Virgin Show about couples who don't even kiss until married

Got a question? We may have some answers!
Forum rules

1) This is a Christian site, respect our beliefs and we will respect yours.

2) This is a family friendly site, no swearing or posting offensive links, pictures, or signatures.

3) Please be respectful of others.

4) Trolls are not welcome and will be dealt with accordingly.

5) No racial comments, jokes or images

6) If you see a dead thread over 6 months old, let it rest in peace

7) No Duplicate posts
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
ArchAngel wrote:But they aren't in those cultures, they are in ours. If there was another expression for physical intimacy for us, they'd abstain from that. The fact that they abstain from it all together shows that they do find it as a primary form of physical intimacy, and that's the end goal: to prohibit physical affection toward each other, and that's what I'm talking about.

Looking at kissing at that level is interesting, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.
But it's not prohibiting physical affection. It's putting it into a framework they feel helps them to avoid the temptation to go too far.

I fail to see why that's awful. Sounds to me like they have more self control and character than most. That's to be commended, not derided.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
That framework you mention is all about avoiding physical affection.

You can commend their self-control all you want, but apparently, they don't have more than people who can kiss and still don't sleep with each other before marriage. And I certainly don't just randomly commend self-control regardless of the context. In matter of fact, sometimes I must ask why people make their lives needlessly difficult.

And I have no idea about their character. For that, I'll have to get to know them first. They could be pretentious, self-righteous jerks for all I know, or they can be kind, super caring, upstanding people. The mere fact they aren't kissing doesn't particularly speak to either of those. I'm not questioning whether they are good or bad people, I'm questioning the support for their beliefs.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3289
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne
Contact:
You can commend their self-control all you want, but apparently, they don't have more than people who can kiss and still don't sleep with each other before marriage. And I certainly don't just randomly commend self-control regardless of the context. In matter of fact, sometimes I must ask why people make their lives needlessly difficult.
This is the conclusion I ultimately came to, for the record.
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
I don't understand why you guys would react as if abstaining from such kissing is such a hardship. Talk about mountains and molehills. It's not like they're starving themselves by crash dieting to fit into a wedding dress.

This discussion reminds me of one I had once on another site where I commented that teenagers were better off practicing abstinence. The flurry of arguments was incredible. Despite the fact that if teens were abstinent there would be no teenagers with STDs, no teen pregnancy, less frequent teen suicide, etc... you'd have thought I was advising teens to abstain from oxygen. I mean these people were going absolutely berzerk and one or two even asserted that sex was a necessity of life and that's why it would be wrong to encourage teens to avoid it.

Not saying that's what you guys are doing, of course. It just reminded me.

Kissing like that isn't a necessity, avoiding it isn't unhealthy, they aren't abstaining from all physical affection, and you guys are cracking me up :lol:
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 34700
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:
Easier said than done. ;)
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
Oh, I'm sure they hug, but still leave a little room for the Holy Spirit. (that one makes laugh, albeit muffled by my groaning). It's not like they can't go to first base, but sprinting to second is totally permissible.

But you hug your grandmother. Their relationship has the physical affection level of that of a grandparent or a mild acquaintance. That is not a healthy way to start out a romantic relationship. They're starting out a lifelong relationship that not only should be predicated by much physical attraction, but is inherently sexual. But yes, let's start it out on the first legs by treating each other as if the other was an elderly relative or casual friend, and only when we passed the line of no return can we actually start treating it like it was anything more.
It's actually blowing my mind right now how little you value physical affection in a romantic relationship. Like it is some mild afterthought.

If I challenged you to not kiss your wife for the next week or or the next month, do you think that'd be a-okay?
I'm mean, I'm not because I wouldn't want to put your wife through that. Seriously, don't do it, brah.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
ArchAngel wrote:Oh, I'm sure they hug, but still leave a little room for the Holy Spirit. (that one makes laugh, albeit muffled by my groaning). It's not like they can't go to first base, but sprinting to second is totally permissible.

