# Being on a bed with the opposite sex



## T.U.L.I.P. TYLER

I know and have friends who lay in bed with there fiances or what not (they are Christians). They are not sexually active, not even lusting or what not from what they tell me and what I see, but is this ok? Is it ok to be in bed with your fiance to like watch a movie and is it ok to sleep in the same bed maybe like a nap, if you are not sexually active or lusting etc?

I feel convicted on this issue as a no for the last question but just curious to see the Biblical support that I may be not paying attention to.



ps. hope this is in the right place


----------



## TimV

The only example that comes to mind is Ruth.


----------



## Marrow Man

Tyler, per the Board rules, please fix your signature as follows (the edit feature is found under the User CP menu across the top):



> All members of the Puritanboard must have a minimal "signature" in their User Control Panel that includes the following items:
> 
> First Name (or nickname)
> Ministry Position (if you are a Church Office holder)
> Denominational Affiliation
> State of Residence
> 
> A signature would look like this:
> 
> William
> Ruling Elder, PCA
> Fort Worth, TX


----------



## Kim G

The Bible says "Flee youthful lusts." It's hard to imagine taking a nap with your fiance, or hanging out on a bed together, without having at least one twinge of lust. Why tempt yourself?

My


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Biblical wisdom is not always going to come to you in the form of apodictic (thou shall, though shall not) teaching from the Scriptures.

Without trying to create a one-to-one correspondence to the passage, Proverbs 4-6 gives general "father to son" talk about what is prudent in given situations. It describes what many of us older guys with some sinful scars from the indiscretions of our youth can testify to: don't put yourself in situations where you have to avoid being tempted into sexual sin.

My advice to you is that it's a bad idea for wisdom's sake.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Maybe not a bed. But a futon might be OK. Yeah, that's it. A futon. Or, maybe a couch. But not a bed.


----------



## tdowns

*My Advice...*

is get council, and if through council, you have support...get married fast!


----------



## T.U.L.I.P. TYLER

Semper Fidelis said:


> Biblical wisdom is not always going to come to you in the form of apodictic (thou shall, though shall not) teaching from the Scriptures.
> 
> Without trying to create a one-to-one correspondence to the passage, Proverbs 4-6 gives general "father to son" talk about what is prudent in given situations. It describes what many of us older guys with some sinful scars from the indiscretions of our youth can testify to: don't put yourself in situations where you have to avoid being tempted into sexual sin.
> 
> My advice to you is that it's a bad idea for wisdom's sake.



awesome advice


----------



## Rangerus

Gomarus said:


> Maybe not a bed. But a futon might be OK. Yeah, that's it. A futon. Or, maybe a couch. But not a bed.



 

thanks chief, i was going to suggest one of those army/navy surplus cots.


----------



## Grace Alone

Kim G said:


> The Bible says "Flee youthful lusts." It's hard to imagine taking a nap with your fiance, or hanging out on a bed together, without having at least one twinge of lust. Why tempt yourself?
> 
> My



My only thought about this is that it doesn't take laying on a bed watching TV for people to have lustful thoughts. That can happen when the two people are in a roomful of other people. I think the real issue is whether they have an agreement on what the boundaries are, and if they think they will be too tempted, then they shouldn't stay in a room alone. I don't really think the bed is that much more dangerous than a sofa, floor, or even a futon.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Is it sinful to lie on the same bed to watch or TV, or even sleep in the same bed before marriage? Strictly speaking, no. But as Rich and others have said, simply because it is permissible doesn't mean it is wise. I would advise against it, because the Bible very clearly teaches us to flee temptation ("If your right hand causes you to sin..."). Now, if you and your fiancee (or your friends) are mature enough to be among the few who would not be tempted by lying or sleeping next to their loved one in bed before marriage, then so be it. But I think most of us would feel strong temptation and would be put in an unnecessarily difficult situation in that context...


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Grace Alone said:


> Kim G said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bible says "Flee youthful lusts." It's hard to imagine taking a nap with your fiance, or hanging out on a bed together, without having at least one twinge of lust. Why tempt yourself?
> 
> My
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My only thought about this is that it doesn't take laying on a bed watching TV for people to have lustful thoughts. That can happen when the two people are in a roomful of other people. I think the real issue is whether they have an agreement on what the boundaries are, and if they think they will be too tempted, then they shouldn't stay in a room alone. I don't really think the bed is that much more dangerous than a sofa, floor, or even a futon.
Click to expand...


The difference is that there isn't room for two people to lie down on a sofa together in an innocent way. If you're that tempted, then, as you said, don't be in a room alone together. But the problem with a bed is that it's easy for the situation gradually to become more compromising.

Even if it doesn't result in lust, it's still likely to be emotionally inappropriate. It just strikes me as too emotionally intimate for an unmarried couple.


----------



## OPC'n

I don't understand why the tv is in the bedroom, but with that aside, why do people have others in their private rooms? What is wrong with the living room? If the visitor is that tired that they need a nap, then they should go home and get some proper sleep before going over to visit someone. It seems like people who are doing this are getting too acquainted with the other person. A bedroom really should be off limits to adults of the opposite sex unless they are married, because it signifies intimacy. Even as children we were not allowed into my parents' bedroom unless permission was given. Bedrooms do not bred sin, but it is a special place reserved for those who belong in it.


----------



## Rangerus

If beds were outlawed, only outlaws would have beds!


