Religious people: Did you feel any guilt when you lost your virginity?

[M30USA]

I find it amusingly ironic how devout Christians subject to the fear of eternal torment in a fiery pit as punishment for fornication still can't keep themselves from having sex while a convinced atheist like myself who views sex as morally acceptable and physically desirable is still a virgin at 25 with no obvious future prospect of "falling short" by the standards set by my long-abandoned childhood religion!

 

You do make a good point. As a believer and follower of Christ, I can't disagree with your complaint. Perhaps the worst part is that Christians don't even care, don't even believe they are commanded not to sin, and don't find it necessary to repent. Unfortunately Christians think repentance is an obsolete, Old Testament concept.

[denise_xo]

Personally, I only wish I had known about sex toys a lot sooner.

 

 

A genuine question: are there any Christian (or other religious) reservations against sex toys?

[denise_xo]

It's a difficult subject, and one I've struggled with too...especially when it comes to sexual activity in general. As Christians, where exactly is the line drawn between kissing (okay) and outright intercourse (not okay)? That's the question that has been most problematic for me with regards to dating.

 

I'm not a Christian, but hope I can participate. My husband who is more religious than me often talks about the concept of intent. I find that very useful. It seems to me that the starting point for all religious laws is to regulate human activity in ways that are good for society. In this sense, the 'no sex before marriage' protects children, so that they grow up as part of a family unit, and also protects men and women from being 'used' sexually in a casual way. Based on this, the intent with which you engage in sexual actions is more important than the frame around it. If your intention is to be committed to your partner and be a responsible parent to any children that may result from sex, this is the key, rather than a strict focus on sex the day before marriage being inherently sinful and the next day it's fine. On the other hand, kissing someone with the intent of just 'using' him/her for a bit of fun could from this perspective be more sinful that full intercourse the day before marriage in a fully committed relationship.

[FredRutherford]

Originally Posted by Eve

Personally, I only wish I had known about sex toys a lot sooner.

 

A genuine question: are there any Christian (or other religious) reservations against sex toys?

Though some/many may have reservations about it (like masturbation), many don't feel it's a problem.

 

This website, http://www.boards.themarriagebed.com, is a Christian marital sex-based site.

It has a section called Okay, Bad Idea or Sin? under the married sex area. (You have to be signed-up for the site to view that "hidden" area).

Personally, I think Christian attitudes about such things are loosening a little.

[123321]

Personally, I think Christian attitudes about such things are loosening a little.

 

So God is rethinking his stance on certain matters then? Seriously?

[Robert Z]

So God is rethinking his stance on certain matters then? Seriously?

 

It's just like with the Mormons - it just so happens that God changed his mind about blacks when the civil rights era had taken hold. Suddenly it was okay to be a black Mormon. Thank God for the civil rights act!

 

... or maybe it was President Johnson we have thank.. whatever.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Robert Z

[worldgonewrong]

I find it amusingly ironic how devout Christians subject to the fear of eternal torment in a fiery pit as punishment for fornication still can't keep themselves from having sex while a convinced atheist like myself who views sex as morally acceptable and physically desirable is still a virgin at 25 with no obvious future prospect of "falling short" by the standards set by my long-abandoned childhood religion!

 

You need to find an amusingly ironic gal STAT.

[pureinheart]

That's a good question. And this is one of the points I was starting to make in PIH's pharmekia thread

 

A lot of Christians still have a "legal" mentality.

 

This is what I mean. In the Old Testament, you could not commit adultery. Now, you could lust over a married woman until sweat poured out from every pour...as long as you did not commit the act.

 

This is what the law focused on the...that actual physical manifestation of sin. However, God declared a new "law" was coming...the law of the spirit (Rom. 8:2).

 

"The days are coming,” declares the Lord,“when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,”declares the Lord. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord." I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."

 

If we study the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 through 7, we can see Jesus explained what this new covenant looked like...

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

Whoa! Jesus took it to a new level. As believers we are called to a higher level. Not just refraining from the act, but actually quelling the motivations for sin.

 

But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person.

 

Paul continues, explaining that when Jesus set us free He gave us the power to caputre all thoughts and vain imaginations that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God.

