Can unmarried Christians have oral?

So how far does the premarital ban actually extend anyway?

Kissing, touching, oral - is that allowed, and how about if you are married?

 

I don't think your supposed to do any of that; sex only for procreation purposes; for married couples once you stop having children I think your supposed to stop having any sex all together; holding hands is permitted I think.

 

Sounds about consistent with the Church - but why?

what is the problem with non intercourse action

 

Evil burning lust that takes you away from God, of course.

God hates sex.

 

I'm screwed then!

 

Yep. One way or the other

 

As far as I remember even thinking of any sexual actions towards a counterpart that is not your husband or wife is a sin... Well. I am a sinner. Now since I have accumlated quite a good experience of these sins I think that I can tell that nothing was comparable to the sex with wife. Because after all having sex with someone that you don't have a tie is like stealing what belongs to someone else. There of course is a special sense that you feel once stealing a goodie but this sense is not very pleasant. Basically is I have never had any sexual experience of any pervertion before I got married - I wouldn't lose a single thing. And I would thin of myself better than I do for the moment. But I agree that it sounds extremely weird and none of the teens will ever believe that it is so.

Sexual pleasure doesn't come of a stimulation of special zones. This can be compared with a reflexion movement. A corpse can also move (Fish can move without any limbs and hen can run aroud for some time without a head. But this movement and action doesn't mean that it is alive. A real pleasure come when you see that the one whom you love loves you in return, once you see that she regards herself as one body with you and you feel her body with your every cell understanding that she does the same. In this case it is not necessary to penetrate any of the holes or even to touch her. But a slightest memory of her eyes is enough for a pleasure which is billion times more pleasant than all the orgasms alltogether that I had before marrying.

 

sounds like a crock of horse manure to me, and how the hell is having sex with someone 'stealing' ?

 

How are you stealing anything? A person's body belongs to themselves. They are entitled to do with it as they please. What's the big deal? Even some married couples have an open relationship. It's hard to steal with is being given away and what someone else doesn't own in the first place. Do you think your wife's body was yours before you even met her? She never should have even kissed anyone else or do anything sexual at all, because it was YOURS from birth?

Necrophilia. Look it up. Sexual pleasure comes from all sorts of things.

I don't know, blow jobs and sex feel pretty awesome for me and I've never been married. You act as if people don't enjoy premarital sex, which they obviously do, or it wouldn't be a fact that almost everyone has sex before marriage. Also, people don't have to be married in order to have a loving relationship.

 

It's hard to explain if you don't understand. A family is a one body where husband and wife are 2 halves. That's what a family is. It is a different quality. It is more than a mere sum of its parts. Of course a car can have a jet engine installed on it for some time with trying it. But this would take time and is useless as long as a jet engine belongs to a jet plane and a car needs combustion engine. It doesn't mean that any of these engines are worse or better. But everyone should have their own. That's what christians in other words believe. In other words being christian you have to believe in love. In real love. And that love should be one to be real. Out of all diversity of men and women there should be one yours. The other beliefs, which were not a subject of the topic really can survive without love. This way it's stupid not to try someone else during the life. So every non-christian needs to make sex with women, men, goats, corpses, trees and everything possible to check for the best type of what is considered to be called 'pleasure'.

For sure it was not. I cannot blame her for that. But she also agrees that if I was her only man in her sexual life she wouldn't have lost anything. The big deal is doing something right. There are multiple ways to do things wrong. And much fewer ways to do the things right. But to tell right of wrong and goodness from badness you need a sort of criteria. Christianity is one of these sets of critiria. So if you want to have sex as a christian you need to wait until you get married. That's how things work.

Ejaculation of semen and heart beat with a breth taken is not yet a pleasure. But again it's a difference in understanding. If you give your own definition that is closer to your own feelings, your own picture of the world, so it is more valuable to you as any christianity and society or anyone else. It makes sense. But since you call yourself a christian you need to modify your feelings up to your feeling of God. you need to work at yourself and get 'better' after every confession. In terms of libs being christian is being 100% slave without any freedom. But in terms of christianity acting like everyone wants is hell and animal conduct, that is a lie of Satan. To illustrate it try to dfine the technical side of sexual pleasure and imagine a demon that domes to you take by the balls and squeezes it so strong that your semen comes out. I am sure that you will hold your breth and your heart will start beating and you will have every aspect of a technical orgasm definition... but for the pleasure. ))

I am not an angel. So I really have to admit that I had the situation that girls that I was seducing after the sex asked me (being quite obvious to have lost my interest the other second after the first night) if sex with them was pleasant. And I eagerly answered that it was the best thing in my life ever... but I actually lied in all these cases. But for one. For the girl that is my wife and whom I really want to live all my life with.

