Posted on

Virginity: A disadvantage in dating?

Last week, I blogged about author Elna Baker, the woman who wrote an essay for Glamour called “Yes, I’m a 27-Year-Old Virgin.”

She and I would be a couple peas in a pod for that, except what she wrote didn’t explain why she is saving sex for marriage. It explained her decision to “change the rules.” Which is why a couple years later, she wrote a second sex essay for the same magazine, called “Guess What? I’m Not a Virgin Anymore!”

In one of the essays, Baker – who once had planned to save sex for marriage – said “although my virginity was a disadvantage, I stayed hopeful about dating.” She later added that after she changed her mind about saving sex, her “dating life actually improved. By not taking sex off the table right away, I made it past the four-week mark in relationships with several different guys.”

In other words, since more men dated her for longer periods of time after she decided she didn’t have to save sex for marriage, Baker deduced that what made dating difficult for her prior was the saving sex.

I could not disagree with her more, for three reasons:

1. If a person has planned to save sex for marriage and virginity strikes him or her as a disadvantage in dating, he or she perhaps has missed the point of dating. 

Lots of guys like virgins. Very few like virgins who aren’t going to sleep with them. So it’s true (and I’ve discovered this by experience): fewer guys in our culture find a girl dateable who isn’t going to have sex with them before marriage.

This is a non-issue if what you intend to accomplish by dating is to meet somebody who would suit you as a spouse. If you are saving sex for marriage, somebody who doesn’t want to save sex is not suitable for you. Suck it up and move along.

The truth is saving sex for marriage while searching for a spouse in a culture of people who mostly won’t marry you if they haven’t had sex with you does, in fact, mean your relationships with most people are going to end shortly after they start. Which, according to Baker, is the disadvantage.

But a disadvantage is “an unfavorable circumstance or condition that reduces the chances of success.” So if virginity and/or saving sex is a disadvantage because it results in few dates and short relationships with people you could never marry anway, I have to ask:

What is it that you’re really trying to accomplish?

2. That people won’t date you for more than a month because you’re saving sex does not mean virginity is a disadvantage. It means you’re dating the wrong kind of people.

3. If you sincerely want to save sex for marriage, virginity is an advantage (“A condition or circumstance that puts one in a favorable position.”). And if you aren’t a virgin but you’re saving sex from now on, being honest about it with the people you meet is an advantage, too. Because realistically, your “taking sex off the table right away” means people will, in fact, walk away just as quickly. And that is not a disadvantage. It’s a quick way to discover what you set out to learn in the first place: whether this person would make a suitable spouse.

Posted on

Breaking up and making up.

In a substance abuse counseling class I took in the spring semester, I learned a lot about withdrawals.

“Withdrawal” is what happens to a person’s body and/or mind after he or she stops using certain drugs. Withdrawals could include the sweats and the shakes, nausea and diarrhea, insomnia and anxiety, depression and restlessness, a rapid heart rate, hallucinations, delirium tremens (DTs).

It sucks, in other words.

But the return to homeostasis (equilibrium) requires allostasis (the process by which the body achieves it).

And allostasis isn’t always easy.

This is (one of several reasons) why some people who are mid-withdrawal relapse before it’s over.

The discomfort starts as soon as the person calls it quits. And if the sudden absence of the drug is what triggered the discomfort, it is understandable that some people will go back to the drug. Going back to the drug alleviates the discomfort (but doesn’t give the user time to stop craving it).

This is not unlike what I sometimes watch happen when certain relationships end. And that is not to say people are addicted to each other (although sometimes that’s debatable).

But upon breaking up, a guy or a girl – especially the rejected, but often also the reject-er – grieves the loss of the relationship. There’s crying, and coming up with all the things you wish you’d said (or hadn’t). There’s emotional eating, or emotional not-eating, and heartache.

It sucks, in other words.

And I think this is (one of several reasons) why people do a lot of breaking up and making up (and breaking up and making up again, and again, and again). If the sudden absence of [insert applicable person’s name here] is what triggered the discomfort, it is understandable that some people will go back to him or her.

But is your response to rejection necessarily a good gauge for whether the relationship should have ended?

I’d say that it’s as good a gauge as withdrawals are for whether a user should have stopped using a drug.* Because the truth is, withdrawal symptoms are not signs that walking away from the drug was a bad idea. Withdrawal symptoms are natural, and necessary.

Grief over the end of a relationship, then,  is not necessarily a sign that walking away from it was a bad idea.

Grief is natural and necessary.

Give yourself time (to stop craving).

