Updated: Marriage Is The Axis

Elizabeth Redel-Arristan,
Alexandria Hunting
9/22/2013
Marriage Is The Axis
On Dating:
I believe it is quite possible to explain, describe, and discuss the concept of dating within the parameters of itself like I believe the same can be done with a false language, a fictional movie, or a novel. I do not believe in it as applied to reality. I believe that God does not play ‘guessing games’ with people. I believe that He must be ordained above experience as a teacher, and that experience alone, by itself, or on its own, cannot lead anyone properly as the interpretation of actions to be taken or things to be learned will depend on the one who has the experience.
We don’t NEED to make mistakes. Really, there’s a better way–an easier one; one that takes the fact of my mortality and my lifespan into account–I can’t discover everything by experience alone. “Hear no evil; see no evil; speak no evil.” If we find ourselves giving necessity to evil, at some point our reasoning has gone astray. I have this magnificent organ called a brain with the ability to utilize higher methods such as deduction and induction to tell me what I need to know without ever having to put my foot in the mess. But there are some experiences that can only be learned once, and they will be covered in this writing.
I believe my lover is my own choice. I believe that choice is the ultimate ruler of compatibility. I believe in traditional values; not necessarily for the sake of tradition alone but for the reason they hold. A relationship is as ‘blind’ a practice before the relationship as it is during, and by that I mean that one cannot completely know their lover even if they’ve been together for over 20 years (a testamony of multiple people who have been together for that long, one of whom is Mr. Shelton). Knowing that, dating for that purpose becomes obsolete. I do agree with the point on which we pro-and-anti-daters both concur, and that is that we shouldn’t attempt to make our lover into who we want them to be. I don’t believe that this view has to be confused with ‘love at first sight’, as that also emphasizes one’s feelings and personality rather than the individual’s raw choice and unconditional loyalty. It is quite common to find those, though they’ve never bothered to put two and two into words, who believe that doing something simply out of loyalty, deference, or a feeling of obligation is irrational.
I do not believe that a personality, compatibility, nor feelings do this in my place, either. I believe I do all of that stuff; it’s entirely my constant, conscious choice. I don’t believe that God picks out the exact person with whom we are individually supposed to be; I only believe that He has ascribed to us the proper way to be with someone. The same thinking people are led to believe that there is such a thing as a ‘soul mate’ for them would lead them also to more repeatedly see and break up with others along the same line as, “This person is capable of being a killer, while this person is not.” All human beings are generally capable of the same sins as addressed in the Ten Commandments, and are thus able to be judged by those commands accordingly. I repeat myself: God doesn’t play guessing-games, and choice is the ultimate ruler of compatibility. A relationship is meant to be lifelong.
If we could lead ourselves to believe that there is one person for each of us regarding the present moment, we’d have to look at it in the light of, “Whoever I CHOOSE to marry in the future I must, presently, bring faithfulness by selecting to remain with the first person I date.” If we look at the “one for each of us” philosophy the other way, we usually end up not only being filled with true regret for not remaining faithful with the first person, even if their character started to slope downhill (because it’s still our responsibility to remain faithful no matter what they do), but also unnecessary remorse–we would trick ourselves into thinking, “I was with the *wrong* person”. Maybe that’s how some people cope, but it isn’t true. Passion is a free spirit with wings–it comes and goes as it pleases; it dies; it burns brightly but lives shortly. We must refrain from the temptation to be swept away by those feelings if they move to someone else or after our passion with our first lover has died. It is a natural thing to happen, and desire should not direct our actions.
Many people are taught to trust their feelings rather than their mind or their will. Quite naturally, with the former in charge, it is not a wonder that many people feel dissatisfied. They think of what they can receive instead of giving, and if they do not receive, then it is not ideal in their eyes. Belief-systems are what make room for feelings, so while said emotions cannot directly be changed, they can be influenced by what we think about or put into our heads on a daily basis. If we constantly meditate on how we might have something better if we’d just let go of our companion, it is very likely we would either separate or remain unhappy. For many today, the incorrect correlation is made that what is seemingly unromantic is also shallow and not-worthwhile. But this is due to our societal conditioning rather than reason.