----------



## Herald

My daughter will have permission to sit in a chair on one side of the room while her fiance sits in a chair in another room. I have no problem with that.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

sjonee said:


> I don't understand why the tv is in the bedroom, but with that aside, why do people have others in their private rooms? What is wrong with the living room? If the visitor is that tired that they need a nap, then they should go home and get some proper sleep before going over to visit someone. It seems like people who are doing this are getting too acquainted with the other person. A bedroom really should be off limits to adults of the opposite sex unless they are married, *because it signifies intimacy*. Even as children we were not allowed into my parents' bedroom unless permission was given. Bedrooms do not bred sin, but it is a special place reserved for those who belong in it.



Yes, that's exactly what I meant, but you said it more concisely! If women are less likely to lust in this situation, they are maybe more likely to feel too much emotional intimacy because of what the scenario signifies. I am not married, so I don't really know, but I feel that this could be a problem even for engaged couples; there is a degree of emotional intimacy that should be reserved for marriage, precisely because it shouldn't be separated from physical intimacy. There are aspects of this that I certainly cannot understand at all, but I've heard some stories about others' marriages that led me to this conclusion.


----------



## ZackF

T.U.L.I.P. TYLER said:


> I know and have friends who lay in bed with there fiances or what not (they are Christians). They are not sexually active, not even lusting or what not from what they tell me and what I see, but is this ok? Is it ok to be in bed with your fiance to like watch a movie and is it ok to sleep in the same bed maybe like a nap, if you are not sexually active or lusting etc?
> 
> I feel convicted on this issue as a no for the last question but just curious to see the Biblical support that I may be not paying attention to.
> 
> 
> 
> ps. hope this is in the right place



Only in our epoch do we have to even ask these questions that most unbelievers in the past had the correct answers. Generations of people until about fifty years ago understood why unmarried couples should not be alone in bed or even at all. My future bride and I have had to draw up our own guidelines for our conduct because the social contructs for men and women are gone. If one isn't deliberate about doing so the bar is no doubt set too low and trouble is the result.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Herald said:


> My daughter will have permission to sit in a chair on one side of the room while her fiance sits in a chair in another room. I have no problem with that.



That's nicer than I was!


----------



## smhbbag

> Only in our epoch do we have to even ask these questions that most unbelievers in the past had the correct answers. Generations of people until about fifty years ago understood why unmarried couples should not be alone in bed or even at all. My future bride and I have had to draw up our own guidelines for our conduct because the social contructs for men and women are gone. If one isn't deliberate about doing so the bar is no dobout set too low and trouble will result.



I agree and this is true for the most part. There is a notable and extremely odd exception:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition)


----------



## OPC'n

ReformedWretch said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter will have permission to sit in a chair on one side of the room while her fiance sits in a chair in another room. I have no problem with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nicer than I was!
Click to expand...


Ok, guys, I hope we don't have our shot guns loaded and aimed.


----------



## ZackF

smhbbag said:


> Only in our epoch do we have to even ask these questions that most unbelievers in the past had the correct answers. Generations of people until about fifty years ago understood why unmarried couples should not be alone in bed or even at all. My future bride and I have had to draw up our own guidelines for our conduct because the social contructs for men and women are gone. If one isn't deliberate about doing so the bar is no dobout set too low and trouble will result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and this is true for the most part. There is a notable and extremely odd exception:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition)
Click to expand...


That is why I said most. LOL. Eunichs were also eunichs for a reason.


----------



## nicnap

Herald said:


> My daughter will have permission to sit in a chair on one side of the room while her fiance sits in a chair in another room. I have no problem with that.



My daughter...when the Lord provides, will be on one side of the room playing one piano, her male suitor will be playing another piano on the other side of the room. Their minds are active, their hands are active, and all the while they can talk to one another. (This is very similar to your proposal...with a slight twist.)


----------



## LawrenceU

It makes more sense to look for a natural gas leak with a Zippo lighter. I can't even believe that a Christian would propose the question. I assume they are either immature or very influenced by the world. Engaged or not it is entirely in appropriate; yes, I will say sinful.

Any male who proposed such to a young lady has no respect for her or her parents. If by some stretch of the imagination the young man who would some day be engaged to my daughter suggested such activity that he would no longer be my future son-in-law; and might very well require medical attention. 

I wrote 'stretch of the imagination' because we intend to be very critical of the young men who court our daughter.


----------



## nicnap

LawrenceU said:


> It makes more sense to look for a natural gas leak with a Zippo lighter.



 That was great...oh, the rest of your post was good too.


----------



## christiana

Abstain from the very appearance of evil. 1 Th 5:22
Dont place yourself in compromising circumstances! Protect your own integrity and prevent possibility of later regrets for human weakness.

http://www.biblebb.com/files/MAC/15GTY82.htm


----------



## py3ak

I have known of similar things happening with no ill effect, e.g., two engaged people fell asleep together on a couch, but no harm came of it: and I have known of cousins engaging in sexual abuse in such a situation.


----------



## Herald

sjonee said:


> ReformedWretch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> My daughter will have permission to sit in a chair on one side of the room while her fiance sits in a chair in another room. I have no problem with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's nicer than I was!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok, guys, I hope we don't have our shot guns loaded and aimed.
Click to expand...


And you have a problem with that why?


----------



## OPC'n

Herald said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ReformedWretch said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's nicer than I was!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, guys, I hope we don't have our shot guns loaded and aimed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you have a problem with that why?
Click to expand...


