except the consenting people involved. Even then, that is arguable because the development of modern contraceptives has highly reduced the potential harm in fornication. Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating. We're animals, get used to it.

Why not remove all stigmas against immorality then?

I actually wouldn't mind that. But, you are neglecting the fact that some immoralities harm others and some only harm yourself and/or the consenting person involved. We develop stigmas against the former kind because it helps us to promote law and order in society--which benefits ALL. But the latter kind do not affect us at all, therefore stigmatizing them is stupid.

Assertions, assertions.

Assertions based on fact. You would be amazed at how many troubled youths who threw their lives away or got involved in harmful activities have done so precisely because they were stigmatized and rejected by society--especially their family. My mother got crap when she had me all of the time because of the stupid religious stigma against fornication, and look where that got her. She just married my dad who was abusive. If she had support and wasn't stigmatized then maybe she wouldn't have done that but would have had a better life. Hell, I could have had a better life.

I'm not against charity. But when you subsidize things, you get more of them.

So? When you don't subsidize them then more of them either a) get abortions (something you are also against) or b) live in poverty and the child suffers, or c) make a living from harmful activities such as prostitution or drug dealing, or marrying an abusive man for money. And when you stigmatize people, people become less likely to help them via charity. So yes, you ARE against charity. And when you don't subsidize them, the children suffer for no reason.

Did you read what I wrote? I acknowledged that you have a claim to having been wronged here. Single mothers don't.

You stated that while it is wrong for us to be stigmatized, it still serves the beneficial purpose of swaying people from indulging in such "immoral" behavior. Hence why I stated that I don't believe the ends justify the means and that I shouldn't have to be stigmatized for something I didn't do just to serve some religious-weirdo higher purpose.

[JamesR]

If you truly have faith in the risen Christ, you will cease entertaining such senseless notions, and instead put your faith in Him to guide you to the truth rather than in your own faculty of reason.

Unless I see Christ in a way perceivable by my reasoning faculties--such as seeing the Uncreated Light, then I don't see how I can be reasonable and have faith in Him when there is no good reason to believe that He exists--let alone be "guided" by Him if I can't interact with Him or perceive Him via my reasoning faculties--which is all we have as humans to interpret knowledge.

Tell me, if reason is so capable of discerning the truth (which we know is to be found in Christ), then how is it that the ancient Greeks were fooled by their faculty of reason into worshipping demons, and into believing all manner of foolish notions, like the notion that inanimate things like stones, streams, and even the world have souls, or the insane notion that time is caused by the motion of the stars?

*cough* because RELIGION made them believe in all sorts of silly things, if they abandoned religion then they wouldn't have believed in such silly notions *cough*. Likewise, technology was not as advanced back then as it is now. Perceivable phenomina was limited back then due to lack of tools like the microscope or satellites etc. Reasoning may not be entirely accurate--but that is only because reasoning is limited by what we can perceive--which depends upon how technologically advanced we are. But reason is still the only thing we got to guide us, and still works the best with the little bit that we can perceive.

Why, if reason were so powerful as to be able to discern the truth, was man trapped in the darkness of sin and in need of a Savior?

Who ever said we were?

And if man could ascertain the truth through reason, for what reason did the Savor come?

To die for us. Just because we may understand something does not mean we could do it ourselves. We may have understood that we needed someone to die for us, but we still could not do it ourselves.

If you truly love Christ, you will put your hope in Him, and cease to hope so vainly in your faculty of reason. Reason does not make the truth manifest, and philosophy does not save.

I cannot love nor "put my hope" into someone who I cannot communicate with--someone who I don't even know if exists or not. Unless I see the Uncreated Light and directly perceive Christ, then I cannot love or hope in Him. My reasoning faculties ARE ALL WE HAVE. There is NO other way for humans to perceive knowledge.

[IoanC]

So your position is that sex is a result of the fall?

And which saints?

Just to be clear, I am well aware of the anti-sex position stance many Fathers took, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone say without the fall man would be reproducing asexually.