Any problems that may come up in the relationship should be worked through, rather than the relationship sacrificed. If a man beat his wife, it is the abuse that’s the problem, and not the marriage (the unity between the couple). I do not believe that destiny dictates my future with the one I love, nor do I believe that my Heavenly Father has given me a mind nor a will that I should not use it. Mr. Brewton was right in one sense, and I believe that, if one should approach the relationship with the idea that “this might/might not be my true love”, it is only natural that they likely split up, or, in his words, “Who you are kissing now is someone else’s husband/wife.” I believe neither in dating for sport NOR for compatibility. Not one’s feelings, nor even one’s personality, can have as much impact as one’s choice to remain with their significant other. The bottom line is that one’s choice to do something is directly related to one’s choice in doing something. Ultimately, we must take caution against remorse rather than assuming that our good experiences will outweigh it if we have enough of them, because past remorse taints present happiness, and we must do our best to map out a good life rather than simply leaping from elation to elation while running from our history.
Trials are not something to be avoided, even between personalities. If the ideals differ (if, say, one of the two believes in dating as a test, while the other, like me, does not), the fact that they split up would be their own decision but also their departure from the conservative view (mine in this case and the example above), for it is not a flaw in the view that “staying together is always better” itself, but rather its opposite. What happens in the dating world will follow to the marriage.
A former youth pastor of mine, Mr. Davis, put it this way: “Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment.” My only expectations should lie with myself; not with anyone or anything else. Initially, people who believe in dating are bound to do it a lot–they’ll probably find someone they like, and later decide that that person may not be ‘THE one’ and run off in their continued search. I find this most debatable in the show known as, “How I Met Your Mother.” Contrarily, the article that most accurately represents my view on relationships is this:
My husband is not my soul mate.
Posted on July 22, 2013 by Hannah
It might seem odd that on this, our one-year anniversary, I am beginning a post with the declaration that my husband is not my soul mate. But he isn’t.
I wouldn’t want to imagine life without James. I enjoy being with him more than anyone else in this world. I love him more than I ever thought you could love someone, and I miss him whenever I am not with him. I wouldn’t want to be[sic] married to anyone else other than James, which is good, because I plan on being married to him forever, and he has to let me die first.
But I reject the entire premise of soul mates.
Do you remember those awesome Evangelical 90’s/ early 2000’s where Jesus was kind of like our boyfriend and we all kissed dating good-bye because we just knew that God was going to bring us THE ONE and then life would be awesome? And THE ONE would most likely be a worship minister, or at the very least a youth pastor, and we would have to be in college when we would meet at some sort of rally to save children from disease or something. We would know that he was THE ONE because of his plethora of WWJD bracelets and because (duh) he had also kissed dating goodbye and was waiting for me, strumming Chris Tomlin songs on his guitar as he stared into whatever campfire was nearby. We would get married and it would be awesome FOREVER. If you were like me, in devote preparation for this moment, you wrote letters to your future spouse, preferably in a leather bound journal dotted with your overwhelmed tears. Yes, I actually did that. Suffice to say that I found this journal over Christmas break and it was so embarrassingly awful and emotional that I couldn’t even read it out-loud to James because I was crying from laughing so hard.
But then my theologian biblical scholar father shattered my dreams by informing me that God doesn’t have a husband for me, doesn’t have a plan for who I marry. NOT TRUE I scolded him, attacking him with the full force of Jeremiah 29:11 that God “knows the plans he has for me, plans to prosper me and not to harm me, plans to give me a hope and a future,” and obviously that means a hott Christian husband because God “delights in giving me the desires of my heart.” He slammed through my horrible (yet popular) biblical abuse by reminding me that the first verse applied to the people of Israel in regards to a specific time and just didn’t even dignify my horrible abuse of the second verse with a rebuttal. Nope, he said, a husband is not only not a biblical promise, it is also not a specific element of God’s “plan for my life.” God’s plan is for us to be made more holy, more like Christ… not marry a certain person. (This advice was also used when I asked what college God wanted me to go to, accompanied I think by, “God doesn’t want you to be an idiot, so go somewhere you will learn.” )
And then he gave me some of the best relationship advice I ever got: There is no biblical basis to indicate that God has one soul mate for you to find and marry. You could have a great marriage with any number of compatible people. There is no ONE PERSON for you. But once you marry someone, that person becomes your one person. As for compatibility, my mom would always pipe up when my girlfriends and I were making our lists of what we wanted in a spouse (dear well meaning Christian adults who thought this would help us not date scumbags: that was a bad idea and wholly unfair to men everywhere) that all that really mattered was that he loved the lord, made you laugh, and was someone [sic] to whom you were attracted. The rest is frosting.