Hmmm, no sir! I'm good...thanx!


----------



## Herald

The following application will be completed by all perspective suitors.


----------



## ReformedWretch

Bill, I used that FOR REAL! (lol)


----------



## Herald

ReformedWretch said:


> Bill, I used that FOR REAL! (lol)


----------



## LeeJUk

that application was 
Nice one


----------



## Beoga

T.U.L.I.P. TYLER said:


> I know and have friends who lay in bed with there fiances or what not (they are Christians). They are not sexually active, not even lusting or what not from what they tell me and what I see, but is this ok? Is it ok to be in bed with your fiance to like watch a movie and is it ok to sleep in the same bed maybe like a nap, if you are not sexually active or lusting etc?
> 
> I feel convicted on this issue as a no for the last question but just curious to see the Biblical support that I may be not paying attention to.
> 
> 
> 
> ps. hope this is in the right place



If it is not sinful, then it is extremely stupid. 
I have different views than a lot of my christian friends down here at school. I think marriage is something more than "now you get to have sex," which I know they do too, but it is not demonstrated by their actions. I have had a number of friends who would put their girlfriends or fiancees to bed every night, sometimes falling asleep with them until the alarm on their cell phone told them to go home so that they wouldn't spend the night because that would be wrong. I even know someone whose fiancee doesn't have a roommate and he will still do this every night. This is seen as acceptable among my Christian friends. I think that this is the Christian form of living together because with this, every waking second not spent at work or in class, is spent together. They eat at one of their places every morning and night, do laundry together, clean apartments, run errands, etc. The only thing they don't do is spend the night together or have sex and so they “haven't crossed the line yet." Now, I am glad they like spending time with each other, and I am not necessarily opposed to couples doing these things, but every day and at every occurrence seems too much like being one without officially being one. 
Like people have said, “flee sexual temptation” and “let there not be a hint of sexual immorality among you.” Being in bed with your significant other, while you may not being engaging in any sexual activity, does not foster obedience to these commands. Save the joy of falling asleep together, and whatever accompanies that, for marriage.
Sorry for my rant, it has been something I have been dealing with a lot over the past year. I have sometimes expressed my disagreement to which I may hear replies of “don't worry” or “you wouldn't understand because you don't have a girlfriend." 
Long story short, don't be stupid, and the actions described in your questions are stupid.


----------



## smhbbag

> Bill, I used that FOR REAL! (lol)



So did my father-in-law


----------



## Edward

If the couple is being completely candid, perhaps they should pass on the whole idea of marriage.


----------



## he beholds

smhbbag said:


> Only in our epoch do we have to even ask these questions that most unbelievers in the past had the correct answers. Generations of people until about fifty years ago understood why unmarried couples should not be alone in bed or even at all. My future bride and I have had to draw up our own guidelines for our conduct because the social contructs for men and women are gone. If one isn't deliberate about doing so the bar is no dobout set too low and trouble will result.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and this is true for the most part. There is a notable and extremely odd exception:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition)
Click to expand...


That's exactly what came to mind for me, too! When I ran across that once I was very surprised that, really, no temptation is new.


> He [Jonathan Edwards] also attacked the custom of 'bundling,' where young courting people fully clothed would lie in bed. He charged, 'It is one of those things that lead and and expose to sin.'


----------



## AThornquist

Better wrap tight. If there is the chance of a young male getting out, he'll find it!


----------



## Brian Withnell

Gomarus said:


> Maybe not a bed. But a futon might be OK. Yeah, that's it. A futon. Or, maybe a couch. But not a bed.


----------



## Jesus is my friend

There is much excellent advice here and I just wanted to add and I believe this is important for the man to hear:

You as future leader of a potential marriage need to "draw a line" in the sand so to speak and be the one to set boundries before your lady friend/fiancee whatever,This is a very important step in leadership,to set the example,so I believe whatever decision you come to after recieving the scriptural support/Godly counsel, you need to initiate,in this you will show her you love and respect your Lord,her and her parents and she will hopefully see you making Godly decisions,This goes very deep and is crucial for the development of a Godly courtship,the alternative would be a potential disaster.But in laying your foundation in these seemingly small decisions you are laying a foundation in Christ for your (and His) future Bride


----------



## asc

T.U.L.I.P. TYLER said:


> I know and have friends who lay in bed with there fiances or what not (they are Christians). They are not sexually active, *not even lusting*...



Wow, is that possible??


----------



## ZackF

asc said:


> T.U.L.I.P. TYLER said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know and have friends who lay in bed with there fiances or what not (they are Christians). They are not sexually active, *not even lusting*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, is that possible??
Click to expand...


I wondered, if the whole thing is so innocent, why they don't just mix and match girlfriend/boyfriends? If you are engaged and in love with Susy, why not sleep "next" to your best friend Bob's girlfriend Sally. Surely modesty isn't any issue anyway. The whole thing would laughable if it were not so serious.


----------



## T.U.L.I.P. TYLER

alright Guys, this really was about a friend and not me...I am married but thanks for the concern


----------



## py3ak

I agree with the arguments about avoiding temptations to sin. If we put ourselves into temptations way, it must be no surprise when we fall. You, whoever you are, have to be realistic about this.

