my disagreement with a naive minister

[frida1980]

My friend found a minister that she liked a lot because he was young and funny. I've lost the sermon, and have forgotten his name. He a young white minister, probably in his late twenties and married. He probably has limited relationship experience and maybe even life experience based upon his sermon. He was funny, but completely naive on relationships and the reality of things.This led to a fight between my friend and I, because she follows ministers blindly and refuses to think differently. But I have legitimate problems with many of his points.

1. If your feeling lustful, you need to get married.

This has got to be one of the most ignorant things I've heard in a while. People start feeling sexual desires at young age and cannot marry at that age. Furthermore, marriage at a young age never works, people grow and change. It's reasonable that people should wait to be married until they, A. Finish school, B. Have a career, and C. Are financially and mentally ready to settle down. Finally, marrying someone because you are feeling lust rather than love is a terrible reason to marry.

2. He believes that dating is prostitution

He glorified the period 100 years ago when a young man would come and meet the family and involve the family in the relationship. He states that by dating, a man is paying to take a woman out and expect sex in return. That makes it prostitution.

My view on dating is that is a modern way of evaluating a man's worthiness and your compatibility. A lot of us have gone on one or two dates and never had sex with these men. Why? Because we weren't compatible and decided to end it. It's a really sexist assumption that women would sleep with a man simply because he paid for dinner. The truth is dating is informal way of judging a man. If a man takes you out, he's proud of you and wants others to know you're his. If he pays, it's just a form of chivalry. I know men that pay even if they don't have a dime to their name, because it's their job to pay. Yes there are dogs that think they deserve sex for taking a woman out, but dating is definitely not prostitution.

3. Sex is a benefit of marriage. He also said duty.

You know, this is where I had to stop. He stated that people were trying to get the benefits of marriage outside of marriage. Maybe for him. Once again this goes into compatibility. Women need to know if their sexually compatible with a man before saying this is the only man their going to sleep with for the rest of their life. This minister also said it was a woman's duty to sleep with her husband. Ok... This is the main reason that men should not give relationship advice. If I don't want to because I'm tired or sick, he needs to respect that. Truth be told, that is prostitution. A man has bought you a ring and now expects to have sex for it.

I don't think this man really knows what marriage is all about. He has simple and romantic ideas of what he thinks marriage is, and doesn't speak about it from a modern and positive view point. It's not just about sex. It's about two compatible people choosing join together and live a life with each other. That includes compatibility in personality, view points, life styles, religions, finances, AND sex. I can't convince my friend of that though...

 

[cheetarah1980]

I'm leaning about 90% toward agreement with the minister. Just when I want to all the way agree he takes it a step too far.
One of the most powerful reasons for marriage used to be sex. When people weren't doing it before marriage, you didn't see people dating for years and then being engaged for another 2 years before finally walking down the aisle (hello Carmelo and Lala). There's nothing wrong with that being A reason to commit. In fact, I completely disagree with you about having to finish school, establish a career, and get financially settled BEFORE you can marry. This is really a new way of thinking because 50 years ago many couples married right after high school or before college ended. Where does this idea come from that a person can't get an education, start a career, or progress financially WHILE being married? 100 years ago a person was considered an adult by 16. Why? Because biology had already said so. Over the last 30-40 years we've prolonged childhood into the 20s and beyond. The reason why people are still evolving and changing and growing in their late teens and into their 20s is because they are not conditioned to be adults sooner. There are many societies around the world where adulthood is marked by puberty. Once puberty is complete, you're an adult and are treated as such. Just because people in the US are generally not socialized to be adults until they're 22+ doesn't mean that they can't be.
And he has something on point #2 as well. I do think the old way of courting with families and communities involved benefitted women the most. Nowadays most single women are left to their own devices to navigate through a sea of men, many of whom don't have the best intentions. The protection of family/community would do many of us a world of good. Not to say we shouldn't date, but we often do so in a vacuum that we only emerge from once it's either A) serious B) over and we've been hurt. Now I don't believe that paying for a date means paying for sex. But even if a man and woman had sex on the first date, that's something entirely separate from him treating her to a night out.

Also, I'm with him on point #3. While I don't think it's a wife's duty to "give it up" whenever and wherever and however her husband wants it, but I do think that it's both spouses duty to make sure sex is a regular part of the relationship. Also, I don't agree that people need to try before they buy either.

I don't see why you're trying to argue your friend down from her values. If you don't agree with what the minister said, then don't abide by it. But I don't think he's saying anything overtly wrong that your friend should avoid.

 

[aribell]

Well, sermons are written from the perspective of obedience to scriptural commands. And they're specifically for a religious audience. Unless someone agrees with a biblical worldview, the sermon likely won't make sense.