This is profoundly unromantic advice. We love to hear of people who “just can’t help who they love,” or people who “fall in love,” or “find the one person meant for them.” Even within the Christian circle, we love to talk about how God “had someone” for someone else for all of time. But what happens to these people when the unstoppable and uncontrollable force that prompted them to start loving, lets them stop loving, or love someone else?
What happens is a world where most marriages end in divorce, and even those that don’t are often unhappy.
My marriage is not based on a set of choices over which I had no control. It is based on a daily choice to love this man, this husband that I chose out of many people that I could have chosen to love (in theory, don’t imagine that many others were lined up and knocking at the door). He is not some elusive soul mate, not some divine fullfulment, not some perfect step on the rigorously laid out but of so secret “Plan for My Life.”
But he is the person that I giggly chose to go out on a date with in college. He is the person who chose to not dump me when I announced that I was moving to France for a year, then Kentucky for another year. He is the person who asked me to move to DC and I chose to do so. He is the person who decided to ask me to marry him and I agreed. At any step here, we could have made other choices and you know what? We might have married other people, or stayed single, and had happy and full lives.
But now I delight in choosing to love him everyday.
I like it better this way, with the pressure on me and not on fate, cosmos, or divinity. I will not fall out of love, cannot fall out of love, because I willingly dived in and I’m choosing daily to stay in. This is my joyous task, my daily decision. This is my marriage.
Someday I hope to have daughters and sons. I am going to pray for their futures everyday, and I will pray for who they might marry, but also what job they will have, who their friends will be, and most of all, that they delight in becoming more like Christ. But when my daughters come home starry-eyed from camp announcing that they can’t wait till the day they meet the man God has for them, I will probably pop their bubble and remind them that God doesn’t have a husband stored away somewhere for them.
He has a whole life, one of rich and abundant choices. And it is awesome.
Oh, and for the record — I like James so much more than my imaginary, obnoxiously religious, youth pastor future husband. When I asked him if he had written Future Me letters as a child, he told me he was too busy memorizing Pink Floyd lyrics. But then he ran in the next room and wrote down what 14-year old James would have said in a letter to 14-year old Hannah: “I hope you’re hott.” That’s why boys didn’t get swept up in that movement… they knew the truth all along.
(Also for the record, I actually think a lot of the high Evangelical movement was awesome, especially in so far as it made young people do a ridiculous amount of churchy activities so that we weren’t out doing drugs or at home watching re-runs because we didn’t even have Netflix yet. I was at youth group every time those doors were open and I LOVED it. )
*All photos are by the wonder that is Whitney Neal Photography.
–The Art in Life http://theartinlife.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/my-husband-is-not-my-soul-mate/
On Premarital Intercourse:
When filling out a resume or an application on the search for a specific job, it is often the case that there will appear a space for the social security number. A wise person will leave that space empty, for it is not required that the company have that information until after the individual is hired, as well as much safer. What is often argued between parties regarding sexual intercourse is safety. Some argue for the safety of their relationship later on by suggesting that an improper sexual match will lead the marriage to ruin, while the other argues that ruin will be nearly irreversible if the person with which one copulates doesn’t turn out to be their husband or wife. Some say, “I won’t marry until I have sex first.” and others say, “I won’t have sex until I am married.” Which risk outweighs the other? Which takes priority: pleasure or comfort? Obviously the latter, for it is a given right, while the former is but a privilege. One’s cumulative sexual experiences are more valuable than temporary single experiences.
