Eringobragh

What Counts?

20 posts in this topic

There's probably a similar topic on here already, but what specifically do you believe should be off-limits until marriage? Anything but actual intercourse? Or is there a more fine line? I guess it comes down to what you believe is the purpose of waiting.

On a similar note, has anyone here wondered about sex scenes in movies, and whether those are not really a form of porn? Obviously in your average pg-13 or even r rated movie they're much less revealing than porn, but I still wonder if there isn't a rather gray area there.

What do you think?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I try not to watch R-Rated movies. I look away during those steamy scenes and try not to listen, or fast forward if I am watching a movie. Seriously, I consider it soft porn.

 

I am hoping not to go past kissing with future hubby until after the wedding night. We can hold hands, kiss and hug before the wedding. Or save the first kiss for the wedding day? IDK. 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably a similar topic on here already, but what specifically do you believe should be off-limits until marriage? Anything but actual intercourse? Or is there a more fine line?

 

Personally, I'm planning to save the first kiss for the wedding day.  I think it's wiser to forego kissing and stay out of the temptation zone until we actually get married.  Plus with the physical part of the relationship being so low, we'll be forced to focus on actually getting to know each other mentally, which is very important to the development of a healthy relationship.

 

On a similar note, has anyone here wondered about sex scenes in movies, and whether those are not really a form of porn? Obviously in your average pg-13 or even r rated movie they're much less revealing than porn, but I still wonder if there isn't a rather gray area there. What do you think? 

 

My stance is similar to waitingforcarats'; I don't screen moves out by the rating itself (something rated R for violence is very different from an R for sex-nudity), but I do try to avoid movies with a lot of overt sexuality/nudity.  In a lot of cases I'll check a Christian movie review site just to make sure a movie isn't too raunchy, if it is I just give it a pass.

8 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's probably a similar topic on here already, but what specifically do you believe should be off-limits until marriage? Anything but actual intercourse? Or is there a more fine line? I guess it comes down to what you believe is the purpose of waiting.

On a similar note, has anyone here wondered about sex scenes in movies, and whether those are not really a form of porn? Obviously in your average pg-13 or even r rated movie they're much less revealing than porn, but I still wonder if there isn't a rather gray area there.

What do you think?

 

I don't believe waiting is a moral necessity, so I think it's up to each couple to decide what they are and are not comfortable with doing before marriage.

 

Personally, I view porn as content that is intended for inciting arousal and not much else. That can't always be measured by how much skin is being shown. Videos of fully-clothed people popping balloons can be pornographic (and yeah, I'm not making that fetish up, it exists), while sex scenes that serve to tell a story are not inherently porn. For example, I wouldn't call any of the nude/sex scenes in Titanic porn; they weren't about objectifying the characters sexually, they were there to further character development and move along the love story. Sex is a pretty big part of the human condition, so I don't object to tasteful portrayals of it in art, literature, or films.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm planning to save the first kiss for the wedding day.  I think it's wiser to forego kissing and stay out of the temptation zone until we actually get married.  Plus with the physical part of the relationship being so low, we'll be forced to focus on actually getting to know each other mentally, which is very important to the development of a healthy relationship.

 

Are you implying that those who do engage physically pre-marriage don't actually get to know each other mentally?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you implying that those who do engage physically pre-marriage don't actually get to know each other mentally?

 

 

No, but delaying the sexual means that you'll get to know them mentally more quickly.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own limits are everything but the actual act of intercourse. I just don't count anything else as sex.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say anything after first base, though I'm planning on keeping my first kiss for my wife. :)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, but delaying the sexual means that you'll get to know them mentally more quickly.

 

I'm going to have to disagree with this. While some relationships are based purely off the physical and neither partner gets to really know the other, most relationships have both partners wanting to know everything about the other as quickly as possible, in the physical, the mental, and the spiritual aspects. It could even be argued that waiters know their partners less because they are purposefully ignoring entire aspects of their partner whereas couples who don't wait are free to get to know each other on all levels equally.