It's not that The Father are anti-sex. Sex is now blessed, but it is not exactly perfect, since this world now functions as separate from God in many ways. Before the fall, man experienced a very different existence, in a deified state. God's Grace was abundantly present and man did not experience hunger, thirst, was not burned by fire, did not drown; it was very different (of course, this place is far from Paradise). Here are some quotes:

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Genesis, 15.14, 16.2;
Whence, after all, did he come to know that there would be intercourse between man and woman? I mean, the consummation of that intercourse occurred after the Fall; up till that time they were living like angels in paradise and so they were not burning with desire, not assaulted by other passions, not subject to the needs of nature, but on the contrary were created incorruptible and immortal, and on that account at any rate they had no need to wear clothes . . . Consider, I ask you, the transcendence of their blessed condition, how they were superior to all bodily concerns, how they lived on earth as if they were in heaven, and though in fact possessing a body they did not feel the limitations of their bodies. After all, they had no need for shelter or habitation, clothing or anything of that kind . . .
18.12
“Now Adam knew Eve his wife.” Consider when this happened. After the disobedience, after their loss in the Garden, then it was that the practice of intercourse had its beginning. You see, before their disobedience they followed a life like that of the angels, and there was no mention of intercourse. How could there be, when they were not subject to the needs of the body?
On Virginity 14.3,5
[Adam and Eve] lived in Paradise as in heaven and they enjoyed God’s company. Desire for sexual intercourse, conception, labor, childbirth and every form of corruption had been banished from their souls . . . At that time there were no cities, crafts, or houses . . . Nevertheless, nothing either thwarted or hindered that happy life, which was far better than this.
15.2
Why did marriage not appear before the disobedience? Why was there no intercourse in Paradise? Why not the pains of childbirth before the curse? Because at that time these things were superfluous. The necessity arose later because of our weakness, as did cities, arts and skills, the wearing of clothes, and all our other numerous needs.

St. Gregory of Nyssa, On the Making of Man 17
1. It is better for us however, perhaps, rather to inquire, before investigating this point, the solution of the question put forward by our adversaries; for they say that before the sin there is no account of birth, or of travail, or of the desire that tends to procreation, but when they were banished from Paradise after their sin, and the woman was condemned by the sentence of travail, Adam thus entered with his consort upon the intercourse of married life, and then took place the beginning of procreation. If, then, marriage did not exist in Paradise, nor travail, nor birth, they say that it follows as a necessary conclusion that human souls would not have existed in plurality had not the grace of immortality fallen away to mortality, and marriage preserved our race by means of descendants, introducing the offspring of the departing to take their place, so that in a certain way the sin that entered into the world was profitable for the life of man: for the human race would have remained in the pair of the first-formed, had not the fear of death impelled their nature to provide succession.
2. Now here again the true answer, whatever it may be, can be clear to those only who, like Paul, have been instructed in the mysteries of Paradise; but our answer is as follows. When the Sadducees once argued against the doctrine of the resurrection, and brought forward, to establish their own opinion, that woman of many marriages, who had been wife to seven brethren, and thereupon inquired whose wife she will be after the resurrection, our Lord answered their argument so as not only to instruct the Sadducees, but also to reveal to all that come after them the mystery of the resurrection-life: "for in the resurrection," He says, "they neither marry, nor are given in marriage neither can they die any more, for they are equal to the angels, and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection." Now the resurrection promises us nothing else than the restoration of the fallen to their ancient state; for the grace we look for is a certain return to the first life, bringing back again to Paradise him who was cast out from it. If then the life of those restored is closely related to that of the angels, it is clear that the life before the transgression was a kind of angelic life, and hence also our return to the ancient condition of our life is compared to the angels. Yet while, as has been said, there is no marriage among them, the armies of the angels are in countless myriads; for so Daniel declared in his visions: so, in the same way, if there had not come upon us as the result of sin a change for the worse, and removal from equality with the angels, neither should we have needed marriage that we might multiply but whatever the mode of increase in the angelic nature is (unspeakable and inconceivable by human conjectures, except that it assuredly exists), it would have operated also in the case of men, who were "made a little lower than the angels," to increase mankind to the measure determined by its Maker.
3. But if any one finds a difficulty in an inquiry as to the manner of the generation of souls, had man not needed the assistance of marriage, we shall ask him in turn, what is the mode of the angelic existence, how they exist in countless myriads, being one essence, and at the same time numerically many; for we shall be giving a fit answer to one who raises the question how man would have been without marriage, if we say, "as the angels are without marriage;" for the fact that man was in a like condition with them before the transgression is shown by the restoration to that state.