But you hug your grandmother. Their relationship has the physical affection level of that of a grandparent or a mild acquaintance. That is not a healthy way to start out a romantic relationship. They're starting out a lifelong relationship that not only should be predicated by much physical attraction, but is inherently sexual. But yes, let's start it out on the first legs by treating each other as if the other was an elderly relative or casual friend, and only when we passed the line of no return can we actually start treating it like it was anything more.
It's actually blowing my mind right now how little you value physical affection in a romantic relationship. Like it is some mild afterthought.
Dude if that's what you think I'm saying then I have represented myself very poorly. Physical affection is extremely important in a romantic relationship. The morality is in knowing that there's a time and a place for it. Fornication = bad so as important as sex is, it's meant to be left for after the marriage. This couple chose to include mouth kissing in that. I fail to see why that's so shocking to you.

And the grandmother analogy doesn't work. I bet this couple held hands as they walked down the sidewalk. You CAN do that with Grandma but it wouldn't be anywhere near the same. Just like how my daughter kisses me goodnight on the mouth but the idea that it's similar to how my wife kisses me goodnight is absurd (and creepy). Apples and oranges. I don't high five my Grandma either but that doesn't mean I'm engaged to whomever I do high-five. (Boy, that would be interesting...)

I don't know about you but my romantic relationship with my wife is not defined by the ways in which we interact physically. Rather, it's the other way around. I like that this couple clearly defined what they were comfortable with doing and stuck to it, even if the standard is a little different from one that I'd have chosen.
ArchAngel wrote: If I challenged you to not kiss your wife for the next week or or the next month, do you think that'd be a-okay?
Of course not. That would be absurd. She's my wife. That means we can do whatever we like. :twisted:
ArchAngel wrote: I'm mean, I'm not because I wouldn't want to put your wife through that. Seriously, don't do it, brah.
We both appreciate that greatly, my friend. :P
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
You're right, I'm guilty of over-exaggerating the circumstances. They aren't denied a romantic relationship because they don't kiss, but I still hold that it is stunted. Early on in their relationship up to their marriage, which should be a very advanced, mature time for them as a couple, they have learned to develop their relationship with very little physical affection. This has an affect how how they are as a couple, and it's going to be an added hurdle for them. It's going to take a little more effort. Just another thing to add to the list of things in your relationship to redefine and adjust to.

They aren't irreparably damaged, or they will be destined for divorce, it's just something I see no benefits, a stunted relationship, and it's not even biblical. So, the point? To play it safe, and for this, I have an additional problem.

Now, I don't have an issue with safety, it should be heeded, but often the church likes taking biblically irrelevant positions to "play it safe." In the same vein, many preach against dating only courting. People will correct you if you use the wrong word, because courting is only for marriage. So, the only difference is that teens have been courting several times over, and gone through a couple engagements, for what is only a more emotionally devastating break up. One of the worst decisions in my past was to put the weight of marriage on a girl I had a crush on, because "dating is for marriage," and anything else is sin/worthless. I never even asked her out, because I can only date if I'm sure I want to marry her."
I'd normally just say playing it safe screwed me over, but it's not that simple. If I was just making a risk/safety equation, I'd really just be at terms with whatever my decision was. But no, this brand of playing it safe comes with baggage of "the will of God" and "morality" with it. There's no thinking, oh hey, I think we should play it safe. It's a choice that gets branded with the "blessing of God." And here's the kicker.
The conservative christian believes the Bible is the Word of God, and that they should follow it as a guideline. But as I said before, it's not in there. People are preaching this concept as if it was a biblical teaching, but they well just came up with it themselves. I find that repulsive. You know I now argue against just taking the Bible as pure truth, but there's a level of understanding that the people sincerely believe it and try to understand it and come to terms with it. But when you just make stuff up and act like it's from it all along, it's a whole new level of dishonesty.

So, now we have a wedding, a christian couple doing what they believe God wants them to, have their first kiss on the altar and a pastor comments on beautiful it is that they waited for their first kiss, as if it was commanded by God himself. Does it not strike you as a bit presumptuous to speak for God so flippantly? It infuriated me when I was a Christian.