 

Additionally, it's not as if the physical, the mental, and the spiritual are three completely separate aspects. Each has bearing on the others. By not allowing yourself or your partner access to the physical aspect of yourselves, there may be parts of the mental and spiritual aspects of you or your partner that you are denying yourselves. The same as it is for members of other couples who deny their partner access to the mental or spiritual aspects of themselves.

 

Using gaming as an example. Mental, Physical, and Spiritual would be three things you could level. However there is a limit to how fast you can gain experience. Just because you CAN spend 24 hours a day grinding your Mental experience does not mean you would ever want to. So you either drop the game after a few hours each day, or you go grind Physical and/or Spiritual. The more you do in the game the more fun you have and the less likely you are to just stop playing that game (breakup). 

 

Just because I am not spending time doing physical things with my girlfriend does not mean I am getting to know her better mentally or spiritually. We may just settle into a relaxed state after we've spent time talking about our days and what we've done. I might be reading a book and she may be watching videos on youtube. It's the same after we've spent time cuddling or making out. Time spent doing physical things is not necessarily time lost doing mental things or vice-versa. To say that waiters will get to know their partners mentally more quickly is not actually a true statement. Couples get to know each other on their own time, regardless of their status as waiters.

 

As a counterpoint I will concede that the waiting mentality does probably mean that the average waiter is more likely to get to know their partner mentally at a faster initial rate than the average non-waiter will. This is due to two reasons. Reason number one is as a waiter, one needs to know if the other person will be right for them as a waiter. Will they wait? Will they be okay with it? Both are questions that should be asked after you've gotten to know the other person, as springing the question right away can scare most non-waiters away. 

 

Reason number two is that waiters are almost always looking for a committed relationship so as to end their wait. This means that they will on average get to know their partners better than non-waiters as non-waiters will have more relationships that last only a few weeks. There's nothing wrong with either approach, it simply means that the average waiter will know more about the partners they've had throughout their life than the average non-waiter will (Provided we don't count relationships that ended after the waiter told a non-waiter they were a waiter and the non-waiter left).   

 

After the initial burst of getting to know each other however, both types of couples should be the same. There is only so much about a person that you can find out in any given timeframe and once you're in a committed relationship, both waiters and non-waiters will want to find out as much as possible about their partner. Going back to my first paragraph now waiters are at a disadvantage as they deny themselves access to the physical, something non-waiters don't.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest rule, for myself, is nothing around the middle area can be touched (EXCEPT for maybe an arm around my waist), and DEFINITELY no touching this area without clothing. The only exception I can think of is in a swimming situation. I wouldn't want to dash the fun on something like that but, even then, they must keep their hands off of the private areas. Cuddling is ok, kissing is also a perfectly acceptable form of physical affection. I will close my eyes, or turn away, from some things on television, but mainly because of my own reactions. I'm not as strict as a lot of people here, but I know my limits. I, myself, really don't want to save kissing for marriage, but I don't want to have heavy make-out sessions. I have had little experience, but enough to know that I dont want that. I'm not sure if that is clear, but I'm quite sure that if I do happen to meet a guy that is interested in talking to me about this, I'll be able to clarify. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like what the couples do on 19 Kids And Counting (Jessa and Ben, Jill and Derick) where they only really side-hug and hold hands eventually up until they get married. But I don't know if it's for me. 