 

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. o I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

 

If we walk in the flesh, we are operating in the law. And no one can fulfill the law. We are in bondage. Whoever sins is the slave of sin, but if the Son sets us free, we are free indeed.

 

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

 

If we walk in the spirit (love), there is no fear of the law.

 

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

 

So, with this backdrop does this passage make more sense?

 

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

 

This is awesome, and I need to read it like 5 million times lol. TFW- this is what I got from your post. I got more, but this is what popped out:D

 

The cross ramped up everything to way higher levels. God used Satans plan to accomplish His plan. Soooo when we get hit hard and heavy by the enemy(ies), we can count on a ram in the bush.

 

Be encouraged, and do not loose heart My beloved (God said that, not me). Remember what is perceived to weak is actually stronger than the world thinks (God said that too, to my heart as I am not smart enough to come up with anything that makes sense:eek:)

[pureinheart]

So God is rethinking his stance on certain matters then? Seriously?

 

Hey 123!

 

I'm thinking you mean, changing His mind? No? Well there is one passage that gives credit to this.

 

2 Chronicles 7:14

 

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

[pureinheart]

It's just like with the Mormons - it just so happens that God changed his mind about blacks when the civil rights era had taken hold. Suddenly it was okay to be a black Mormon. Thank God for the civil rights act!

 

... or maybe it was President Johnson we have thank.. whatever.

 

It was "man" that made that rule, not God...what happened IMO is God made them line up with the truth...man changed, not God.

[123321]

Hey 123!

 

I'm thinking you mean, changing His mind? No? Well there is one passage that gives credit to this.

 

2 Chronicles 7:14

 

if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.

 

Emphasis added. It doesn't say he just decided their wicked ways were OK after all.

[angel.eyes]

Very thoughtful post!

 

I agree that it's the "spirit" not the letter of the law that counts. In other words, it's what's in our hearts and our intent to follow God's will because we love him and strive to be like Christ that matters. That's precisely why I struggle. I think it's easier for those with a legalistic mindset in some ways. Then it would be easy to say, "It says don't do A, so I'm good with A-. It's the argument used, for example, to say oral is OK.

 

For me, that doesn't seem OK because the intent seems almost the same as intercourse. But where exactly, does intent change? I personally can't answer that with any certainty. Throw in our human nature which wants to rationalize away what we want to do, and stories in the Bible that create more questions than they answer. Tamar for example, didn't sin.

 

I struggle with where I personally should draw the line in my life as I read the Bible.

 

That's a good question. And this is one of the points I was starting to make in PIH's pharmekia thread

 

A lot of Christians still have a "legal" mentality.

 

This is what I mean. In the Old Testament, you could not commit adultery. Now, you could lust over a married woman until sweat poured out from every pour...as long as you did not commit the act.

 

This is what the law focused on the...that actual physical manifestation of sin. However, God declared a new "law" was coming...the law of the spirit (Rom. 8:2).

 

"The days are coming,” declares the Lord,“when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and with the people of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their ancestors when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them,”declares the Lord. “This is the covenant I will make with the people of Israel after that time,” declares the Lord." I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people."

 

If we study the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew 5 through 7, we can see Jesus explained what this new covenant looked like...

 

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

 

Whoa! Jesus took it to a new level. As believers we are called to a higher level. Not just refraining from the act, but actually quelling the motivations for sin.

 

But the things that come out of a person’s mouth come from the heart, and these defile them. For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what defile a person.

 

Paul continues, explaining that when Jesus set us free He gave us the power to caputre all thoughts and vain imaginations that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God.

You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love. o I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the flesh desires what is contrary to the Spirit, and the Spirit what is contrary to the flesh. They are in conflict with each other, so that you are not to do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

 

If we walk in the flesh, we are operating in the law. And no one can fulfill the law. We are in bondage. Whoever sins is the slave of sin, but if the Son sets us free, we are free indeed.

 

The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like.

 

If we walk in the spirit (love), there is no fear of the law.

 

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

 

So, with this backdrop does this passage make more sense?

 

So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if they eat, because their eating is not from faith; and everything that does not come from faith is sin.

[angel.eyes]

Your comments are spot on, I think. I agree with you that intent plays a large role in this, and that is precisely why I struggle.

