Abstinence

[nateflory]

I once got into one of those long philosophical at-the-bar debates with a friend wondering about the social problems in today's culture being caused or correlated by the fact that marriages are less arranged than they used to be.
I took the side Seko seems to imply. To whit:

Second, After reading book 3 of the Twilight series (yes, I read it, and no, I am NOT a fanboi, but it’s humorous and entertaining while stuck night-shift at work) there’s one comment about the vampire boyfriend wanting to get married to the overly emotional girlfriend, and waiting to preserve her Virtue since his soul was eternally doomed (in his mind). He carried older customs and Traditions on marriage and sex, but at 17 considers himself a man as would be true in his original timeframe. She is more accepting and modern in her views, and is hesitant to “marry fresh out of highschool”, but still wants some carnal adventures right now with the man she loves. It made me wonder, Did the incidence of early marriage help foster a culture of deeper social bonding and compromise? Getting stuck with someone at a younger age may have limited freedoms, but encouraged unselfish support and social networking much better than today’s carefree internet-fad swinging lifestyle? Or is it just me starting to feel old-fashioned?
Shameless blog-quote from http://everthorn.net/musings/2009/07/moon-muse-random-thoughts/?p=596

[returner]

It made me wonder, Did the incidence of early marriage help foster a culture of deeper social bonding and compromise? Getting stuck with someone at a younger age may have limited freedoms, but encouraged unselfish support and social networking much better than today’s carefree internet-fad swinging lifestyle? Or is it just me starting to feel old-fashioned?

I think this is a pretty generalistic approach to reading into the effects of early marriages on contemporary society. I firstly think 'getting stuck with someone' limits social networking, unless you don't have a lot of friends to begin with. And secondly, you generalise a 'typical' lifestyle being that of someone who is carefree and uses the internet frequently. I think, if you go outside into real life and meet people, you'll find a plethora of those who aren't limited to one attitude towards life (ie carefree) but rather they have a myriad of views... and not all of them use the internet frequently nor do their lives revolve around the internet.

So on the premise that your basic assumptions are somewhat inaccurate or even false, you'll have a lot of difficulty even suggesting that early marriage encourages social networking; especially when young couples are also having children younger (thus less social networking).

[nateflory]

*grin* I have to admit, my comment was more a VERY oversimplified answer to the question, than an actual answer. In general, I do think it holds true. However, HOWEVER, there is a huge loss of complexity in such a short reply, and I'll admit that the world was much 'smaller' back then also, and the internet did not exist, so the two concepts are not necessarily exclusive.

[gejyspa]

Well, we live in a different world today than a generation or two ago. My sister's friends were married when they were 18, and have been together 40 years. My parents married when they were 20/23 and they were together for 29 years until my mother's death. But don't forget that in earlier times, there was also much more of a family support structure. Where generations lived close, young marrieds were often supported financially by their family, babies could be watched by grandparents, etc. This is not nearly so common today. The trend among most people in the first world is to put off marriage until a couple is financially secure. Does this play havoc with young people's hormones? Yeah, probably, and combined with the widespread use of prophylactics and birth control, sex is considered to "not have consequences". Well, perhaps not physical ones, but that doesn't mean that emotional consequences aren't rampant.

Just my (well, I guess that's 8 cents by now)

--gejyspa

[Missy]

"Philosophy of Love" by Elinor Glyn. Copyright 1923. And it reminded me of this topic.

In the specific chapter I'm quoting excerpts from she talks to Americans directly and is pinpointing why Americans were failing at love, what is different between Americans and Europeans that people lose interest so fast in their marriages, and while the book is rather outdated, I think some of her basic points still apply and not only to Americans now. So just a thought:

In my position as a writer upon psychological subjects which interest the average citizen, and because of my romances, I receive hundreds of letters in the year from strangers, and for this reason I am in a position to judge of which way the wind of emotion is blowing. The majority of all these epistles express a cry of dissatisfaction from empty hearts.