I know some of my closest friends and family love giving full-on hugs and I like them too... And also I'm a very touchy feely with people I really love (I have like a little OCD which doesn't help lol) and its never lead to anything sexual before. I think you have to know what you're capable of and what would or wouldn't tempt you to do something you'll regret. I don't know yet how I feel about kissing but I think it's true what Ashley Johnson said (in a video I can't seem to find right now) that sometimes you get that connection with someone and it's like "I have to kiss you right now" and it's just like a natural way of expressing your feelings for that person.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before marriage i think the kiss is ok, but not more than that 'cause when u give more & unfortunatetly u both are no longer 2gether u find urself doing the same things with the other Partner & so on & so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think hugging, holding hands, and cuddling are okay before marriage.  I think light kissing on the lips, head, forehead, and cheeks is okay, particularly if the couple is engaged.  I don't believe in hands on the rear, or on the woman's bosom, or any touching of the groin area outside of marriage.  I think that light touching, kissing, and holding to show warmth and affection and to comfort the person is okay but, that those same acts, when sensually motivated, should be saved for marriage.

When it comes to movies I do indeed classify nude and sex secenes as full blown pornography.  Anytime anyone shares their nakedness with the public for money, I consider it part of a sex industry.  Anytime anyone exposes themselves and any part of the motivation for it is the public's enjoyment or entertainment then, it's pornography.  let's be honest.  The only reason nudity and sex are depicted is because most people in our culture want to see it and, when it's depicted, it makes more money.  Realistically, using the toilet is far more essential to daily life than sex yet, most TV show and movie makers choose not to depict their characters in the private act of getting rid of breakfast.  They instead leave that matter up to the assumption and imagination of the audiance.

I've heard the defense that it is just simulated sex only done in front of limited crew for the purpose of telling the story.  I disagree.  Anytime you have two naked people rubbing, touching, tasting, caressing, and partaking of one another's naked bodies; that is a sexual act.  Anytime they do it in front of others or in public, it's pornography.  I've never seen a movie or TV show that absolutely required those types of scenes to tell the story.  If someone has any value at all as a storyteller they can weave sex into the story without actually depicting it.

These sex acts aren't done merely in front of limited crew.  Countless millions of people end up watching those actors do it.  They are observed over and over -- more times than it's possible to count -- performing those sex acts on one another.  If they had done it in the middle of Yankee Stadium with every seat packed it would be less public than if they did it in a movie for the whole world and future generations to see.

That's not even the worst of it on a personal level for most of these actors and actresses.  Most of them have spouses or, boyfreinds and girlfreinds at the time they do these pornographic scenes.  Would you be okay with your spouse, boyfreind, or girlfreind making out with a coworker in public while you watched?  Would you be okay with them having sex in public with a coworker?  Would you be okay with a parent, a sibling, or your son or daughter doing those things in public?  Would it be okay to look into a stranger's window and watch them have sex?  Is it really any different looking into the TV screen watching the same thing?

I remember being nineteen the first time I ever saw the movie Braveheart.  My family had seen the previews and had been wanting to see the movie.  So, when it was released on VHS, my grandpa rented it and the whole family crowded into my grandparents living room to watch.  Everyone was so eager to see this hardcore medieval action movie that none of us thought to check the rating or read up on the content.  Well, there was a porn scene not too far into the show.  I was sitting right next to my grandmother, getting into the storyline when, suddenly a naked Mel Gibson is slobbering all over the naked body of a young woman half his age.

I wanted to sink down out of my chair and slide under a rock.  Needless to say, my grandma was very displeased with what was on the TV screen and, rightly so.  Ever since then, that experience has been my measuring stick for how decent and clean a movie is.  Would I feel comfortable watching a particular movie while sitting next to my grandmother with her old-time values and sensibilities?

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't quote? But this is a reply to BigMat.

 

You're missing out on some great films! Sex is a part of life as is the human body. It's the same as violence for me, not depicting it would be a lie. You don't have to be comfortable with it. And yet on the other hand I do think it's there just to titillate. Compare Wolf Hall to Game Of Thrones, though the latter is fictional it's based around the war of the roses. So whilst similar GOT has tons of nudity and Wolf Hall had very little, yet it was vastly, vastly superior.  My main problem is that it's sometimes pure laziness. But in some cases depictions of sex are entirely necessary to the film/TV. As for Braveheart it's all over the place historically but it's quite a traditional love story. They wait to get married and then that scene occurs.