– – – –

*This is not to say that no couple that breaks up should ever ‘make up’. Many couples who break up can and do get back together for good reasons. This, however, is to say that the existence of post-break-up grief is not as sufficient a reason to resume a relationship as some people interpret it to be.

Posted on

Is your love mature or immature?

It took three years and three tries to read (and comprehend) Love and Responsibility, the epic book by John Paul II that made my world a better place.

It took fewer than 24 hours to read Men, Women and the Mystery of Love: Practical Insights on John Paul II’s Love and Responsibility by Edward Sri (which, as of tonight, is the twentieth book I’ve read in full in 2012!).

Men, Women and the Mystery of Love makes the same fabulous points Love and Responsibility does, but uses modern language, fewer words, and less paper. It’s Love and Responsibility explained, and its subtitle isn’t kidding: it is totally practical.

While I wholeheartedly implore anyone – Protestant or Catholic, denominational or non, male or female, in church or out – who is now or might someday be a spouse to read Love and Responsibility, Sri’s explanation of it is a close second, an easier-to-read (and quicker!) alternative to hold you over until you can read the real thing. But for now, read on for some of my favorite insights:

On friendship:

“According to Aristotle, there are three kinds of friendship based on three kinds of affection that unite people. First, in a friendship of utility, the affection is based on the benefit or use the friends derive from the relationship. … Second, in a pleasant friendship the basis of affection is the pleasure one gets out of the relationship. One sees the friend as a cause of some pleasure for himself. This friendship is primarily about having fun together. … Aristotle notes that while useful and pleasant friendships are basic forms of friendship, they do not represent friendship in the fullest sense. Useful and pleasant friendships are the most fragile. They are the least likely to stand the test of time because when the mutual benefits or fun times no longer exist, there is nothing left to unite the two people.” -pages 12-13

“For Aristotle, the third form of friendship is friendship in the fullest sense. It can be called virtuous friendship because the two friends are united not in self-interest but in the pursuit of a common goal: the good life, moral life that is found in virtue. The problem with useful and pleasant friendships is that the emphasis is on what I get out of the relationship. However, in the virtuous friendship the two friends are committed to pursuing something outside themselves, something that goes beyond each of their own self interests. And it is this higher good that united them in friendship.” -pages 14-15

“With this background in mind, John Paul II gives us the key that will prevent our relationships from falling into the self-centered waters of utilitarianism. He says the only way two human persons can avoid using each other is to relate in pursuit of a common good, as in the virtuous friendship.” -page 15

On friendship in marriage:

“Pope John Paul II reminds us that true friendship, especially friendship in marriage, must be centered on the bond of a common aim. In Christian marriage, that common aim involves the union of the spouses, the spouses serving each other and helping each other grow in holiness, and the procreation and education of children.” -page 16

“John Paul II explains that being united in this common good helps spouses ensure that one person is not being used or neglected by the other. ‘When two different people consciously choose a common aim this puts them on a footing of equality, and precludes the possibility that  one of them might be subordinated to the other’ (28-29). This is so because both are equally ‘…subordinated to that good which constitutes their common end’ (28-29).” -pages 16-17

On the sexual urge:

“…the sexual urge is not an attraction to the physical or psychological qualities of the opposite sex in the abstract. John Paul II emphasizes that these attributes only exist in a concrete human person. For example, no man is attracted to blonde or brunette in the abstract. He is attracted to a woman – a particular person – who may have blonde or brunette hair.” -page 23

“The reason John Paul II emphasizes this point is that he wants to show how the sexual urge ultimately is directed toward a human person. Therefore, the sexual urge is not bad in itself. In fact, since it is meant to orient us toward another person, the sexual urge can provide a framework for authentic love to develop.” -page 24

On sensuality:

When “a man is attracted physically to the body of a woman, and a woman is attracted to the body of a man, (the pope) calls this attraction to the body sensuality.” -page 32

“…an initial sensual reaction is meant to orient us toward personal communion, not just bodily union. It can serve as an ingredient of authentic love if it is integrated with the higher, nobler aspects of love such as good will, friendship, virtue or self-giving commitment.” -page 33

“Especially in a highly sexualized culture like ours, we are constantly bombarded with sexual images exploiting our sensuality, getting us to focus on the bodies of members of the opposite sex.” -page 37

On freedom:

“…freedom is given for a purpose, for the sake of love. God gave us freedom so that we could choose to live for others, not just ourselves. The purpose of freedom is not to equip us to live a selfish life, slavishly pursuing whatever pleasurable desires come our way. We have freedom so that we can choose to rise above those self seeking passions and commit ourselves to other persons, serving them and their needs.” -page 64