 

Imagine that there is a feast. A master of the house is waiting for guests. But for some reason you come an hour earlier than everyone and eat your part of the treatment take your part of dancing and leave..., because the party you were waited at is behind the corner and you had your part without being invited by mistake. Then the guests come to the table that was already used a dancing pole that was already used, a house that was already used. The master (or mistress) was really making it all for them. Not for you. She is still capable to have a good party but it is a little bit bitter, isn't it?

At least once I had sex without the inclanation to get married I had that feeling. And it is written in the Bible that a man shouldn't desire the wife of his neighbour (My citation of Bible in English is awful, cause it's not my native language). And what did a christian do if he has just had sex with the girl that would never become his wife if not exactly what is directly forbidden?

 

No, that's YOUR definition of a family. I see people as being whole, in and of themselves. And I don't think families have to have legal ties to each other, or some kind of a marital commitment.

Sorry, but Christians don't get to define "real" love. How insulting to claim that anyone who does not have a relationship like yours does not have real love.

lol, what. This is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I'm out.

 

It's a christian definition. During the approved ceremony of wedding in the church that is exactly what is told by the priest. He tells "Let the wife becomes a part of her husband and be obedient to her husband in everything he demands and let the husband take care of his wife as he does of himself... Let them act as one single body". This is what is christian.
Nit I don't deny that there are a lot other individual understanding of a family. And I don't deny that people can choose these kinds remaining trustworthy parts of society. It is their choice. But if they want to call themselves christians they should have a kind of a ground for it.

I didn't say that. I really think so. Because God is love. How a person can love is he doesn't believe in love?! But I haven't said so. I am not denying that other religions or philosophical concepts can grant people with true love feeling. Although I have never heard of such and have never seen anything that is close to christian philosophy. If you regard my non-belief into your philosophical system as an insult - it is your right. You can go to court with it if you wish. But try to understand that I was not interested in anything but christian definition.
I understand that most (not all) people want to have better experiences. That's why women have to make silicon tits. If you speak of love, true love and one body - silicon tits don't make any sense. But if the philosophy demands a biggest pleasure for a success without any attempt o love and be loved than silicon tits is everything that really matters. Then if mywife had smaller brests than a neighbour chick who would be willing to make sex with me I should have cufked her as hard as it is possible to remain successful under non-christian philosophy. And being non-christian I could come to a friend of mine boasting that I had sex with an asian germaphrodite blonde twins with the biggest bra that can be used as a cover for his jeep. There is sense to do so or less 'successful' in the philosophy without love and God. But with God and for christians this approach to sex is just a sin.

You just don't seem to have that much of experience. Since you lose the interests for blondes, brunettes and red-heads you would need to look for something else. This race for something else is a good alternative to race for true love. They are both time-consuming.

 

Why do you keep making up dumbarse anecdotes?

 

How about pigs and horses, what do you have against them?

 

If some pervert tried it and got 'pleasure' - for sure it makes sense for those non-christian that value the quantity and diversity more than God. But not for me. I am christian.

 

Because I have to talk to people who are very different from me. I need them to understand my point. And that is done by anecdotes way. Look at the Bible. It explains what God thinks to those who are not gods at all. Is there any formula of how to make a world in seven days? Not. But what is written there is understood by english, russians, chinese and australian natives. If I start to tell in the terms I am thinking - my opponents would shrug their shoulders and lose any interest as to any senseless bla-bla-bla.

If the form of veres with rhymes would work better I can try it.

 

With all due respect you are trying to advocate a version of what family etc is that has only been around for some 2,000 years, what about the 200,000 years where your version did not exist. There is plenty of historical evidence to show that one man, one woman was not the norm. Societies change they adhere to a set of beliefs for a period of time and then those beliefs change, which is what is happening now, the religious view is fast becoming pretty irrelevant as far as family and sex is concerned, is it for the better . .well only time will tell, but to try and stand against it will not stop it happening.