As a side note, I understand not everybody is like this, but there's a very strong undertone with the people who do push this view forward, and with is, some judgement for people who don't.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ChickenSoup
CCGR addict
Posts: 3289
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: the doomed ship HMS Sinkytowne
Contact:
Arch, what you said (which I agree with) reminded me of something. Did anyone else have that one couple in high school/youth group/etc. that talked about how much they felt God in the relationship, but broke up before the year was out?
My name is ChickenSoup and I have several flavors in which you may be interested
User avatar
Nate DaZombie
VIP Member
VIP Member
Posts: 753
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:15 pm
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
ChickenSoup wrote:Arch, what you said (which I agree with) reminded me of something. Did anyone else have that one couple in high school/youth group/etc. that talked about how much they felt God in the relationship, but broke up before the year was out?
I was really happy when that couple broke up. Seriously.
User avatar
ccgr
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 34700
Joined: Wed May 25, 2005 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Location: IL
Contact:
I called off an engagement when part of the problem was that we were unequally yoked (the other part of the problem was that he was questioning if proposing was the right thing since I was his first girlfriend...) but after that experience I truly believe that God was (and still is) a central part of Jay's and my relationship. We got baptized together and I gave him his first Bible. No plans for divorce anytime soon.
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
ArchAngel wrote: I'd normally just say playing it safe screwed me over, but it's not that simple. If I was just making a risk/safety equation, I'd really just be at terms with whatever my decision was. But no, this brand of playing it safe comes with baggage of "the will of God" and "morality" with it. There's no thinking, oh hey, I think we should play it safe. It's a choice that gets branded with the "blessing of God." And here's the kicker.
The conservative christian believes the Bible is the Word of God, and that they should follow it as a guideline. But as I said before, it's not in there. People are preaching this concept as if it was a biblical teaching, but they well just came up with it themselves. I find that repulsive. You know I now argue against just taking the Bible as pure truth, but there's a level of understanding that the people sincerely believe it and try to understand it and come to terms with it. But when you just make stuff up and act like it's from it all along, it's a whole new level of dishonesty.
That's true. Was this couple saying kissing was un-Biblical? I don't remember... If they did make that claim, then I'm definitely with you on this part.
ArchAngel wrote: So, now we have a wedding, a christian couple doing what they believe God wants them to, have their first kiss on the altar and a pastor comments on beautiful it is that they waited for their first kiss, as if it was commanded by God himself. Does it not strike you as a bit presumptuous to speak for God so flippantly? It infuriated me when I was a Christian.
Yes it does. Very presumptuous. I think if, for whatever reason, God wanted this couple to wait, then He has ways of communicating that to them directly. I'm generally very skeptical of people claiming to know God's Will when they have no real basis for backing that up.
ArchAngel wrote: As a side note, I understand not everybody is like this, but there's a very strong undertone with the people who do push this view forward, and with is, some judgement for people who don't.
True but that goes both ways. My story about that other forum applies to this as well.
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
Definitely, there are a lot of people whose hangups just keep them from having a discussion of any sort. I have little patience for people like that.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
User avatar
ArcticFox
CCGR addict
Posts: 3502
Joined: Mon Aug 13, 2007 12:00 am
Are you human?: Yes!
Contact:
ArchAngel wrote:Definitely, there are a lot of people whose hangups just keep them from having a discussion of any sort. I have little patience for people like that.
I think that kind of behavior is generally motivated by insecurity.

You know what my big burning question is from all of this?

Now that they're married, has anyone taught that poor couple how to kiss properly? :mrgreen:
"He who takes offense when no offense is intended is a fool, and he who takes offense when offense is intended is a greater fool."
—Brigham Young

"Don't take refuge in the false security of consensus."
—Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
ArchAngel
CCGR addict
Posts: 3539
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 12:00 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:
I imagine after someone looses the tip of their tongue, they'll tone it down a little.
Pew Pew Pew. Science.

RoA: Kratimos/Lycan
UnHuman: Tim
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Ahrefs [Bot] and 16 guests