Will Baude says that premarital sex is virtuous:
I think it's generally unwise for people (particularly people who view monogamy as generally desirable and divorce as generally undesirable) to get married before they've begun having some sort of sexual relations.Although he says "some sort of sexual relations", it's pretty clear from further text that he's referring to sexual intercourse itself.
The second part of Ms. Morse's view that I think is bad is her view that sex ought to be kept between spouses, or that sex's job is to bring spouses closer together. I think this is a cause-effect confusion.I've heard this argument before, and I'm not at all convinced. First of all, go read my dissection of a non-married love relationship which very clearly is not as intimate as a marriage; your mileage may vary, but I expect that the vast majority of "long-term relationships" are quite similar (maybe even many marriages?).Sex shouldn't be used to bring people close together-- it should be used to help us find people with whom we're compatible enough to be or grow close. (And marriage, as I said earlier, isn't always relevant to this closeness-- plenty of pairs unmarried people love each other as much or more than plenty of other pairs of married or ex-married people. Especially in a world where some of these unmarried people are legally forbidden marry the other unmarried the people they love.)
Secondly, I find it very easy to learn a great deal about women without having sex with them, or even "dating" them. I'm not particularly fond of the whole modern concept of "dating", for a whole host of reasons. To keep it short: I don't think it's possible to build a healthy relationship on romantic emotions. The foundation of dating is romance, and as most of us are probably aware it's quite easy to become attracted to someone we wouldn't particularly care to be friends with. Physical and emotional lust are powerful forces, and we're often eager to be tricked into thinking we actually love someone when it's all just emotional smoke and mirrors.
As I've written before, my strategy is pretty simple:
Mostly, I just live my life and try to make myself into a person that will be "A One" for the type of girl I hope to attract. I've probably got a long ways to go, but I'm working on it.Dating and sex obscure and confuse the real issues involved with finding a mate in ways that "mere" friendship doesn't. Dating and sex lead to jealousy, lust, pride, selfishness, materialism, conflict, impatience, manipulation, cruelty, resentment, and uncountable other complications. Friendship has its pitfalls as well, but is generally much freer from such distractions.
Friendship allows me to see a woman for who she truly is, when she's not trying to impress anyone; friendship lets me be myself without needing to make an artificially-sculpted good impression. Dating, on the other hand, is all about creating a pretty show, complete with scripted dialogue and special effects. You tell me which is more conducive to really getting to know someone.
Mr. Baude writes further:
Marrying somebody without knowing whether they behave in a good or evil manner in bed is like marrying somebody without knowing what their favorite book is, or what their religion is, without knowing what they think constitutes moralvirtue [sic]. These things are too important, and too central to our very identies, to simply hope that they will work themselves out later like the question of whose parents get the first Christmas.I agree it's an important issue, but there are a myriad of similarly important topics that are discussed before marriage, but deferred in action until afterwards. How will the children be raised? How will we spend our money? Who will work at what job, when? All of these are critically important issues to a marriage, and all of them (including sex) should be discussed frankly and openly beforehand. But I see no reason to doubt that the question of sex, just like the others, can be explored effectively and sufficiently without actual implementation.
Update:
I'd like to add that, although I've heard many married couples express regret over extra-/pre-marital sexual escapades, no couple who has waited has ever told me that they wish they hadn't.
His argument is wholly bogus because it presumes that sex in marriage is of pre-eminent importance. Well, speaking as a man married for almost 24 years and whose profession involves counseling others about marriage, sex is merely one of many facets of the marital relationship. It's absurd even to speak of a couple's "sex life" or sexual relationship as if that relationship could exist apart from everything else.
So the argument that you should not marry someone without "knowing whether they behave in a good or evil manner in bed" is wholly self-rationalizing, spurious tripe. The other person will not treat you differently in bed than s/he does in the others things you do together. Kind, considerate, caring women, for example, do not somehow turn into sullen, selfish witches between the sheets.
Baude seems emotionally frozen at about age 22. He should grow up.
I second Rev. Sensing.
I was going to blog Baude's entry, but I decided that it wasn't worth the effort even to finish reading it. Purely and simply, it's what one might call mental masturbation. Constructing an "argument" to prove a predetermined point. (And how disappointing it is to see generally admirable people who chortle and pass it on.)
Marriage can flourish under any circumstances and after any form of courting, if the right attitude is taken. It seems to me that learning how to give and please each other can keep a previously celibate married couple years of joyful love making.
Frankly, he just comes off sounding horny to me...
> Baude seems emotionally frozen at about age 22. He should grow up.