 

There are other reasons as well why much of the guidance we are given is protective and for our benefit. Abstaining from sex "forces" you to get to know the other person outside of the fog of hormones that can occur with sex. To some extent, it also protects you from becoming overly attached to someone who is not good for you because you are so "blinded" by the physical that you are unable to think clearly. You can be a little bit more rational and discerning. Of course, it also helps to limit your exposure to STDs, which until 100 years ago were all untreatable. Other reasons too, I'm sure.

 

I'm not a Christian, but hope I can participate. My husband who is more religious than me often talks about the concept of intent. I find that very useful. It seems to me that the starting point for all religious laws is to regulate human activity in ways that are good for society. In this sense, the 'no sex before marriage' protects children, so that they grow up as part of a family unit, and also protects men and women from being 'used' sexually in a casual way. Based on this, the intent with which you engage in sexual actions is more important than the frame around it. If your intention is to be committed to your partner and be a responsible parent to any children that may result from sex, this is the key, rather than a strict focus on sex the day before marriage being inherently sinful and the next day it's fine. On the other hand, kissing someone with the intent of just 'using' him/her for a bit of fun could from this perspective be more sinful that full intercourse the day before marriage in a fully committed relationship.

[123321]

Very thoughtful post!

 

I agree that it's the "spirit" not the letter of the law that counts.

I struggle with where I personally should draw the line in my life as I read the Bible.

 

The word translated "fornication" (which is always condemned) is the same root as used for porno, it has a very specific meaning in the original language, and oral etc. is definitely included.

[angel.eyes]

You may have misunderstood my post. There are those who also interpret anal as OK because it's not vaginal intercourse. I was simply mentioning how it can be easier for those with a legalistic mindset who parse language to decide what they want to follow. We are all called to follow our belief system as we see it. Life and choice can be much harder when you focus on what is in your heart and your intent, not just on "the letter of the law." It's one of the reasons I found this thread so worthwhile.

 

A few posters pointed out that intent is important, and I agree. Intent and context are relevant whenever you are struggling. What is in your heart, and why you are considering a particular option are applicable if you are trying to follow God's will IMO.

 

I mentioned Tamar for a very specific reason. The Bible condemns extramarital sex. Yet, her intent for seducing and sleeping with her father-in-law plays a significant role in her story. He sinned. She did not according to the passage. There are other stories as well, but that is the one that popped to mind first.

 

You mentioned earlier that Christians do things out of fear of fire and brimstone. I don't really agree with that. For those of us who take our faith seriously, we make many of our choices out of love. God saved me from my sins. I don't have to worry about the fiery pits of eternal damnation or "burning in hell." Any sin (not just certain sins) separated me from God.

Romans 3:23 NKJV - for all have sinned and fall short of - Bible Gateway

A small fib separates me just as much as fornication or cold-blooded murder. We aren't graded by God on the level of our sins. It's all sin and we are all condemned as a result.

 

It is only through God's sacrifice that I have the gift of a different destiny.

Romans 6:23 NKJV - For the wages of sin is death, but the - Bible Gateway

 

Rather than fear, it is my love for Him, and my sense of gratitude for the grace He has shown me, that makes me want to emulate the example He provided for us. That's why I struggle. That's why I am so concerned with my choices and where I draw a figurative line on this issue. My only concern is whether my heart is in the right place, and whether I am doing his will because I love him. It has nothing to do with fear of hell.

Edited May 22, 2013 by angel.eyes

[123321]

You mentioned earlier that Christians do things out of fear of fire and brimstone.

 

Did I really?

[angel.eyes]

Oops! So sorry. It was a different poster.

 

I find it amusingly ironic how devout Christians subject to the fear of eternal torment in a fiery pit as punishment for fornication still can't keep themselves from having sex while a convinced atheist like myself who views sex as morally acceptable and physically desirable is still a virgin at 25 with no obvious future prospect of "falling short" by the standards set by my long-abandoned childhood religion!

 

To answer your question about God changing his stance. No, his guidance has never changed.

[Penny91]

I never felt guilt at the time because I was curious of what it would be like. It was the most wonderful feeling but I gave up the issue I could barter to get the true love of my life. Some guys will only have a girl who has never had this experience:(

[TheFinalWord]

Glad it helped.

 

I think you just answered your own question

 

For me, that doesn't seem OK because the intent seems almost the same as intercourse.