1. Sexual desire provides a reason to begin seeking marriage in general, not to marry any particular person. You can start seriously looking to get married without marrying the first person that comes along. Most people who are of age in this society desire marriage, either now or later. It makes sense given our society to say to an adult Christian that if they are serious about not fornicating, that they're probably going end up sinning if they keep pushing marriage off till later. I highly doubt he's talking to teenagers.

2. Dating may not be prostitution from a woman's perspective, but he's probably saying what he perceives to be many men's view on it. In fact, there's a man in his 80s whose blog I read. He's been married over 50 years, and the basic premise of his writing is that women have little to no clue how different men's motivations are from their own and that when a man and a woman go out, his objective is basically sex. Her job is to delay having it with him until he proves that he actually cares about her and not just getting in her pants. So basically, a woman has the power to ensure that she is not used like a prostitute, but that doesn't stop men from trying.

3. As far as sex only belonging in marriage, well, if you seek out a specifically religious message, I don't think it's fair to complain when you don't agree with what it says. He's teaching according to biblical principles, which not everyone agrees with, but that's what they are--religious commands.

And more than that, did he really say that a wife needed to sleep with her husband whenever he wanted, no matter what, even if she is sick? Probably not. Even non-religious people will talk about the necessity of being sexually available to one's husband to keep things happy.

Plus, sexual compatibility is something that people want to figure out when they have already been sexually active with other partners and have developed their own particular tastes and desires, and what they feel they "have" to have. Sexual compatibility is not the same issue for two people who have not been sexually active. Whatever they're learning about sex, they're learning together. And medical disorders don't fall into the compatibility category--that's something else entirely. So, someone doesn't have to have sex to know they're impotent, have no sex drive, or that their size is the result of a developmental disorder.

 

[LovelyNaps26]

From a Christian POV, I don't think the minister is saying anything that isn't supported by scripture. How are you evaluating his message? Based on Christian views or more secular standards? His overall message is pretty ordinary in Christian discussions on sex and dating.

Point #1: I would add a caveat. I don't think people should get married to someone they aren't very compatible with just for sex. That's ridiculous. However, I don't think this is what the minister is saying. He is obviously of the mind that sex is reserved for marriage. If someone doesn't buy into that principle then of course they'd disagree with his POV. I believe what he meant points to the scriptural reference "It is better to marry than to burn". In other words if you love the individual and want to spend your life with them it is better to marry than wait 5 years to get everything just right. Why? It is very difficult for people to remain celibate when you're in a relationship with someone you are emotionally and physically attracted to. Call a spade a spade and get married, ONLY if you genuinely love the person. I do feel like 20 is really young to get married but I know that my 24+ age view of marriageability is influenced by my society and my own age.

#2 Dating is not prostitution. That's apretty over the top language. I mean if someone is having sex on the first night of every date they have, well, they need to reflect. However, this minister is speaking to a Christian audience so I don't believe he means that. If one is marriage minded then don't sell yourself short by dating people who aren't interested in marriage and who will expect sex before marriage. Again, this is a Christian perspective.

#3 I actually don't think this view is really Christian but common sense. The word "duty" rubs people the wrong way but if people are only intimate with their partner when they feel like it, trust, frustration and unhappiness in that area is inevitable. This, by the way, applies for men and women. Even the Bible says that neither spouse should deny each other unless by mutual consent. I think irrespective of religious or world view it makes sense to have that kind of view with sex most of the time. Obviously, there are times (sickness, exhaustion, stress, etc.) when I think the other partner should understand and cool out.

 

[frida1980]

I wasn't criticizing her values. She was trying to push her values on me. She asked me to watch his sermon, and I did. Then she wanted me to watch more. I refused. She became livid that I didn't agree with her. I thought it was fine that she thought that way, but I didn't and didn't want to listen to someone I didn't agree with. That's when she became pissed because I didn't think they way she wanted me too. It was more problem of her not accepting my values, rather than me accepting hers.

But I don't agree with you. Society has changed greatly, and there a lot more to be considered nowadays. Men can get degrees while married, while statistically very few married women managed to do it. One of the main reasons marriages fail is because of financial issues. Another one is because the pair was too young. Marriages with the highest failure rate is people from ages 16-24. Waiting merely four years can improve marriages. Rushing kills it.

No I can't agree with this man. 100 years ago, women had no choice in the matter. They had to be married or join the nunnery. Society didn't allow women NOT to be married, so it was going to happen or else. Women didn't work and a man could support his family by working one job. Mind you, men were having sex then. With mistresses and prostitutes. Seldom was a man a virgin on his wedding night. But a woman's virginity was prize.