“Matthew Kelly writes in his book The Seven Levels of Intimacy: ‘But in order to love, you must be free, for to love is to give your self to someone or something freely, completely, unconditionally, and without reservation. It is as if you could take the essence of your very self in your hands and give it to another person. Yet to give your self – to another person, to an endeavor, or to God – you must first possess your self. This possession of self is freedom. It is a prerequisite for love, and is attained only through discipline. This is why so very few relationships thrive in our time. The very nature of love requires self-possession. Without self-mastery, self-control, self-dominion, we are incapable of love… The problem is we don’t want discipline. We want someone to tell us that we can be happy without discipline. But we can’t. … The two are directly related.” -page 66

On immature love versus mature love:

“When love is immature, the person is constantly looking inward, absorbed in his own feelings. Here, the subjective aspect of love reigns supreme. He measures his love by the sensual and emotional reactions he experiences in the relationship.” -page 79

“A mature love, however, is one that looks outward. First, it looks outward in the sense that it is based not on my feelings, but on the honest truth of the other person and on my commitment to the other person in self giving love. The emotions still play an important part, but they are grounded in the truth of the other person as he or she really is (not my idealization of that person). … Second, a mature love looks outward in the sense that the person actively seeks what is best for the beloved. The person with a mature love is not focused primarily on what feelings and desires may be stirring inside him. Rather, he is focused on his responsibility to care for his beloved’s good. He actively seeks what is good for her, not just his own pleasure, enjoyment and selfish pursuits.” -pages 79-80

– – – –

Click here to learn more about Men, Women and the Mystery of Love.

Disclosure: This post contains affiliate links. So, if you click the links and purchase the products I recommend, I earn a little commission at no extra cost to you. And when you do, I am sincerely grateful.

Posted on

Casual sex.

I was asked recently why I’m opposed to casual sex.

I’ll tell you:

The purpose of sex is twofold: procreation and unity (spiritually, emotionally, biologically). A lot of people among the people who disagree with that embrace an assumption that we who believe sex is for babies and bonding don’t also believe sex should be pleasurable. That assumption is false. Sex should, in fact, be pleasurable (spiritually, emotionally, biologically) — yes, even according to we who believe sex is for babies and bonding.

But we who believe sex is for babies and bonding also believe the following:

1. We aren’t supposed to decide to unite because uniting is pleasurable. We are supposed to experience the pleasure because we decided to unite permanently.

2. When sex is as it should be, it isn’t about getting. It’s about giving.

And we don’t take that lightly. Both the unity and the procreation imply that sex should be selfless.

In uniting, sex is meant to be selfless: Each person gives self to the other, turning two into one. It’s at once a metaphor for the marriage covenant and a reflection of Christ’s covenant with the church. Procreation also requires selflessness: If sex partners make a baby, each person gives of self to and for the child, before and after the child is born.

In our culture, unity (the biological part of it) happens in multiple contexts:

  • marital sex
  • pre-marital sex (the partners intend to marry each other)
  • non-marital sex (the partners either don’t necessarily intend to marry each other, definitely don’t intend to marry each other or haven’t gotten that far in their thoughts about the future)
  • extra-marital sex (one or both of the partners is married, and neither partner is married to the other)

Mostly within the contexts of non-marital and extra-marital sex, the sex might just be casual. Casual could mean no strings attached, no commitment. It could be a “friends with benefits thing,” or an “I just met you” thing. It is, in any case, “happening by chance, without serious intention, careless or offhand, apathetic,” according to dictionary.com.

By default, to engage in sex that is casual is to be closed off to the possibility for procreation. Few who have casual sex are ok with it if it results in the making and subsequent co-parenting of a baby, in other words. Also by default, to engage in casual sex is to take sex lightly. And since the purpose of casual sex is not procreation and unity, the purpose of casual sex is pleasure, be it physical or emotional or both. But whether one, the other or both, the sex, therefore, is self-focused.

It’s a decision to unite temporarily because uniting is pleasurable.

It isn’t about giving. It’s about getting.

And when sex is about getting, sex is distorted. It becomes mutual use.

And to use your partner is to turn your partner from “person” to “object.”

And to objectify someone is to rob him or her of what comes standard with hearts and souls:

dignity.

And that is why I’m opposed to casual sex.

Posted on

Women and men, sex, dating, and the following question: Do you know what that’s like?

A friend of mine and fellow blogger – the lovely SVB – recently wrote a thought provoking post about dating on one of her blogs.