That being said, though, there is something that ought to be noticed. One is that our sex-crazed culture _can't_ be allowed to influence us to the point where we come to agree that really sex is behind everything. Not all physical contact is sexual; not all friendship is reducible to sexual longing; even being in love is not entirely or perhaps even primarily sexual. And so the _assumption_ that sexual longing is more or less always operative, I take to be a sellout to worldliness no less than spending the night at your girlfriend's apartment.
There is another explanation for the desire for physical closeness and contact: it's called _tenderness_ and you see it most days that you see small children.

And to the potential fathers-in-law, I would like to say that you should spend your energy protecting your daughters from wicked men - not from those you happen not to like. Your wisdom and your judgment are far from infallible. And if you want to be involved in the life of your grandchildren, making your future son-in-law jump through a series of demeaning hoops is not the cleverest way to accomplish that.


----------



## LawrenceU

I don't plan on making any suitor jump through demeaning hoops. I do plan on vetting him, though. He must be a man who loves the Lord deeply, has a growing life of faith, he must be morally and sexually pure, he must have not been looking at p0rnography in his past, he must adore and cherish women in general, he must be a leader and one who is already capable of supporting a family. Those are the starting places.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

LawrenceU said:


> I don't plan on making any suitor jump through demeaning hoops. I do plan on vetting him, though. He must be a man who loves the Lord deeply, has a growing life of faith, he must be morally and sexually pure, *he must have not been looking at p0rnography in his past*, he must adore and cherish women in general, he must be a leader and one who is already capable of supporting a family. Those are the starting places.



Never? What if he has repented? 

At my age (25), I would feel extremely blessed to find a man who had not had sex; much less one who had never once looked at p0rnography. I am definitely not debating you on this issue, just wondering about my own standards.

Edit: It does make me a little sick to think of that filth being in a man's mind.


----------



## he beholds

py3ak said:


> I agree with the arguments about avoiding temptations to sin. If we put ourselves into temptations way, it must be no surprise when we fall. You, whoever you are, have to be realistic about this.
> 
> That being said, though, there is something that ought to be noticed. One is that our sex-crazed culture _can't_ be allowed to influence us to the point where we come to agree that really sex is behind everything. Not all physical contact is sexual; not all friendship is reducible to sexual longing; even being in love is not entirely or perhaps even primarily sexual. And so the _assumption_ that sexual longing is more or less always operative, I take to be a sellout to worldliness no less than spending the night at your girlfriend's apartment.
> There is another explanation for the desire for physical closeness and contact: it's called _tenderness_ and you see it most days that you see small children.
> 
> And to the potential fathers-in-law, I would like to say that you should spend your energy protecting your daughters from wicked men - not from those you happen not to like. Your wisdom and your judgment are far from infallible. And if you want to be involved in the life of your grandchildren, making your future son-in-law jump through a series of demeaning hoops is not the cleverest way to accomplish that.



I agree with you. 
Also, I think you are supposed to be, or at least allowed to be, somewhat intimate before you are married. I would not want to marry someone whom I had not been emotionally intimate with. My husband was my best friend before we started dating, and when we started dating, he left to teach in China. We knew everything about eachother because all we could do is talk and write letters. There were no movies, dinners, boardgames, etc to distract us. Our "dates" were literally hours spent talking on the phone. 
Some people here said that we should not even be emotionally intimate before we are married. Barring arranged marriages--how does that happen? And I personally think that some physical intimacy is good before marriage. I'm not talking about rounding the bases, but being close and feeling a spark when you hold someone's hand or even when you snuggle and watch a movie. Even if you fall asleep. 

I think that lying together could of course lead to temptation. And I know that we do not want to chase lust, as it is already chasing us. But, I think some Christians get married and the women have a very difficult time being physical intimate then, because her parents have been reading threads like these all her life! If my dad was to send me down the aisle to a complete stranger, I don't think we'd have two kids by now. 
I mean, to think even sitting together is wrong in the morning, but after the three o'clock ceremony anything's a go...






LawrenceU said:


> I don't plan on making any suitor jump through demeaning hoops. I do plan on vetting him, though. He must be a man who loves the Lord deeply, has a growing life of faith, he must be morally and sexually pure, he must have not been looking at p0rnography in his past, he must adore and cherish women in general, he must be a leader and one who is already capable of supporting a family. Those are the starting places.


I hope that my daughter finds a man like her father, who is exactly as you describe. However, if the man who loves and cherishes her _has_ had an impure past, I don't think we can deny forgiveness where Christ extends it. If he's made worthy enough to be Christ's bride, I think he'd be, ultimately, worthy enough to have my daughter as his.


----------



## ZackF

Ex Nihilo said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't plan on making any suitor jump through demeaning hoops. I do plan on vetting him, though. He must be a man who loves the Lord deeply, has a growing life of faith, he must be morally and sexually pure, *he must have not been looking at p0rnography in his past*, he must adore and cherish women in general, he must be a leader and one who is already capable of supporting a family. Those are the starting places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Never? What if he has repented?
> 
> At my age (25), I would feel extremely blessed to find a man who had not had sex; much less one who had never once looked at p0rnography. I am definitely not debating you on this issue, just wondering about my own standards.
> 
> Edit: It does make me a little sick to think of that filth being in a man's mind.
Click to expand...



I've never had a conversation about p0rnography with any man who has claimed to never have looked at it. I have no doubt that some are out there though.


----------



## TimV

> I've never had a conversation about p0rnography with any man who has claimed to never have looked at it.