Now, women do have choices. We can work and support ourselves. This means that it's now choice rather than a necessity. We can choice our own mates, rather than allow our families to control our fate. This minister fails to look at reality. Marriage is not about just having sex. It's about making a family and stable household. You need to be compatible with this person. You need to truly love this person. You need to be able to count on this person. This means this person needs to prove to you, your friends, and your family that he's capable of these things. So no telling two hormonal teenagers to get married before graduating. No telling your daughter to drop out of college to be with her boyfriend across the state. No marrying a man that you've know three weeks. You'll likely end up with two unhappy people in the long run.

 

[DayStar]

I agree with him.

 

[Sasha299]

Although I agree with you that this minister seems lacking in life experiences he is taking things with a grain of truth and distorting them

1. If your feeling lustful, you need to get married.

Lustfulness is the silliest reason to get married. THAT is why there are so many divorces today because people fall in LUST and base a marriage on that. There is more to marriage than to satisfy lustful urges. Not all marriages at a young age fail - one that I am intimately familiar with started very young and they have been married 15 years so far. There is a stronger possibility of failure when people marry at a young age because they are still growing, finding themselves and maturing but have frequently not yet obtained the ability to grow WITH someone.

People who really love each other can get married early and still have success in their lives. It does not have to be all or nothing, infact this ALL or NOTHING attitude can prevent people from having it ALL. (do you remember the book titled "Having it all" - remember it was a good read that my mother sent to me when I was getting married). Infact, financially it is much easier to be in a relationship and go to school, work, etc. You share bills, have a built in study partner, someone who grows with you, is able to discuss issues that currently concern you, understand the professional pressure you are in, etc. Personally, I had it both ways on my own in schooling and married in schooling and it was easier with him than on my own - I got better grades, less financial pressure, less stress, etc.

That said this sexual compatibility thing is HOGWASH. Trust me - sex is physical and if you love the person you can BOTH make sex amazing if you want. If you claim to love the person and the person you but the sex is not good - if you want to give up a good relationship with someone you love for that, well is it really love at that point. Trust me, books and instructions for sex have existed all through the ages because people had to make sex work - it is not always instinctive. That is why the longer a couple is together and the more secure their relationship is, the better sex gets. When you love someone and they love you, pleasing you is foremost on their list. The Kama Sutra is not a modern tool.

2. He believes that dating is prostitution

He is an *** for this because 100 years ago there was the dowry system, the bride price or the dower. The dowry paid to the husband, the bride price to the bride's parents and the dower settled on the wife by the husband. The husbands were paid to take the wife, the husbands bought the wife from the parents or the husbands bought the wife. Basically females value as a mate hinged on 1)their ability to procreate and 2)how much money/assets they were bringing into the relationship. For a minister to make this ignorant statement shows that he has not finished studying and IMO is not ready for the pulpit.


3. Sex is a benefit of marriage. He also said duty.

Duty my ***. The only duty between a wife and husband is to make the marriage work - there is no duty for sex, sex is a minor part of a relationship - if one has ever experienced a medical issue that prevents the spouse from engaging in sexual intercourse you know how strong your relationship - if the foundation is secure. Having sex on demand does not make the foundations any more secure.


It is obvious to me that he has selfish ideas of what a marriage is. He is up for a bumpy road ahead.

If your friend believes that will work for her - let it go. Some people never know until they find themselves in that situation.

 

[frida1980]

Sasha, I think I have a pragmatic way of looking at marriages and relationships after watching the majority of the people around me screw up. I see a lot more women putting men through school than the reverse. Perhaps there are many supportive men, and I just haven't seen them.

But if taken in a different context, I think the lustful argment makes a little more sense. But is still naive and distorted. If your feeling lustful, you should learn to control your lust to find a good mate rather than just an attractive one. So I still have problems with this argument. In terms of dating, he's wrong. Men may think their getting sex, but women seldom put out because of that. And in terms of duty and benefits, I agree with you. Sex is a minor part of the relationship. It's something that just comes with it. The benefit is shared income, partnership, companionship, and having a family. He never mentioned any of those, or LOVE once. For most women, that's exactly what marriage is all about.

 

[BlkHoneyLuv2U]

OP why not post this in the christian forum also, get their POV on the subject. There are scriptural reference to just about all the pastor said even the DUTY part. I've read it before but cant remember the exact scriptures, book and verse right now.

 

[kmn1980]

I get his point on casual dating. I wouldn't call it prostitution but I do wish people would go back to old-fashioned courting.

 

[Bmack]

From what you have posted I would not agree either. It sounds crazy to me.

 

[lusciouslocks]

I find that often when people talk about what happened "in the good ole days," they have a false, un-reality-based, fantasy perspective on what the "good ole days" were really like.

It's interesting that the highest divorce rates in the country are among the evangelicals and in the so-called Bible Belt (as are teenage pregnancy rates). That may have something to do with trying to dogmatically apply a fantasy-based paradigm wholesale to current day living.

All I can say to that minister is "Good luck with that."