“What if it’s not to my liking?” says one circle. “Happiness is of no consequence as long as one is committed.” says the other. The first rephrases, “Why stay committed if I am unhappy?” and the second suggests, “Even if unhappiness does occur, we do not have to divorce; neither do we have to argue, even if we become unhappy over time.” The difference between these two views is that premarital sex places emphasis on the experience and compatibility, while post-marital sex emphasizes commitment. Commitment would be essential because sex itself does not directly nor consistently produce intimacy, and thus it should not be used as a standard. Compatibility, to some, is on the other hand a key factor in determining whether one should spend the rest of their life with the other. It is important that one have a single point to emphasize as a standard above the other factors involved so as to avoid over-complication. However, it is often the case that proponents of pre-marital sex still depart from that standard and one another, even if their experience were satisfactory. Sex, in that case, was overlooked as the ultimate judging factor and others were likely used in its stead.
In a circle-chart depicting the pros and cons of pre-marital and post-marital sex, the sides will be shown to be imbalanced. In each chart, the circles containing pre-marital and post-marital sex converge. The pros of premarital intercourse involve compatibility and possible faithfulness afterward (note: any factor containing the word ‘possible’ before it counts as only half of a factor, as the chances for the opposite being the case still remain). In favor of post-marital intercourse (waiting until marriage to copulate) commitment becomes a priority in the stead of compatibility. In the shared section of each circle, one can view the possible pleasure, experience, intimacy, and cardiological health that advances. Keep in mind that this is a generic summary.
In the chart containing cons, the circle representing pre-marital sex contains jealousy, insecurity, possible unfaithfulness/accumulation of multiple partners, and guilt. The section of each circle that overlaps contains possible incompatibility, which can potentially be found on both sides, but marriage locks one to that potentially dissatisfactory partner, forcing them to either spend their marriage unhappily or fix the bumps in the road to comfortable intimacy, while the commitment can easily be avoided by someone who could simply choose to leave as they were not married, but this would only allow that person another chance to take a potentially increasingly damaging road (like a gamble) to other possible failed relationships and lost virginity as mentioned above and below.
There are also the major problems of jealousy, comparison, and potential unfaithfulness regarding sexual experiences preceding the marriage. Now, if I may be more clear, one does not have to be a polygamist to have ‘accumulated many partners’ over the years because we’re talking time-span, not present-moment. Sex is an intimate experience rather than a casual one, and to turn around just for the sake of the opposing argument and say that you’re not still connected to or thinking about the first or most recent even after you get together with someone else is completely contradictory. The Lord even says that if one divorce and then remarry they are still committing adultery against the first.
If one didn’t have multiple partners so as to pick which of them was most satisfactory, their spouse would be the only one to evaluate, and he/she would automatically be, in their mind, the best. To pause for a moment, would this only encourage further commitment and practice? Rather than treating the relationship like a broken phone and tossing it away in an immediate search for a new one, that spouse would be encouraged to fix what needed fixing. And isn’t satisfaction the entire goal? Nobody needs to have more than one partner; there’s no point to that. Everyone is so different anyway; we’d be back to that draining search for the elusive ‘One’. I refuse to settle for less and am disconcerted by the fact that so many are willing to promote free-lovin’ at the expense of any reverence sex may have held in the past. Abuse begets disrespect. You need to go into the relationship with respect; not skepticism. You need to put your heart on the line, because if you don’t then it’s not worth it. No pain no gain; whatever effort you put into it will become the essence of the relationship, and there is so much more to a relationship than casual sex.