What I am going to say now is an amplification of what I said at the conclusion of Chapter Seven, so I hope it will not appear as a mere repetition.
To one looking on, there seems to be so very little romance in that wonderful country of America--and romance is the glamour which turns the dust of every-day life into a golden haze.
But romance cannot exist without ideals, and ideals are the creations of the spirit and so are shrouded in mystery. they are not commonplace facts which jump to the eye!
There is no possibility of mystery shrouding love in America to turn it into an ideal state, because the custom of the counry brings the sexes together from babyhood. The continual intermingling goes on through school days to college. Sallie and Richard know all about each other--and about all the other youths and maidens. Glamour is not possible--all is reality--Richard has not made an imaginary and beautiful picture of Sallie in his thoughts. He knows just what she is--there is no glamour.
Sallie has not invested Richard with wonderful qualities and fascinations--she has known him or his prototypes since she could toddle. He is no more a mystery to her than she is to him. Both their feelings in the more delicate manifestations of the re-creative instinct have been blunted by familiarity.
Then when adolesence comes upon them, nature causes physical emotions to be aroused--which, unenveloped by mystery and glamour, do not reach the spirit---and so the great recreative principle is allowed to fritter itself away in a series of flirtations, which custom restrains within the bounds of just kisses and fondling, and thus that glorious thing passion--as a mental exaltation--evaporates.
So that when a pair of these college chums--even though they have come from different colleges and have never met before---do marry, there can be very little excitement about it--the Richards are all so alike in their ways--and so are the Sallies!--and familiarity, if it has not bred contempt, has bred satiation.

So now I can get to some advice I want to give the young men--who desire to be ideal lovers and cut out the movie stars!
First of all, as I said before, do not try to be so very brotherly. Don't cheapen all agreeable emotion by being so physically friendly with every girl---that is, touching her at every moment, taking arms and so on, when you are not the least interested in her, or she in you.
Touching ought to be reserved entirely for the loved on--that is, if you want to feel any thrills; and this advice applies to girls also. This continuous and promiscuous familiarity of pawing each other, is the first step towards destroying the capacity to love.
Boys and girls who have been touching their friends all their lives logically must have the sensory nerves numbed to a great extent. In France and England, continuous touching--taking arms, patting, tapping the shoulder to draw attention--in short, touching of any kind, is considered the worst possible form in good society. No one calling himself or herself a gentleman or lady would ever do this; it is considered as familiarity and would dub anyone as "common" and of a lower class who indulged in it. Now this is a very sound point of view, because it then leaves full pleasure to fiancees and lovers who then experience joy when they do touch their beloved ones.
Touching sets alight passion as I have said over and over again. Therefore it is obvious it should not be used for trifles. This is the first thing I would suggest for the Richards to think about--and if they use their logical brains, they will see that what I have said is true. Use a great deal more reserve in all your relations with women--and above all, I must repeat, do no t be humdrum and brotherly.

It would seem that while boys and girls are educated together and mingle during adolescence in an unrestricted way, romance will become each year more a thing of the past, and the realities of life will drown it's exquisite music, as a brass band drowns a string orchestra.
Some people may think this is a good thing, and the road to the millenium! But we need not trouble ourselves about their opinions! We are talking of ~love~ which still interests millions of men and women---(Thank God! I was going to add!)--and love will not last as exquisite emotion if it is deadened by familiarity. It sinksthen very much to the level of what the animals know--a frank camaraderie, except in the mating season--but with nothing of the glamour of the spirit in it.

I made a maxim once which said:

"No man likes shooting tame rabbits."

Well, if intercourse and companionship between the sexes has been unrestricted from babyhood, it must be rather like "shooting tame rabbit" when at last the re-creative instinct has prompted an emotion which ~appears~ to be love!

[Doug R.]

Hmm. Based on these excerpts, one could conclude that marriage, then, is a doomed institution, as it breeds familiarity with one's spouse, necessarily (according to this) killing romance. Oh, wait, I just noticed the copyright was 1923...you probably weren't supposed to touch your spouse much either, at least not in public!