I never did, and would have passed all of Lawrences tests. But my rebellion against all authority was so bad that I think my family would have preferred my main problem being P#rn. I guess we've got to keep in mind that we have a tendency to make the sins we don't have a problem with more serious than those we do have a problem with.


----------



## he beholds

KS_Presby said:


> I've never had a conversation about p0rnography with any man who has claimed to never have looked at it. I have no doubt that some are out there though.



I know of three. And I know a lot of guys (not that I know what they do, but I've only heard of three!). And two are taken. Hopefully I can raise a couple for your daughters, but if not, I hope someone marries my son(s).


----------



## nicnap

KS_Presby said:


> asc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> T.U.L.I.P. TYLER said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know and have friends who lay in bed with there fiances or what not (they are Christians). They are not sexually active, *not even lusting*...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, is that possible??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wondered, if the whole thing is so innocent, why they don't just mix and match girlfriend/boyfriends? If you are engaged and in love with Susy, why not sleep "next" to your best friend Bob's girlfriend Sally. Surely modesty isn't any issue anyway. The whole thing would laughable if it were not so serious.
Click to expand...


Oops...sorry...didn't mean to hit thanks...was just reading, and some how tapped it here. I hadn't read it when the thanks was hit.


----------



## ZackF

he beholds said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never had a conversation about p0rnography with any man who has claimed to never have looked at it. I have no doubt that some are out there though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know of three. And I know a lot of guys (not that I know what they do, but I've only heard of three!). And two are taken. Hopefully I can raise a couple for your daughters, but if not, I hope someone marries my son(s).
Click to expand...


Sweetheart, I don't have any daughters yet. God willing, my fiancee and I will be expecting by this time next year. If your sons are still eligible by the time a daughter of mine is, that would great!!


----------



## Ex Nihilo

he beholds said:


> Also, I think you are supposed to be, or at least allowed to be, somewhat intimate before you are married. I would not want to marry someone whom I had not been emotionally intimate with. My husband was my best friend before we started dating, and when we started dating, he left to teach in China. We knew everything about eachother because all we could do is talk and write letters. There were no movies, dinners, boardgames, etc to distract us. Our "dates" were literally hours spent talking on the phone.
> Some people here said that we should not even be emotionally intimate before we are married. Barring arranged marriages--how does that happen? And I personally think that some physical intimacy is good before marriage. I'm not talking about rounding the bases, but being close and feeling a spark when you hold someone's hand or even when you snuggle and watch a movie. Even if you fall asleep.



I agree with all of this. It is difficult for me to pinpoint the level of intimacy that I discussed earlier, but I meant that in response to the description of people nearly living together. I've already tried to clarify this in a PM earlier today, but I think I meant (as ambiguous as this sounds) that one should not "leave [her] father and mother" emotionally before it's time; nor should a young woman think that the emotional intimacy she craves can be _completely_ separated from sex. (Not that many people consciously think this -- I couldn't comment with any knowledge on the gender stereotypes about sex and emotion -- but I've seen friends who thought they could have the emotional intimacy without the sexual end up compromising their original values. I just sense that the two are connected in ways that I can't pretend to understand.)

I'm definitely not opposed to emotional closeness (of different gradations) between unmarried people. As you say, this is absolutely unavoidable unless your marriage is arranged. But I am still single and pretty silly sometimes, so that is probably why I am overemphasizing emotional caution.


----------



## LawrenceU

he beholds said:


> KS_Presby said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never had a conversation about p0rnography with any man who has claimed to never have looked at it. I have no doubt that some are out there though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know of three. And I know a lot of guys (not that I know what they do, but I've only heard of three!). And two are taken. Hopefully I can raise a couple for your daughters, but if not, I hope someone marries my son(s).
Click to expand...


We take this very seriously and keep fairly close tabs on the young men in our life. I know that may sound odd, my daughter is only 13. But, we do not want our daughter to suffer much of the heartache that we have seen in the lives of so many young people that we have and are counseling. And, she will be of marrying age more quickly than I like to think about. I know that many see the standards that I mentioned as unattainably high, but they are what I see as a starting place. God may change that, but that is what he has led me to hold.

Additionally, as it becomes more apparent that p0rnography has taken a very firm hold in the church fathers are 'fessing up' with their sons before they become tainted by the 'skubalon'. They are open regarding the damage it has caused in their life and marriage. This seems to be leading to a new generation of young men who are serious about making a covenant with their eyes.

I'll be praying for you as you raise your sons. It is perhaps more difficult to do so now than at anytime in our nation's history.


----------



## py3ak

LawrenceU said:


> I don't plan on making any suitor jump through demeaning hoops. I do plan on vetting him, though. He must be a man who loves the Lord deeply, has a growing life of faith, he must be morally and sexually pure, he must have not been looking at p0rnography in his past, he must adore and cherish women in general, he must be a leader and one who is already capable of supporting a family. Those are the starting places.




Well, depending on what you mean by "pure" and how much tact you've been blessed with, this could either be a wonderful beginning; or it could create issues that your daughter and her husband will spend years working through - probably without your assistance.