 

As for the actors, yeah I'm not sure how they can do that. I remember some actor with a girlfriend talking about how incredible it was making out with Angelina Jolie. It's weird but clearly for them it's just acting. They can separate it. I couldn't nor could I be with an actress!

 

I guess it's what you've been exposed to. Europe may be a little different. I began wanting to WTM around 16/17. I was on the football team and as you can imagine it was a 'jack the lad' culture. (do you call them jocks?) I fitted in ok until girls came up in conversation. These guys would treat girls like objects. My moment of 'yep i'm definitely waiting' came when 5 or 6 of them began filming girls on their phones. And participating in a craze called 'donkey punching' which involved hitting a girl in the head to force her to contract or something, which gave them an exaggerated pleasure, I can't recall, I would keep my head down and try not to listen. It was disgusting and yet the girls would know what was coming and still sleep with these guys! That's when I thought i'd never be with a girl stupid enough to allow guys to treat her in such a way. So when you're getting changed in the corner and a group of guys are watching each other's video's, of girls you know, sex scenes aren't that bad in comparison.

 

I've got other horror stories, from guys I know who went to Uni and are Doctors, Lawyers, Architects and a suprising number of scientists. (I've never met a single 'nerdy' scientist!) When you're sat around with guys who are smart, educated and yet treat women like disposable objects your decision to wait really gets strengthened! So many girls depress me with the stuff they're willing to do to fit in.

 

Growing up sex was treated like eating. It was so casual. So I guess it depends on whether you've been desensitised. Films and sex scenes don't bother me very much. And it wasn't just the 'douchebags' who treated women that way. I had a mate at Uni who was a really nice guy, kind, funny. His girlfriend was visiting and the three of us and another guy were sat in a bar. The moment she went to the bathroom he got his phone out and showed us the naked pictures of her! And that was really common. You'd think with people changing boyfriend/girlfriend they wouldn't want photos stuck on someone else's phone but so many people had them.

It's why I think I might end up with a foreigner!

As for a relationship, whatever the woman I'm lucky enough to be with is comfortable with. I'll let her set the boundaries on that one.  

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Sex is a part of life as is the human body. It's the same as violence for me, not depicting it would be a lie. You don't have to be comfortable with it. And yet on the other hand I do think it's there just to titillate. But in some cases depictions of sex are entirely necessary to the film/TV. As for Braveheart it's all over the place historically but it's quite a traditional love story. They wait to get married and then that scene occurs.

 

As for the actors, yeah I'm not sure how they can do that. I remember some actor with a girlfriend talking about how incredible it was making out with Angelina Jolie. It's weird but clearly for them it's just acting. They can separate it. I couldn't nor could I be with an actress!

 

I agree. And actually, violence and death in media bothers me much more than sex in media. I'm more comfortable watching a (tasteful, not gratuitous) sex scene in a movie while sitting next to my mother than I am watching a depiction of intense violence while sitting next to my mother. And yet, I do think that some violence and death can be important to telling the story, just like some sex can be important to telling the story. This differs from graphic violence for the sake of graphic violence, or graphic sex for the sake of graphic sex.

 

And yeah, presumably if you're dating or married to an actor you kinda knew what you signed up for.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the levels of violence in films is gross. Violence that's accurate and part of a story is fine. But the amount of violence played for laughs is horrible. Films in which a guy is battered or shot purely for comedic purposes... no thanks.

 

'As an actress said to a bishop'

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't quote? But this is a reply to BigMat.  . . . . . .

 

When they were alive, I didn't need to look into my grandparent's bedroom and watch them "do it" just to know that that they were deeply in love with one another or, to even know that they still made love.  These things were apparent without me seeing them do the act.  The same principal holds true for stories.