St. John of Damascus, Exact Exposition 4.24
But we, made confident by God the Word that was made flesh of the Virgin, answer that virginity was implanted in man’s nature from above and in the beginning. For man was formed of virgin soil. From Adam alone was Eve created. In Paradise virginity held sway. Indeed, Divine Scripture tells that both Adam and Eve were naked and were not ashamed. But after their transgression they knew that they were naked, and in their shame they sewed aprons for themselves. And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children.

St. Maximus, Ad Thalassium 21
He [Christ] appeared like the first man Adam in the manner both of his creaturely origin and his birth. The first man received his existence from God and came into being at the very origin of his existence, and was free from corruption and sin – for God did not create either of these. When, however, he sinned by breaking God’s commandment, he was condemned to birth based on sexual passion and sin. Since henceforth constrained his true natural origin within the liability to passions that had accompanied the first sin, as though placing it under a law. Accordingly, there is no human being who is sinless, since everyone is naturally subject to the law of sexual procreation that was introduced after man’s true creaturely origin in consequence of his sin.
Ad Thalassium 61
When God created human nature, He did not create sensible pleasure and pain along with it; rather, He furnished it with a certain spiritual capacity for pleasure, a pleasure whereby human beings would be able to enjoy God ineffably.

St. Symeon the New Theologian, Ethical Discourses 13
There was no one, you see, who was able to save and redeem him. For this very reason, therefore, God the Word Who had made us had pity on us and came down. He became man, not by intercourse and the emission of seed – for the latter are consequences of the Fall – but of the Holy Spirit and Mary the Ever-Virgin.

[JamesR]

If you believe that sex is the result of the Fall, then you are forced to concede that evilness itself is able to produce arguably the greatest biological pleasure in the world next to heroin. But I thought that as Orthodox Christians we adhered to the more CS Lewis concept that evilness only works by polluting goodness?

[IoanC]

If you believe that sex is the result of the Fall, then you are forced to concede that evilness itself is able to produce arguably the greatest biological pleasure in the world next to heroin. But I thought that as Orthodox Christians we adhered to the more CS Lewis concept that evilness only works by polluting goodness?

I just posted quotes from The Fathers in my previous post.

[Cavaradossi]

James, I say this with no malice, but there is nothing we can say here which will help you until you overcome your lack of faith in Christ God. You continue, I see, with this mad obsession over wishing to see the uncreated light and to have a direct experience of God, all the while not seeming to realize that your lack of faith in Christ is what prevents you from experiencing Christ. You complain that God has not granted you the privilege to receive divine revelation, and then in the same breath exclaim that the truth is not exclusive to the revelation of God, but can be deduced from reason. What need, then, have you for God to reveal the truth and glory of the uncreated light to you, if such things are self-evident?  

Do you really want to experience Christ God? Then cease with this insane thinking, put your faith in Him, and live your life in accordance with His commandments. Go seek somebody who has the means and the ability to counsel you in the ways of Christian life, live your life in Christ, and cease hoping in vain and profane things to lead you to the truth. The truth is God's alone to manifest and reveal, and He has given to man a way of living in Him, in Christ, that will lead man to the truth. You thirst for the truth, but your current way of faithlessness only leads your mind to toil aimlessly without bearing fruit, ever in labor, but never giving birth, as Gregory of Nyssa said of philosophy. Indeed, this is why, until you can have faith and believe, there is nothing we can say to help alleviate your anxiety.

[JamesR]

I just don't see how I can have faith in Christ or hope in Him if I cannot see Him. How do you have a relationship with someone who won't visibly communicate with you?

[IoanC]

I just don't see how I can have faith in Christ or hope in Him if I cannot see Him. How do you have a relationship with someone who won't visibly communicate with you?