----------



## LawrenceU

py3ak said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't plan on making any suitor jump through demeaning hoops. I do plan on vetting him, though. He must be a man who loves the Lord deeply, has a growing life of faith, he must be morally and sexually pure, he must have not been looking at p0rnography in his past, he must adore and cherish women in general, he must be a leader and one who is already capable of supporting a family. Those are the starting places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, depending on what you mean by "pure" and how much tact you've been blessed with, this could either be a wonderful beginning; or it could create issues that your daughter and her husband will spend years working through - probably without your assistance.
Click to expand...


I've seen it go both ways. For a father to have input he must have built a very solid relationship with his daughter over the years. That is what we are doing.


----------



## ZackF

py3ak said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't plan on making any suitor jump through demeaning hoops. I do plan on vetting him, though. He must be a man who loves the Lord deeply, has a growing life of faith, he must be morally and sexually pure, he must have not been looking at p0rnography in his past, he must adore and cherish women in general, he must be a leader and one who is already capable of supporting a family. Those are the starting places.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, depending on what you mean by "pure" and how much tact you've been blessed with, this could either be a wonderful beginning; or it could create issues that your daughter and her husband will spend years working through - probably without your assistance.
Click to expand...


An image of Robert De Niro hooking up electrodes might give one ideas in eliciting tact. However, I think the fellow above who had the idea of building rapport with the men (or women for that matter) in your childs life is almost as important as the relationship with the child.


----------



## py3ak

Yeah, it can go both ways: that's why you can't have a one-size-fits-all solution. And of course fathers need to be prepared for some pretty radical self-denial: the realization that their little girl is coming to come to love, and value and even respect some one more than her dad. If a father is joyful about that prospect, and honest with himself about his own past, it probably goes a long way towards keeping him from mistreating a man who will be very important in the family's future. Patriarchalism can become a matter of pride, as much as a matter of conviction or solid principle: and in that case it can be a very venomous poison.

I think the matter of _serial_ attachments may be the most significant issue in the way that relationships are manifesting strain in our time.


----------



## py3ak

he beholds said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with the arguments about avoiding temptations to sin. If we put ourselves into temptations way, it must be no surprise when we fall. You, whoever you are, have to be realistic about this.
> 
> That being said, though, there is something that ought to be noticed. One is that our sex-crazed culture _can't_ be allowed to influence us to the point where we come to agree that really sex is behind everything. Not all physical contact is sexual; not all friendship is reducible to sexual longing; even being in love is not entirely or perhaps even primarily sexual. And so the _assumption_ that sexual longing is more or less always operative, I take to be a sellout to worldliness no less than spending the night at your girlfriend's apartment.
> There is another explanation for the desire for physical closeness and contact: it's called _tenderness_ and you see it most days that you see small children.
> 
> And to the potential fathers-in-law, I would like to say that you should spend your energy protecting your daughters from wicked men - not from those you happen not to like. Your wisdom and your judgment are far from infallible. And if you want to be involved in the life of your grandchildren, making your future son-in-law jump through a series of demeaning hoops is not the cleverest way to accomplish that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with you.
> Also, I think you are supposed to be, or at least allowed to be, somewhat intimate before you are married. I would not want to marry someone whom I had not been emotionally intimate with. My husband was my best friend before we started dating, and when we started dating, he left to teach in China. We knew everything about eachother because all we could do is talk and write letters. There were no movies, dinners, boardgames, etc to distract us. Our "dates" were literally hours spent talking on the phone.
> Some people here said that we should not even be emotionally intimate before we are married. Barring arranged marriages--how does that happen? And I personally think that some physical intimacy is good before marriage. I'm not talking about rounding the bases, but being close and feeling a spark when you hold someone's hand or even when you snuggle and watch a movie. Even if you fall asleep.
> 
> I think that lying together could of course lead to temptation. And I know that we do not want to chase lust, as it is already chasing us. But, I think some Christians get married and the women have a very difficult time being physical intimate then, because her parents have been reading threads like these all her life! If my dad was to send me down the aisle to a complete stranger, I don't think we'd have two kids by now.
> I mean, to think even sitting together is wrong in the morning, but after the three o'clock ceremony anything's a go...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't plan on making any suitor jump through demeaning hoops. I do plan on vetting him, though. He must be a man who loves the Lord deeply, has a growing life of faith, he must be morally and sexually pure, he must have not been looking at p0rnography in his past, he must adore and cherish women in general, he must be a leader and one who is already capable of supporting a family. Those are the starting places.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope that my daughter finds a man like her father, who is exactly as you describe. However, if the man who loves and cherishes her _has_ had an impure past, I don't think we can deny forgiveness where Christ extends it. If he's made worthy enough to be Christ's bride, I think he'd be, ultimately, worthy enough to have my daughter as his.
Click to expand...


Excellent post, Jessi.


----------



## ZackF

py3ak said:


> I think the matter of _serial_ attachments may be the most significant issue in the way that relationships are manifesting strain in our time.



That is probably what I agree with Brother Lawrence about the most. Sparing his daughter of years of petty puppyish romances and more serious breakups even when purity is preserved. That more than anything just plain jades a women and it make men even more indifferent about marriage at all.


----------



## LawrenceU

KS_Presby said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the matter of _serial_ attachments may be the most significant issue in the way that relationships are manifesting strain in our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is probably what I agree with Brother Lawrence about the most. Sparing his daughter of years of petty puppyish romances and more serious breakups even when purity is preserved. That more than anything just plain jades a women and it make men even more indifferent about marriage at all.
Click to expand...