 

I agree that a christian family existed for a certain period of time and it is able to exist in certain circumstances. I understand the tradition of islanders and tribes tha live in remote areas to offer their daughters and wives for a night to every traveller. It has a good biological reason. But perversions and pleasure have never ever been a core of a real existing culture. Every type of known culture has at least some traditions for a certain events like birth, death and coming of kid's age. Every society had its own beliefs about the event when a new member of society was born. Because the repeoduction of society is the most important. Death is also something that will occur to everyone and its scare and mistery of turning a just lived flesh into decomposing piece of material is followed by at least something that contributes to culture. Every nation ever existed had a ceremony or mark to notify that a child has turned into a man or woman. Which means that before he could have been taught by elder ones and now he passed into a status when he has a responsibility an obligation or at least an opportunity to be ufcked by different members of such a society. These traditions come throughout all the history and all religions. Some traditions are interesting, some are awful and sadistic, but it all is about survival under circumstances.

Christian family is not the only way of living. For the moment our society doesn't burry wife\wives in case her\their husband died. Because the society found the way to support widows. Women can work themselves. they started to get pensions somewhat a hundred years or a couple hundred years. It is possible. And there is no need for traditional limits. Christian family oblidged kids to be responsible of their older parents. That also make sense. Some cultures meant that old people should be eaten or sent to die in a special place of starvation. That was also a ritual based on survival It makes sense.

The difference of christian family between all these forms of family is that it is not necessarily oriented at survival. Being a christian you can choose death. But if you remain 'good' according to the religion - you still did a right thing. Pagan person will never him right but dead. And that is smth that makes today competitor of christian family more a continuation of a pagan tradition. Since the state is willing to provide help to any schoolgirls that bear a kid at any age of the mother - it's possible. Since every parent can be sent to the house of elder people (like Abe Simpson in a cartoon) - it's possible not to have kids. Since government is supporting pervertions without penalties for it and even helps to cure the inevitable infections that come after sex without real choice of a clean partner - it is also possible. But what happens if the economic state changes? What happens if the government doesn't have any power to fed elderly people, to help teen-moms to bring up their kids and to ease the suffereings or to cure those who have to pay with their future for a druncj ucfk? I tell you what happens. In a decade after the state doesn't have money the free people of a free country will kill every pregnant girl under 18. In a marketplace. This will create a lot of problems but the quantity of the girls that don't mind a ufck in school will decrease drastically. Once a hundred of older people dies of hunger - every person will take the last healthy kid from an orphanage. In order to make sure that he would feed those who love him. As for gays the law would be changed into a law of Saudi Arabia about them...

So the new way of a family that you tell as a winning is only one consequence of today's welfare in the western countries. It is so not any surprising that the laws about gays are mostly adopted in rich countries. Who can afford such a project. Those countries that cannot - are not that willing to introduce it. If you added some propaganda and money fat to Russia, I bet that, Putin would make laws about promoting being gays in kindergardens!

And you know what a christian family would do under new worse circumstances? Think you do. It would get stronger. And eventually it would be able to restore the liberties, which are now supposed to be killing it.

 

Quickest way to make sex boring ? Analyze it to death.....

Sexual pleasure/gratification is different for different people...there are no rules....oh, ya, rules, the second quickest way to make sex boring...

 

Do you haqve a hobby? The one that you really like? Like collecting postal stamps. Or being a fan of baseball team? Smth you really like? A passion!

Now please tell if in any of these hobbies you have ever got tired of:
1) analysing things to death
2) making your own rules and traditions.

))))
I would say that people's difference is like a shape of lego detail. It's like an element of the puzzle. Not every person meets with all criteria of another person. Some elements are matching in shape. Some in color. Some elemenets stick the same due to being different of other people. But every sex is good if it has rules and if a person knows what is good for his partner and what is absolutely inappropriate.

PS. But it is actually getting like an interview about sex, which doesn't sound that healthy for all of us, guys. The question in the topic was completely different. And the answer of mine was already given. Thanks for discussion to everyone and I wish that afterall everyone of us feels fine enough for making sex... Cause to make sex you need not only to sit in the Internet...

 

If you compare sex to baseball and stamp collecting you can't possibly enjoy it....I never had to read abook on "How to Have Sex".....and things have been just fine!

 

Christianity just does not want to talk about any of these matters and believes people need avoid such discussions totally.

Just don't have a baby when unmarried.
That is the only rule ,with total darkness on the subject of sex, otherwise.

 

The problems with sexual behaviors is that unwanted and fatherless children start to appear in ever greater numbers, as Welfare becomes essential and violent crimes rise with it.

 

So it's OK if unmarried christians bonk like rabbits as long as no child is produced?

The sin is in making a baby? Are babies sinful? Bad?

If they get pregnant and have an abortion , thus no baby, is it OK then,too?