In it, she mentioned a magazine article she had read, written for women, but by a man. Here’s a snippet from SVB’s post:

[The magazine article’s writer says women] shouldn’t be quick to give themselves physically, emotionally, mentally, and spiritually to every man who shows them attention. Rather, they should be more concerned with falling in love with God and letting that be enough and then patiently waiting for God to bring them a man–someone who will value their faith and virtue, and encourage them in it. It’s a beautiful sentiment. It’s hopeful, optimistic.   

I can’t believe it.  

I say those words not in a, “Oh wow, this is so beautiful, I can’t believe God loves me this much, this is amazing!” type of way. I mean I literally cannot believe what this man is saying. I want to believe it. I agree that what the author lays out is how things should be, but it’s not how things actually are.

Indeed it isn’t. So how are things actually?

Complicated.

There is no short answer, no explanation that isn’t complex, no reality completely pleasant. Relationships are messy and people are a mess. If I could sum up the struggle SVB wrote about in her post, I’d put it like this:

As Christians, we are told to, called to, want to save sex for marriage, to seek first the kingdom, to discern before we date, all in a culture that doesn’t.

We are told, called to, want to do X, in other words, while we are…

  • surrounded by Y
  • in a culture that sets us up for Y
  • where Y is normal, and where X, therefore, is not.
Do you know what that’s like?

It’s like growing up with unfettered access to unlimited texts, instant messaging, instant movies, fast food, an iPad, an iPod and iTunes (which is now the norm – a norm which, by default, renders patience and moderation obsolete) but being expected to become an adult who can be patient and participate in anything only moderately.

So, basically, our culture is an environment that is not conducive to patience. Kids rarely (if ever) have to wait, and if we ever tell them to wait, we subsequently discover that they literally can’t. Which makes sense, because you can’t provide a kid with a life that requires no patience and have it result in an adult who can be patient. You can’t provide a kid with a life of excess and have it result in an adult who embraces moderation. And I think deep down, people know this, which is why our culture’s response to it is disheartening: We see that kids are impatient, so we accept kids as impatient. Kids see that adults expect them to be impatient, so they don’t think they have to be patient. And rather than teach them that they have to be patient and show them how to be patient, we just lower the bar (which results in a bunch of impatient adults).

In the same way, most people who want to do X in a culture only conducive to Y will wind up going for Y.

It’s like this:

We see that people don’t save sex for marriage.

We see that many men and women lack integrity, or are selfish, immature or dishonest.

We can continue not to date them, or we can lower the bar.

Most people lower the bar.

But most people don’t understand the damage that it does.

When we lower that bar, “a man or woman who a) lacks integrity, or who b) is selfish, immature or dishonest, or who c) will not wait until marriage to have sex with us (or some combination of the three)” ceases to describe men and women who aren’t good for us. It just becomes a description of men and women, period. So regardless of whether the men and women who exhibit those traits are the norm, we decide that they are.

And once the men and women who exhibit those traits are simply “men and women” to us, we either don’t date, or we date anyway. And if we do date, because the men and women who exhibit those traits are the norm, they are also the expectation. And when we expect that, we can accept that. So we settle for men and women who fit that description. But we don’t even realize we’re settling, because, as far as we’re concerned (once we’ve lowered the bar), we are just getting guys and girls who are normal – guys and girls who are good as guys and girls can get. But as long as we assume that that is as good as guys and girls can get, we will feel content to have wound up with a guy or a girl like that. And as long as we are content to wind up with that kind of person, people will be content being that kind of person.

Which is how that kind of person becomes the norm.

Which is why people like SVB and me are single a lot.

Back to the question. Do you know what that’s like?

Regardless of who you are and how you live, even if you don’t believe in soul mates or “the one” (and sorry kids, but neither exists!), meeting somebody with whom you are truly compatible is like finding a needle in a haystack. But when you’re saving sex for marriage, seeking first the kingdom and discerning before you date, you can’t even find the haystack.
SVB puts it this way:

 …sometimes I wonder if we, the Christian girls, have got it all wrong. What if this so-called man the author outlines, the one that is supposed to fall in love with us and our virtue and faith, doesn’t exist?

If we lower the bar, he doesn’t have to exist.

If we lower the bar…

He sees that we don’t expect him to aim higher.

So he doesn’t.

We give him permission to sell himself short.

So he does.

We act like a man can’t date without having sex.

So guys don’t have to date without having sex.

Really, we sell them short.

I think the fear here is that so many bars are so low now that no guy will want to reach as high as ours.

And that is a risk I am frankly willing to take.

– – – – –

Click here to read SVB’s post in full.

Click here to check out SVB’s other blog, “That’s What She Said.”