It has also trained more than one generation for divorce.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

KS_Presby said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the matter of _serial_ attachments may be the most significant issue in the way that relationships are manifesting strain in our time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is probably what I agree with Brother Lawrence about the most. *Sparing his daughter of years of petty puppyish romances *and more serious breakups even when purity is preserved. That more than anything just plain jades a women and it make men even more indifferent about marriage at all.
Click to expand...


This is all so true. And by keeping a good relationship with his daughter, he is unlikely ever to have to enforce his standards through raw paternal power. (Not that a father shouldn't do this, if necessary, but surely everything works much more smoothly when the daughter directs her own heart according to those standards.)


----------



## py3ak

Of course the other side of avoiding petty, puppyish romances is that you never get to know someone until you're already blindly committed to them. While I never had any kind of romantic involvement prior to proposing to Heidi, I am glad that my parents were not so freaked out as to prevent me from having female friends.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

py3ak said:


> Of course the other side of avoiding petty, puppyish romances is that you never get to know someone until you're already blindly committed to them. While I never had any kind of romantic involvement prior to proposing to Heidi, I am glad that my parents were not so freaked out as to prevent me from having female friends.



True, and though young women _may_ be blind to the flaws of an attractive man, sometimes we also see things these men might hide from our fathers. We can learn a lot by hanging out with the guy's friends and seeing what their values are, which is also not something our dads can easily do. All the more reason to make sure fathers and daughters share standards.


----------



## OPC'n

I think Lawrence is right in how he protects his daughter. A young girl's heart can be swept away very easily even if she's had a good father as a foundation. I've seen it happen. It's the father's duty to protect her and help her pick out the best mate for her future. I believe that with all my heart....and that's coming from someone who really does know! I would have given my right arm for such a father! Lawrence, you keep fast to your convictions, brother!


----------



## py3ak

Ex Nihilo said:


> All the more reason to make sure fathers and daughters share standards.



If we can take it for granted that such standards are Biblical (which involves being rational and practical); and if we can take it for granted that the fathers are persuading and winning and exemplifying, then yes. But in the case of those fathers whose standards have more to do with their own ego than anything else, perhaps the best thing they can do is stand back and hope their daughters have more sense than they have any right to expect.


----------



## he beholds

py3ak said:


> Of course the other side of avoiding petty, puppyish romances is that you never get to know someone until you're already blindly committed to them. While I never had any kind of romantic involvement prior to proposing to Heidi, I am glad that my parents were not so freaked out as to prevent me from having female friends.



I typed up a response similar to this but deleted it! But since I am not alone in thinking this, I do think caution is wise, but so is a small measure of vulnerability! 
I think men desire some kind of emotional availability from women whom they wish to share their hearts with, and if a woman is too guarded, she can get passed by. 
My husband had a crush on me so sought to get to know me. Had I not welcomed a friendship, how would I have known that this was the man I wanted to marry? I mean, how does anyone know that without getting to know the person first? Thankfully he didn't pursue me romantically at first. But when he did ask me to be more than friends, months after we had become good friends, we both happily knew that if we started dating, it would end in marriage. 

I guess I would say use caution in dating, but not as much in befriending. Don't date someone you wouldn't marry. But you can befriend someone that you wouldn't marry, because once you get to know them as a friend, you may end up where I was: a friendship turned into more, naturally. 

Obviously my experience isn't a rule for happy marriages. There are people on any extreme end of possible scenarios who are now happily married: from a blind-arranged marriage to a 10 year engagement. 
No, I am not giving a rule, but advice.


----------



## LawrenceU

py3ak said:


> Of course the other side of avoiding petty, puppyish romances is that you never get to know someone until you're already blindly committed to them. While I never had any kind of romantic involvement prior to proposing to Heidi, I am glad that my parents were not so freaked out as to prevent me from having female friends.



Having friends of the opposite sex is not the issue. It is emotional attachment to friends of the opposite sex that is the problem. I believe that is is vital for young people to have healthy, community based, relationships with the other sex. That is how you get to know someone. To think that emotional/romantic relationships enable real knowledge of the other party is pretty near sighted. Rarely, if ever, in those types of relationships is the 'real' individual on display. It almost always involves a covering of the person's flaws in order to appear more desirable.


----------



## py3ak

LawrenceU said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the other side of avoiding petty, puppyish romances is that you never get to know someone until you're already blindly committed to them. While I never had any kind of romantic involvement prior to proposing to Heidi, I am glad that my parents were not so freaked out as to prevent me from having female friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having friends of the opposite sex is not the issue. It is emotional attachment to friends of the opposite sex that is the problem. I believe that is is vital for young people to have healthy, community based, relationships with the other sex. That is how you get to know someone. To think that emotional/romantic relationships enable real knowledge of the other party is pretty near sighted. Rarely, if ever, in those types of relationships is the 'real' individual on display. It almost always involves a covering of the person's flaws in order to appear more desirable.
Click to expand...


Superficial friendships are not much different from courtship displays in that regard, though. Until a certain closeness develops, you always have a persona on display - at least as a young person.