Choosing not to depict sex and nudity is not the same thing as lying about it.  As I indicated in my previous post in this thread, a storyteller doesn't have to depict those things taking place to make it known that they happened.  It can be stated that it took place or alluded to, as is generally the case in real life.  I am an intelligent, perceptive guy.  I don't need to actually see it happen to know that it did happen.

I will never believe that this boils down to it being necessary to tell a story.  I am of a firm mind that this is a matter of people in this culture desiring to be entertained by other people's sex and nudity.  That's what they want so that's what's given to them.  It's the same with the aformentioned violence.

It's easier on the conscience to claim that watching these things is okay so long as they are incorporated into a storyline.  The end result is the same, storyline or not.  People were entertained and derived satisfaction by watching other people's spouses and romantic interests bear their nakedness and perform sex acts.  I just don't see how someone could truly believe in their heart that it's okay to watch such a thing.

Don't misunderstand.  I'm no innocent.  Over the years I have watched a lot of the same pornography in movies and TV shows that everyone else has.  That being stated, I'm certainly not going to purport that it was okay for me to have done so, even if it was incorporated into a storyline.

I wholeheartedly agree that sex, sexuality, and the human body are a part of life.  That fact doesn't preclude something from being pornography or, make it okay when; what should be a private, intimate, personal act, is shared publicly or with the world, particularly if it is to entertain and please an audiance.

Anyway, who says I miss out on otherwise well crafted stories.  The "skip to next scene" button on the DVD remote works flawlessly.  I can bypass the pornographic scenes -- and any overly violent scenes as well -- and watch the movie without hardly skipping a beat.  You know what?  Shows don't seem to lose anything or be any less complete when I choose not to view those scenes, which leads me to conclude that they are unecessary.  That includes the movie "Braveheart" which, I have watched a number of times over the years -- sans the pornography that Mel Gibson felt it necessary to put himself into.

I do want to commend you for refusing to participate and join in the vile acts of your classmates.  You don't know how sick I felt in my heart after reading what you wrote.  Punching someone in the head while having sex with them is full blown sexual abuse.  Not only that, it is one of the greatest acts of disrespect a male could demonstrate to a female -- to a fellow human being, period.  It is disrespectful to everything that sex and love is.  That type of behaviour is animalistic and subhuman.

It is probably best left unshared what I believe should be done to a creature who would behave in that manner.  I will say this, your classmates weren't young men, they weren't even boys.  They chose to be something less than wild, rabid beasts.  It is beyond appalling that this is what passes for appropriate behaviour and proper treatment of our companion gender amongst many of the young males in our modern culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep I was as disgusted as you. Apparently it made a girls private parts contract or something. But don't think the girls had no idea what was happening, they knew, allowed it, seemed just as proud... all to be 'popular'.

 

I agree with you on films. It's not as If Casablanca showed anything explicit!!

 

All those guys were/are successful. When I was on a gap year and they were home for Christmas, they invited me to stay with them for a week and play this game with them. The game was called 'king for a week' Or 'king of the house' or some shit. It involved the 7/8/9 guys in the house winning this crown which meant they didn't have to do anything for that week. In order to win the crown you had to pick up a girl, screw her and throw her out early the next morning. They told me this as if it was hilarious. I felt sorry for the first couple of girls but as usual they always had willing participants. The last part they told me was that they had a tie one week and so it went to whoever threw the girl out with the least clothes. One guy threw a girl out naked. Needless to say I didn't go!!

 

But it was just a part of the 'jack the lad' culture. Nobody thought anything of it. These guys and girls were smart. Some are doctors/lawyers/architect/scientists. But it was just fun for them. To me I found it really degrading and disgusting. But they kept getting girls.

 

That's another aside, girls who think male experience=great sex. I never heard anything, once, from them about a girl enjoying herself. Those kind of people are welcome to each other. I'll play football with those guys and stuff, talk with them but I just couldn't be with a girl who willingly goes for that weird stuff.  And they are totally normal with guys and female friends but clearly once they drop their pants they enter into some weird competition with other guys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now