God has already offered you enough through Christ and The Gospel that you already know about, but you need to get started and commit yourself to Him. If you don't respond to Christ's message through repentance and good deeds, how else do you think you'll be received?

[Cavaradossi]

I just don't see how I can have faith in Christ or hope in Him if I cannot see Him. How do you have a relationship with someone who won't visibly communicate with you?

You must prepare yourself to receive him, through prayer, fasting, the giving of alms, and the Sacramental life of the Church. If you close your heart through an unwillingness to struggle for His sake, an unwillingness to seek Him out through ascesis, then you indeed will never find Him, not because he does not grant you experience of him, but because your unwillingness will render you incapable of experiencing Him. This is why James proclaims that faith without works is dead, because he who does not toil for God does not know Him, and possesses a faith that is empty and barren, like the demons who can confess the fact of God's existence but are ignorant of how He is made manifest to creation.

[Kerdy]

Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating. We're animals, get used to it.

I can't wait to tell my wife about this.  I can already see the joy in her eyes when I explain how a male teenager has declared a mature woman doesn't have feelings and emotions wrapped up in a lifelong monogamous sexual relationship. Women are always happy to hear their emotions don't matter.  Especially when you caveat with the sexual nature of marriage isn't sacred.  I can see breakfast in bed for the next six months! 

Most likely the result of hospitalization from the beating I will get.

[LBK]

Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating. We're animals, get used to it.

Spoken by an unmarried teenager. Caveat emptor. 

[Kerdy]

Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating. We're animals, get used to it.

Spoken by an unmarried teenager. Caveat emptor. 

Wife catches husband with another woman.

Husband:  "Baby, it's natural.  I'm just an animal.  You're just gonna have to get used to it."
Wife: "You know, I never thought of it that way before.  Silly me!  Would you like a sandwich for lunch?"

I don't see it going this smoothly.

[LBK]

Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating. We're animals, get used to it.

Spoken by an unmarried teenager. Caveat emptor. 

Wife catches husband with another woman.

Husband:  "Baby, it's natural.  I'm just an animal.  You're just gonna have to get used to it."
Wife: "You know, I never thought of it that way before.  Silly me!  Would you like a sandwich for lunch?"

I don't see it going this smoothly.

Understatement of the year .... 

[Cyrillic]

Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating.

I hope you don't really believe that.

[LBK]

Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating.

I hope you don't really believe that.

Don't forget he's an adolescent with raging hormones. Getting him to think straight might not be easy.

[adampjr]

In this modern world couples are shacking up left and right. Sex outside of marriage is perfectly normal and fine in our society.

I am actually happy with this. For starters, you have less moral watchdogs neglecting and discriminating against bastard children and single mothers like you did in the old days. Social taboos get in the way of progress

Does it really matter, if two people love each other? Or who cares why not have sex whenever you are in the mood? Does the teaching of the Church really apply to the modern world? Or are they just outdated?

Having sex with anyone whenever you want can be harmful, but I don't see what is wrong with it if you love each other.

I'm unhappy about this. There are more bastard children and single mothers now than in what you call the "old days."

[Achronos]

Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating.

Do you know about this human concept called "love"?

Really James, just cut out the the silly "emotional" baggage and get yourself a sex doll.  

[biro]

Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating. We're animals, get used to it.

Jesus, Mary and Joseph.

Why are you on this forum?

[Agabus]

Within two posts:

Having sex with anyone whenever you want can be harmful, but I don't see what is wrong with it if you love each other.

Don't give me any of that emotional crap either. There is NOTHING emotional or sacred about sex; it's just natural like eating. We're animals, get used to it.

Does love justify it? Or is OK because it's a basic biological urge that has nothing to do with love?

James, maybe you just need to think about something other than sex, or avoid threads about sex here. (And why are there so many of those, anyway?) In another thread I jokingly suggested you find a hobby for your hands, but maybe you should. Like for real. I realize you apparently have some great sexual appetite, but dwelling on what you can't have right now seems to be short circuiting your thought process a little and taking you down roads that will result in...well, will result in you never having sex.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Premarital Sex