 

If it is easier for you to restrict yourself, for your conscience sake, than restrict. Paul gives two stipulations:

 

1) For Christians that operate fully in grace, do not flaunt your freedom in front of those Christians that cannot fully accept it. Do not cause a weaker brother or sister to stumble. Paul clears up in 1 Cor. 10:23-33. Christians should test themselves to see if they are in the faith (2 Cor. 13:5). Is action x edifying? All things are permissible, but I will be mastered by nothing. All things are permissible but not everything is edifying (for me or others: love your neighbor as yourself).

 

2) It is important to not judge another that does/does not place such a restriction on themselves. Has God received them? If yes, than it is not for us to add a yoke onto their neck. Multiple times Paul confronted Jews that demanded Gentiles should be circumcised and follow the Law. He even withstood Peter to his face (Gal. 2:11).

 

Does this mean that we can sin and do anything we want (as Christians)? If we are asking that it means we still do get it (see Romans 8). This is one of the things Paul means when he talks about those weak and strong in the faith and those drinking milk vs. those eating meat. Paul had the most freedom, but as his understanding of freedom increased, his service to the Lord increased and multiplied. Important to know and if we are using our freedom correctly, the same will apply to us.

 

As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him.

I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding.

 

The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.

Edited May 22, 2013 by TheFinalWord

[FredRutherford]

Very thoughtful post!

 

I agree that it's the "spirit" not the letter of the law that counts. In other words, it's what's in our hearts and our intent to follow God's will because we love him and strive to be like Christ that matters. That's precisely why I struggle. I think it's easier for those with a legalistic mindset in some ways. Then it would be easy to say, "It says don't do A, so I'm good with A-. It's the argument used, for example, to say oral is OK.

 

For me, that doesn't seem OK because the intent seems almost the same as intercourse. But where exactly, does intent change? I personally can't answer that with any certainty. Throw in our human nature which wants to rationalize away what we want to do, and stories in the Bible that create more questions than they answer. Tamar for example, didn't sin.

 

I struggle with where I personally should draw the line in my life as I read the Bible.

We understand completely.

Everyone struggles.

 

Like I said earlier, there are only 2 types of people:

-men and women

-men and women who call themselves Christians.

 

We struggle with the same things and face the same temptations.

 

Christians make mistakes like others, and get into sex outside of marriage, commit adultery, become alcoholics, suffer depression, gain wrongful pride, become arrogant, etc.

 

Christian women also have abortions.

Was recently shocked to hear a crisis pregnancy counselor state 2/3 -- TWO THIRDS!! of women entering abortion mills are CHRISTIANS !!!

That shows you the irresponsibility of Christian men and men in general, IMO, but that's another topic.

 

Am not "recommending" one get involved in any of those sins, and would never encourage one to do so, but let's just say I've gotten my eyes opened considerably in recent years....

 

Personally, I think real Christians understand this, our fallen nature, and aren't so eager to throw rocks @ others for their shortcomings...

[123321]

Was recently shocked to hear a crisis pregnancy counselor state 2/3 -- TWO THIRDS!! of women entering abortion mills are CHRISTIANS !!!

That shows you the irresponsibility of Christian men and men in general ....

 

Logic fail.

[FredRutherford]

I never felt guilt at the time because I was curious of what it would be like. It was the most wonderful feeling but I gave up the issue I could barter to get the true love of my life. Some guys will only have a girl who has never had this experience:(

I don't think that's entirely true, though there are some men (and women) who say they'll only consider virgins... and say they'll be very disappointed if the one they fall in love with isn't.

 

Many of the Christians I've read post on sites like this and others often state they weren't virgins at marriage or the virgin married a non-virgin, but a partner who didn't have a lot of experience. I think that's what many want, those without A LOT of experience.

 

It was the most wonderful feeling but I gave up the issue I could barter to get the true love of my life.

Curiousity's a big part of it.

 

Lemmee ask you this: you felt you "bartered" your innocence?

[pureinheart]

We understand completely.

Everyone struggles.

 

Like I said earlier, there are only 2 types of people:

-men and women

-men and women who call themselves Christians.

 

We struggle with the same things and face the same temptations.