 

[qchelle]

I'm not religious so that would be a no-go for me

WHY did I post in this thread? Cuz I'm bored

 

[princessnad]

The perspective really depends on if you are religious or not

 

[frida1980]

I suppose it does. I listen, process, and then decide if I can agree with someone. I've always believed that someone can take the Book and twist to their own beliefs. So hearing a sermon like this is upsetting. It makes marriage and relationships seem so cheap, somehow.

I wish I could find this sermon for you, so you could hear it and judge for yourself. Marriage and relationships for him seemed only about sex. It's difficult as a woman, to hear young man degrade marriage that way. Life, unfortunately isn't that simple. If it were, people would never chose to get divorced.

 

[Quailbird]

Biblically speaking, the minister is correct on most, if not all, of those points. And I don't follow anybody blindly without questioning.

 

[calmsensual1]

The perspective really depends on if you are religious or not

thank you! Y'all are up here arguing over little individual things when this is really an are you religious or not? type of question.

I happen to disagree with the minister but im not religious, so...

 

[missusM]

I wasn't criticizing her values. She was trying to push her values on me. She asked me to watch his sermon, and I did. Then she wanted me to watch more. I refused. She became livid that I didn't agree with her. I thought it was fine that she thought that way, but I didn't and didn't want to listen to someone I didn't agree with. That's when she became pissed because I didn't think they way she wanted me too. It was more problem of her not accepting my values, rather than me accepting hers.

But I don't agree with you. Society has changed greatly, and there a lot more to be considered nowadays. Men can get degrees while married, while statistically very few married women managed to do it. One of the main reasons marriages fail is because of financial issues. Another one is because the pair was too young. Marriages with the highest failure rate is people from ages 16-24. Waiting merely four years can improve marriages. Rushing kills it.

No I can't agree with this man. 100 years ago, women had no choice in the matter. They had to be married or join the nunnery. Society didn't allow women NOT to be married, so it was going to happen or else. Women didn't work and a man could support his family by working one job. Mind you, men were having sex then. With mistresses and prostitutes. Seldom was a man a virgin on his wedding night. But a woman's virginity was prize.

Now, women do have choices. We can work and support ourselves. This means that it's now choice rather than a necessity. We can choice our own mates, rather than allow our families to control our fate. This minister fails to look at reality. Marriage is not about just having sex. It's about making a family and stable household. You need to be compatible with this person. You need to truly love this person. You need to be able to count on this person. This means this person needs to prove to you, your friends, and your family that he's capable of these things. So no telling two hormonal teenagers to get married before graduating. No telling your daughter to drop out of college to be with her boyfriend across the state. No marrying a man that you've know three weeks. You'll likely end up with two unhappy people in the long run.

no.1 This one was: get married to fulfil sex desire.. theres nothing wrong in that at all. I think its overly simplistic, however because there are other things you need to make marriage work, not just sexual need. OP you say stuff like years ago women had no choice but be married or join the nunnery, well actually no, years ago( depending on what country/continent you are talking about, lets say Europe) womens choices were, marriage, nunnery, governess, prostitute. this is mostly white women mind, black women always worked, always. What really changed was women having suffrage and the pill, the sexual revolution this is what he refers to in

no.2. dating being prostitution. I dont know about anyone else but when did going on a date mean you were shopping for sex? recently i noticed this, I'm 40 and when we said we were dating we meant we met up and went somewhere to get to know one another, not we met, we like and we boinked. men see dating a bit like that( extreme) i have heard men complain about dating someone, having paid for their dinner, taking them out buying them drinks and then that "she had the nerve" to go home and not give him any. this is commonplace now. there are spiritual reasons why the bible says we are not to fornicate, not just sexual, but if you are Carnal you will see it as someone being naive.I'm sorry , but I totally disagree that you have to have sex with someone to know if you are sexually compatible, you act like thats the most important thing about marriage, lol you have a shock when you do get hitch because one of the first things to start dropping off is sex.

no.3. this is scriptural, but not well expressed. Corinthians 1: 7 where wives are told not to defraud their husbands, meaning that if he wants it give it to him, you are cheating him if you dont why: well because as part of you being married you bequeath your body to him and he to you. its a selfish immature view that thinks that marriage is just about one person. there is also something in Ephesians 5:25 that says that men ought to love their wives even as Christ loved the church. But wait........ didnt christ die for the church, didnt he lay his life down for it... oooooh so what God wants from the husband is more than what he is asking the wife to give... NIIIIICe.

I think because theres so much religiousity in America, so many folks think they are christians, but when the Bible is opened up, ppl start saying stuff like well, it says you arent supposed to fornicate and er other stuff, ppl get mad..... conscience gets pricked. Its not the ministers fault...thats bible. straight and simple. Why does this bother you, this is Christianity, if you arent, why bring a knife to a gunfight... i'm just saying.