Incompatibility is something of which there is an entirely slim chance; sex is, as I will repeat, generally the same for everyone. One partner may often want it less than the other, but it can hardly be the case that a pair are so incompatible as to the extent that they should choose to break it off instead of attempting to work through their little ordeals (which can easily be talked-out if that isn’t already a problem) but usually it is due to other factors that a couple slip apart. Finding ‘the one’ who is ‘meant for you’ will become a forlorn endeavor as, by the time we have found that person, we will have exhausted our capacity to say, “You are my one and only.” It is easier to say that we aren’t phased by this fact than to mean it: http://waitingtillmarriage.org/category/statistics/
Keeping that in mind, nobody buys the cow if they can get the milk for free. If they did, they would be unreasonable. Seriously, just think about it–nobody thinking reasonably would do that. Granted that sex isn’t the essence of marriage, but it is the point for many people who wish to have it outside of a responsible, committed relationship (so that those on the more pushy side may get what they want, or leave to find it in someone else if the first would not yield or satisfy). I often think of it as a swarm of locusts or a malignant virus. It swoops in, takes what it wants, and moves on.
Many people like to think of this century as being tolerant and feminine-friendly, but when you look at how often premarital sexuality is pushed onto society and in turn from boyfriend to girlfriend (it can be the other way around, but women, who haven’t first become used to such a life, are wired to seek comfort while men are wired to seek sex), she, by her nature, will seek to accomodate him before she risks losing him, even if his wants are separate and even fly in the face of what she feels the relationship needs. But, despite the fact of her lack of rigor, the woman must take responsibility for her own actions should she choose to succumb to him. She has this right–a moral obligation to disobey where subservience to one’s loved ones is normally required. But, when threatened with the stupidboy-logic that states, “oh, if you’re not into it now, you won’t ever be after we marry, either. See ya.” you’re bound to make a mistake. Quickly-made decisions have seldom been humanity’s strong side.
Unripened fruit tastes bitter. While it may be the case that the woman is only making it harder on her self with her beliefs–her guilt accumulating into a self-fulfilling prophecy, there is every reason to acknowledge the facts mentioned in this writing, and for the husband, every reason to support her whether he considers her mad or misled. Which is better for your teeth, folks–carrots or candy canes? Seriously, stupidboy-logic is about as straight as a side-windin’, lilly-livered, two-faced, yella-bellied slitherin’ serpent.
If we look back into the history of the Jewish culture, for instance, the number of labor laws for women severely outweighed those created for men solely because of a woman’s vulnerability–physically and psychologically. We like to think of our century as having everything right and deliberately (anything good gained by tradition is made to seem an accident), or at least farther down the right track than those in ancient times, but traditional values have positive psychological upsides for those of the female gender. The laws of the Bible are not to repress and exploit women but are instead to protect them. It’s easy to confuse that with being insulted over the fact that our weakness is acknowledged. http://drlwilson.com/ARTICLES/ANGRY%20WOMEN.htm
Women should not be put in a position where they would risk losing a valuable part of themselves, repressing their true feelings and personality, shutting ‘off’ because it’s too soon (any respectable man would want the whole bargain–to only sleep with her when she is fully herself; not just for her body—to not force her to choose between love and values), the risk of pregnancy, overshadowing guilt, loss of respect by others, and a very important part that is often overlooked–the comfort issue: she does not want to be alone; she is vulnerable and needs someone by her side instead of having to go through a transition period of having no man to protect her where she used to. If she gives her virginity–or even a part of her virginity–away too soon, she will recognize that the highest tier of men will have been eliminated from her options, and she does not want to face that while she is still young because (1) it could have been avoided and (2) it will pose difficulty if she becomes older and is still unmarried, as the options of said ‘tiers’ in men does dwindle with age.
What also might contribute to the seeming ‘incompatibility’ in the relationship might just be due to the fact that the woman is attached to her values, as is often the case due to women’s sexual arousal being related to their emotions (more than that of men). The two might easily have a happy sex life after the marriage if she did not feel as though her values were being compromised nor her comfort-zone invaded, when taking the ‘compatibility’ test seriously may result in the man abandoning her for something he mistakenly thinks to be true of her. It’s just a bad first impression–you, a hard and loyal worker, go to an interview but happen to have a very large zit on your forehead that day.