[Armulus Satchula]

Hmm. Based on these excerpts, one could conclude that marriage, then, is a doomed institution, as it breeds familiarity with one's spouse, necessarily (according to this) killing romance. Oh, wait, I just noticed the copyright was 1923...you probably weren't supposed to touch your spouse much either, at least not in public!

My dad has a book about raising chickens that is from about the time period where it listed cats as varmints that could be easily handled by luring them into a box and tossing a rag soak in arsenic so not to ruin the fur. I think i'll take anything from the 1920's with a grain of salt.

[caged_bird_sings]

Old thread, but I don't think I ever answered.
No abstinence for me, because I don't really see the point. For me, there's no rule that says I can't. There's plenty of argument as to whether or not sex is "meaningful," but I really think that depends entirely on the person. One person might think of it as an epic soulful union of two people, and others think of it as a way to destress and have some fun. I guess I'm right in between, as most people I know are. I'd much rather there be real love between my partner and I, but I don't need him/her to be "the one," and don't find the need to wait until the official wedding day if the person is. Furthermore, I find that the epic-soulful part wears down a little bit (of course not entirely) after the first little while. The notion of sex just isn't as big a deal once you've actually done it on a regular basis. I think the first time you do it you'll want someone you trust completely, at the very least - it hurts like HELL for us!
This is coming from a 20 year old female who's been "with" two people..."done some stuff" (just short of what's manageable between ladies) with one person, and have been in a serious relationship for the past 2 and a half years with (the most wonderful) boyfriend around. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to handle chastity...I can barely stand a long distance relationship!
So..I'm not a nun, nor am I a ...I can't think of a polite term. Sorry

[DylPickle]

So..I'm not a nun, nor am I a ...I can't think of a polite term. Sorry

Snookie?
Yar har har har.

[caged_bird_sings]

Oh! There's a good one. Thanks Dyl

[SekoETC]

I think the first time you do it you'll want someone you trust completely, at the very least - it hurts like HELL for us!

Not for everybody. It didn't feel like anything for me. I'd been masturbating for probably 5 years before I had sex for the first time so it had had time to expand gradually. I even read a sex ed book once that says if the first time hurts, a chance is you're doing something wrong. That's quite a revolutionary thought. If everybody is taught that first time is supposed to hurt, it may be a good way of discouraging young girls from starting a sex life, or it might make them think that it's okay if it hurts and it happens to everybody even if the truth was that you weren't relaxed or aroused enough and the guy was rushing it.

[caged_bird_sings]

I think the first time you do it you'll want someone you trust completely, at the very least - it hurts like HELL for us!

Not for everybody. It didn't feel like anything for me. I'd been masturbating for probably 5 years before I had sex for the first time so it had had time to expand gradually. I even read a sex ed book once that says if the first time hurts, a chance is you're doing something wrong. That's quite a revolutionary thought. If everybody is taught that first time is supposed to hurt, it may be a good way of discouraging young girls from starting a sex life, or it might make them think that it's okay if it hurts and it happens to everybody even if the truth was that you weren't relaxed or aroused enough and the guy was rushing it.

SOOOO LUCKY :O I had even had a little...accident. I really don't think we were doing it wrong...actually I'm quite certain. It was reaaaallly slow, and there was some KY for good measure. And it still killed me the first two or three times. There was blood the first two. I'm entirely serious Maybe I'm just a wuss.

[notsure]

*sticks fingers in ears and hums, really loudly* HMMM.....HMMM...LALALA....

[Snickie]

*sticks fingers in ears and hums, really loudly* HMMM.....HMMM...LALALA....

Thank you, notsure!
-copies notsure with fingers in ears and loud humming-
Still waiting on implementation of being able to block specific topics from oneself... -goes to check that it doesn't already exist-

[MelloYell]

*sticks fingers in ears and hums, really loudly* HMMM.....HMMM...LALALA....

Thank you, notsure!
-copies notsure with fingers in ears and loud humming-
Still waiting on implementation of being able to block specific topics from oneself... -goes to check that it doesn't already exist-

i agree with both of the last two posts.