 

Christians make mistakes like others, and get into sex outside of marriage, commit adultery, become alcoholics, suffer depression, gain wrongful pride, become arrogant, etc.

 

Christian women also have abortions.

Was recently shocked to hear a crisis pregnancy counselor state 2/3 -- TWO THIRDS!! of women entering abortion mills are CHRISTIANS !!!

That shows you the irresponsibility of Christian men and men in general, IMO, but that's another topic.

 

Am not "recommending" one get involved in any of those sins, and would never encourage one to do so, but let's just say I've gotten my eyes opened considerably in recent years....

 

Personally, I think real Christians understand this, our fallen nature, and aren't so eager to throw rocks @ others for their shortcomings...

 

*Raises Hand* the last one that an throw stones!

 

Yes, my eyes have been opened recently too...was shocked to see also how many Christians support abortion- yep for another thread...

[123321]

Personally, I think real Christians understand this, our fallen nature, and aren't so eager to throw rocks @ others for their shortcomings...

 

Oh it's not the shortcomings, everyone has those, it's the holier-than-whatever attitude that collects the rocks plus the "do as I say but not as I did" thing doesn't help.

[FredRutherford]

*** bumping *** to keep thread from expiring

 

 

originally Posted by BetheButterfly

3rd October 2012, 9:19 AM

 

I never regretted being a virgin till marriage. The only thing I wish is that I had met my second husband before meeting my first husband and that I had lost my virginity to my second husband who, if I had met him 12 years ago, would ideally have been my first and only husband, with no second husbands in the picture! So, I only regret who I lost my virginity to, in that I wish I had lost my virginity to the man I am married to today!

This is a very good post, Butterfly, and the kind of thing I wanted to hear when I created this thread.

Thank you for your contribution.

 

Originally Posted by BetheButterfly

 

Now, my first marriage did not work out but that was not because I was a virgin when we got married. (He had been a mujeriego... womanizer... very sexually active and most definitely far from being a virgin, before meeting me). We did enjoy a very active and for the most part great sex life. (I just didn't like anal.) What we mostly had a hard time with was living together when we were not having sex. We were both too different with different expectations.

You state your EX was far from a virgin, while you were a virgin.

I hope he was patient and didn't pressure you.

 

Lemmee ask you a personal q., Butterfly:

Was he one of those "bad boys" Christian women sometimes go for?

 

They ignore or "overlook" the "Good Guys" in their midst and seem to only have eyes for the wrong type of guy.

 

Now, I don't know if your EX was a "bad boy," but judging from his sexual experience....

 

Was that the case?

And if so, why go for those kind of guys, esp. if they're not Christians?

 

And yes, I kinda suspect "good Christian women" "overlooked" me when I was a young Christian in my early 20s in college & immediately after... something I've recently read about.

Still kinda smarts... and something that may have kept me single into my early 30s -- something I didn't want -- when I'd almost given-up on dating "Christian" women.

 

 

10th October 2012, 3:50 PM

 

Yes my ex-husband was a "bad boy" before he became a Christian.

 

I think many Christian women like the excitement and the danger and the adrenaline rush.

 

My advice is for Christian guys to up the adrenaline... take the girl on a breathless hike that gets the heart pumping for example or on another breathless journey if she's not into nature/fitness... also work out, muscles are really sexy.

 

I think one of the issues some Christian men face is they seem too "good" and do not have an element of mystery to them. Mystery is very intriguing.

 

Also, some Christian women seem to want to tame a "bad boy." That was also my experience... a cool challenge. However, it burned me and wasn't all that fun for him either.

 

Now thank God, I have a wonderful Christian husband who yeah was a bad boy too before he became a Christian, but we are soulmates.

 

My Mom though married Dad who was never ever a "bad boy" except he had issues with pornography (which started when he was a kid) which hurt her. However, out of love for God and her, he gave it up! His daughters helped with that, since he didn't want us to be like the girls on the magazine covers.

 

One of my sisters also married a "good guy" and they have 5 children and are very happy! Another is going to marry a "good guy" soon.

 

So, it really depends on the woman. However, yeah some Christian women go for "bad boys" because of the adrenaline rush and also the desire to help "tame" him.

 

Wanted to place the posts in chronological order as am pointing this info. to a friend.

Edited October 15, 2013 by FredRutherford