The shutting-down factor also plays a major role, as, when one becomes emotionally numb, they are immune to emotional pain, but they are also immune to any blessing they might receive as well. Women are to be nurtured; not pressured, and again: a woman, by her nature, will seek to accomodate her man’s wishes before she risks losing him by standing up for her values, or even just saying what she’s uncomfortable with. She isn’t free from blame, but since this is a difficult task and since her lover is also a person, he must thus share in the responsibility. I don’t think anyone should take advantage of that weakness in the first place, even though it does happen all too often (we shouldn’t use a bad example to represent something good). The ‘no’ must always precede the ‘yes’.
But back on topic, milk tastes generally the same, but for anyone particularly sensitive to the variation, it would be nigh-impossible to satisfy their tastes if they kept meditating on their ideal flavor out of the many others they’re likely to find (or rather, come across) in their search. One does not progressively get luckier on their search; one might even come across a very dissatisfactory partner after one who was only moderately dissatisfying, but again, this is only the case for those who base their commitment on their experience and pickiness. They can’t exactly go back to their favorite one once they’ve ‘evaluated’ each partner. The only solution for the anecdotal example is to ‘numb’ oneself emotionally to where they can enjoy themselves on the basest of levels without interference of the higher mind urging them to feel guilty. That isn’t a change toward which society ought to bend if that results in being the only upside. It truly is a gamble; the only way one could find out is to play it dangerously and ‘dive right in’ to the intercourse, as is the case with dating. So really it’s still a problem for both parties. There isn’t another, safer method–the essence of the experience is contained in the experience itself, as are its chances of disappointing.
It’s certainly not a meaningless practice even if it ends up being dissatisfying. Temporary unhappiness for the sake of the relationship is certainly a worthy sacrifice in comparison to a sacrificed relationship for the sake of happiness that may or may not last. Incompatibility is, ultimately, a problem for both one who is on the side of premarital intercourse and one who believes it should be saved for marriage. Thus emphasis on the second circle–on commitment–is more beneficial than emphasis on compatibility. While compatibility may play a major role in the relationship, it can and should be worked around for the reasons mentioned above.
The proponents of pre-marital sex and emphasizers on compatibility tend to paint a scenario in which people just happen to come across those who are more and more compatible with themselves. There’s no way of telling unless one were to, again, just dive right in; contrarily for the faithful person there would be no telling otherwise that their partner was the one, the only, and the best there is (so hop to it and make it count). If this is viewed as a ‘blind happiness’, then at least take into account that, once more, we are left with no moral obligation nor valid, logical reason as to why multiple partners are necessary. A relationship differs from an experience in that the crucial factor is another person, and thus there is no excuse to go seeking greener pastures.
Could you imagine a mother telling her daughter, happily engaged to a young man, to ‘break it off’ with him so that her experience with other men would be more varied? The only scenario that could be brought forth is that ‘they’re missing out on someone who would be PERFECT for them without even realizing it,’ but that brings us back to our first point (as well as all of the other negative consequences I totally just covered). A relationship HAS to be a blind practice; you HAVE to close your eyes to the rest of the world when committed to someone, and if this is successful then you’ll stay with that person forever, because if you didn’t, that means that you did take the blindfold off, you did take your heart back and your eyes off your lover and started scouring for a new mate at some point. If the relationship depends on choice, it’s much healthier for one’s growth in character and their ability to hold up in tough situations. According to Bruce Lee, one must not pray for an easy life but the strength to face a life of hardships. That should not be taken in the sense that we ought to cause those hardships for ourselves. ”Simba, I’m only brave when I have to be. Being brave doesn’t mean that you go looking for trouble.” says Mufasa from the Lion King. ”Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment.” My only expectations should lie with myself; not with anyone or anything else. The argument that best supports my thesis is in this article:
Thursday, 4 October 2012
Faithful to whom?
For the most part, people tend to agree with the major ‘thou shalt nots’ of Christian morality. Lying is generally accepted to be bad. Allowing people keep their own hard earned property, instead of stealing it from them, is obviously appropriate. Plunging a dagger into someone’s back in a dark alley is universally considered unacceptable. The Christian stance on sexual integrity, however, is often seen as somehow outdated, irrelevant, perhaps even backward. Given two people, both mature and of sound mind, entrapped in fiery love with one another and wishing to consummate their passions, how dare anyone interfere? Perhaps most incensed by that suggestion are the young bachelor and the equally young lady who has her eye on him. Being faithful to your husband or wife is one thing, but who is this young lady to be faithful to?