I disagree; 17 seems more like it to me.
He utterly fails to consider cases where, say, the man has been the victim of prostate cancer and is unable to have meaningful sexual relations. Does such a case, in his mind, prevent that man from having any sort of relationship or marriage?
His concept of marriage is entirely focused on sex and that's a recipe for disaster in marriage. Men who tend to have relationships solely on the basis of sex tend to not have any meaningful relationships and wind up late in life wondering what happened.
I almost feel sorry for him, but he'll learn, perhaps in a way that will be most poignant for him.
The misplaced focus on sex can be partially blamed on misplacement of capitalism. That economic system is great when it comes to trading for material goods and services, but bad when applied to human relationships. Too many people treat sex as a commodity by which people look for newer or more efficient models. I don't owe my microwave a commitment until death do us part."
Bravo Michael. As one who waited until age 26 to marry and finally experience what making love was all about, I saw the same things you did before I married; to wit, friendships with women helped me understand them immensely. I am now widowed after 20 years of marriage and now at the third Christmas without my wife, it is harder to find women that don't want to wait, even those who profess to be Christian. The temptations are much stronger now at 48 than they were at 24. I'm keeping my current friendships with women at a distance, somewhat, waiting until I'm ready to find the next one I want to spend the rest of my life with.
-Larry
It all comes down to respect. With people, there is no "better model" -- everybody has their flaws, everybody has their problems, and everybody has a kinky trick or two that wierds other people out. If marriage can guarantee respect for two people, then awesome.
Frankly, I don't think sex is that big of a deal. A respectful guy will make sure you get off, and vice versa. If two people care about each other, the sex can't be bad. There is no universal standard for what's "good in bed" or in life - it's all about how much you care about each other.
Maybe every time you care about someone else like that, it lessens your capacity in the future. Me, I think that's BS, and I don't see why if there is respect outside of marriage, the commitment thing matters so much.
I really think sex is over-romanticized and this post is just one clear example of that. I can see the argument that it's not that important to have it before marriage and so you should err on the side of caution, as it were. But I don't see any good argument as to why it's so important to wait. I think the more we blow it out of proportion, the bigger a problem sex is both in and out of marriage.
Candace: I agree with what you're saying in the sense that I don't think two people who get married are likely to have problems sexually if they love and respect each other otherwise.
But I don't think sex is something to be taken lightly. It's telling to me that the young and/or foolish tend to lean towards promiscuity, while the older and/or wiser tend to lean towards chastity. (I say tend, of course; not that you're foolish.)
Plus, of course, God condemns sexual prosmiscuity all throughout the Bible.
From a biological standpoint, sex is the purpose of life, there is nothing more important than passing on your genes to the next generation. Modern birth control has reduced this aspect of sex, but the biology surrounding the act (our emotions, &c.) are still hardwired towards that end.
I'll say again: I've seen a great many people regret sex, but very few people regret putting it off.
There is a bit of selection problem, though, isn't there? If you only ask the couples who are still together whether they regret having waited, then you're only asking people who must not have had a sex-related problem so enormous as to have broken them up.
I'm of two minds on the issue of sex before marriage. On the one hand, I think of a friend's mother who married a man who was gay. This was back in the '60s and he sincerely didn't realize that he wasn't really attracted to women. I think pre-marital sex might have cleared this up for him before he got married.
On the other hand, I think of a friend who had intended to wait for marriage but got talked into having sex, ended up making a baby and shortly afterwards, fell in love with someone else. Pre-marital sex among heterosexuals has potential consequences beyond the emotional.
I think the key is to be certain of your own choice. Don't be talked into something you're not positive you want. In fact, I'd say the biggest danger is how permissive we are about "everything but," when sexual behaviors lead to sex.
Sort of drifting along -- "oh, it's OK, I'm still a virgin" -- until one does have sex means that one never seriously thinks and talks about the possibility of having sex. One evades making a conscious, responsible choice.
And of course, those who don't think about sex before they have it are more likely to end up with unwanted consequences.
I certainly agree that people need to make a consious choice, and I think couples in particular need to purposefully address sexual issues long before they get married.
I'd like to see the stats on those who regret early sexual experimentation vs. those who don't. My guess is that of those who regret experimenting when they were younger, the vast majority regret it because of unwanted pregnancies or VD, not because the sex itself caused them any problems had they taken appropriate precautions.
I know plenty of people who took all sorts of precautions, and ended up with VD and/or pregnant. I don't see why you exclude those possibilities from consideration or relevance. The 13-year-old cousin of one of my friends just got pregnant, despite proper condom usage. Sigh.