Of course for the Christian part of the answer is God. God gave his rules, and the Christian intends to follow them out of deference to the rule maker. Even so it’s only part of the answer because those rules are far from arbitrary but were given for our benefit. As with the rules against murder or theft, there are a range of benefits to reserving sexual activity until marriage.
The benefits to young women are particularly obvious: abstinence is the only completely effective way to avoid getting pregnant. Taking a romantic relationship to bed inevitably involves that risk, and that ushers in the terrible choice between killing her infant son in the womb or shouldering the burden of raising the child. The full depth of the abortion argument is better dealt with elsewhere, but it is always worth bearing in mind that the whole trap can be so easily avoided. The liberal young man willing to fight so hard for a woman’s “right to choose” should really question whether he ought be giving her this poisoned chalice of a choice to begin with.
Similarly, reserving sex for a monogamous lifelong marriage is the best way to zero the risk of contracting any Sexually Transmitted Infections. Both the woman and the man share this benefit to themselves, but for every forgone sexual encounter they also avoid posing this risk to their groom or bride later in life. Each time a pair sleep together they play Russian Roulette with a revolver handed to them by the other, and they are[sic] also loading additional bullets into the chambers of their guns. Some day the young lady will find a man she loves wholeheartedly, indeed a man she would like to marry. Would she rather hand him an unloaded revolver or one with 5 rounds in the cylinder?
This hints at the most significant reason to hold oneself to a standard of abstinence: faithfulness to husband or wife. The majority of people will marry someone easily within half a decade of their own age. They certainly aren’t even thinking about such things by the time they’re 5! This means that their future husband or wife isn’t just some philosophical construct; they have already been born and quite possibly already been met. Many a lovestruck romantic will utter the words “You’re the only one for me!” Can they line their actions up with their words? It’s relatively well accepted that adultery causes problems. It often leads to feelings of betrayal and of low self worth. In many cases it’s a major component of a very painful divorce, harming the husband, the wife, their children, and others in their community. If a bride found that her new husband, perhaps purely out of inexperience, is boring in bed she’s liable to think back to her experience with previous more energetic boyfriends. At this her groom could justly be quite jealous, and so appear all the same problems as with a normal case of adultery. Just as faithfulness within a marriage is demanded, so the pair should bring one another faithfulness before the marriage as the most precious of wedding gifts.
Finally, it is worth examining the common excuse that a pair intend to marry anyway. Perhaps they feel it’s necessary to check that they’re “compatible”. Precisely how this test works, or what “compatible” means, is never quite expanded on. What they’d do if the experience were less than they’d hoped is similarly skipped over. The truth is, a far better test of whether two people’s love is strong enough to cope with marriage would be whether they’re willing to surrender the chance for a little sexual pleasure just for the dream that is their bride to be. Any “compatibility” that depends solely upon their looks or performance in bed is doomed to grow faded, worn and boring. A foundation of honest, sacrificial love grants a marriage the potential to last a lifetime. That will certainly be enough time for them to gain whatever sexual experience they need, and importantly they’ll gain it together.
http://apologeticsuk.blogspot.com/2012/10/faithful-to-who.html
We are not cars. We are not clothing. We are human beings of deep and intimate understanding and emotion. “Unrealistic expectations lead to disappointment.” My only expectations should lie with myself; not with anyone or anything else. If you’re just dating around, you’re not enriching your experience; you’re stuck on one level with a group of people because you didn’t stick around with the same person long enough to attain that deeper level of intimacy. You’re not just evaluating a personality like you would an article of clothing. Once you are in a relationship, it’s not just you anymore. You are responsible for your conduct in relation to the other’s feelings and well-being as well as yourself. The purpose of this article was to demonstrate the close relationship between tests of compatibility in both the personality and the sex-life.