----------



## ZackF

py3ak said:


> LawrenceU said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the other side of avoiding petty, puppyish romances is that you never get to know someone until you're already blindly committed to them. While I never had any kind of romantic involvement prior to proposing to Heidi, I am glad that my parents were not so freaked out as to prevent me from having female friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having friends of the opposite sex is not the issue. It is emotional attachment to friends of the opposite sex that is the problem. I believe that is is vital for young people to have healthy, community based, relationships with the other sex. That is how you get to know someone. To think that emotional/romantic relationships enable real knowledge of the other party is pretty near sighted. Rarely, if ever, in those types of relationships is the 'real' individual on display. It almost always involves a covering of the person's flaws in order to appear more desirable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Superficial friendships are not much different from courtship displays in that regard, though. Until a certain closeness develops, you always have a persona on display - at least as a young person.
Click to expand...



What do you regard as a real friendship? I have never, I mean never, came across a man who has any luck being "friends" with a woman with whom he has unrequited affections for. I think it wise men to be friends with women through men unless it is obvious that something more may be possible. Otherwise, the usual result is just heartbreak and the heart hardening pattern of rejecting that Lawrence writes of.


----------



## py3ak

Why is the supposition that he has unrequited feelings for her?

Perhaps I'm not the one to say these things, after all, I've only had one serious relationship, it happened when I was quite young, and so the whole getting married deal that is sometimes so difficult was something of a breeze for me. I understand that my experience is not normal or normative.

But it does motivate me to want to point out that you can't make precut rules for these situations. By the standards of most fathers, Rahab would have been a bad match: but she became the ancestress of Jesus. I want advocates of paternal authority to be severely critical, as that would show that they are conscious of the dangers of their position.

Dumbledore said something very wise to Harry, when he remarked that if an old man and a young man don't understand one another, the old man has to take the blame: after all, the old man can remember what it was like to be young, but the young man can't possibly know what it's like to be old (though the young can certainly know that grey heads are to be honored). I want protective fathers to remember when they were pursuing the women who are now their wives. I want them to remember what they were put through: I want them to remember what protective parents put the women who are now their wives through. I want people to remember that sexual frigidity within marriage is a horrendously tragic issue, and is as real a danger as sexual promiscuity without marriage.

Is that so much to ask?


----------



## christiana

The OP declared this involved 'their fiances or what not'. That indicates strong affection present.

If my memory serves me well and if my intended could be next to me on a bed without any desire or move toward affection then he must have a problem and I would question his affection for me. I certainly never was in such a compromising position for if I had been my father would not have allowed my life to continue I'm quite sure! His words and warnings rang in my ears even when he was not present!!


----------



## py3ak

[I'm deleting my double post above, so Evie, I will need you to thank me again on the post that survived.]


----------



## Ex Nihilo

py3ak said:


> [I'm deleting my double post above, so Evie, I will need you to thank me again on the post that survived.]



 Of course.

Edit: Actually, I think I'm out of thanks for the day.


----------



## OPC'n

py3ak said:


> Why is the supposition that he has unrequited feelings for her?
> 
> Perhaps I'm not the one to say these things, after all, I've only had one serious relationship, it happened when I was quite young, and so the whole getting married deal that is sometimes so difficult was something of a breeze for me. I understand that my experience is not normal or normative.
> 
> But it does motivate me to want to point out that you can't make precut rules for these situations. By the standards of most fathers, Rahab would have been a bad match: but she became the ancestress of Jesus. I want advocates of paternal authority to be severely critical, as that would show that they are conscious of the dangers of their position.
> 
> Dumbledore said something very wise to Harry, when he remarked that if an old man and a young man don't understand one another, the old man has to take the blame: after all, the old man can remember what it was like to be young, but the young man can't possibly know what it's like to be old (though the young can certainly know that grey heads are to be honored). I want protective fathers to remember when they were pursuing the women who are now their wives. I want them to remember what they were put through: I want them to remember what protective parents put the women who are now their wives through. I want people to remember that sexual frigidity within marriage is a horrendously tragic issue, and is as real a danger as sexual promiscuity without marriage.
> 
> Is that so much to ask?



I don't think Lawrence or others are trying to be such a brut that their daughter will never get married when the time comes. I think they will know the right man for their daughter when they see that man. If they have instilled any good qualities in their daughter and they themselves have those qualities, then their daughter will most likely gravitate to the man that her father approves of. Some wouldn't do this because of their rebellious nature and would want something entirely different from their father. Just because the young man has to work for their daughter doesn't mean they will have a frigid marriage life. A person who has a frigid marriage life has their own problems that were not caused by their father protecting them during the time they were choosing a mate. Men can precut what their daughter will do during her time of choosing her mate because she is under his headship. Using Rehab as an example is not a wise thing to do. One shouldn't give up their rules of conduct just because Christ had a harlot in His ancestral line.


----------



## py3ak

Ex Nihilo said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> [I'm deleting my double post above, so Evie, I will need you to thank me again on the post that survived.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.
> 
> Edit: Actually, I think I'm out of thanks for the day.
Click to expand...


Set yourself a reminder!


----------



## py3ak

sjonee said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the supposition that he has unrequited feelings for her?
> 
> Perhaps I'm not the one to say these things, after all, I've only had one serious relationship, it happened when I was quite young, and so the whole getting married deal that is sometimes so difficult was something of a breeze for me. I understand that my experience is not normal or normative.
> 
> But it does motivate me to want to point out that you can't make precut rules for these situations. By the standards of most fathers, Rahab would have been a bad match: but she became the ancestress of Jesus. I want advocates of paternal authority to be severely critical, as that would show that they are conscious of the dangers of their position.
> 
> Dumbledore said something very wise to Harry, when he remarked that if an old man and a young man don't understand one another, the old man has to take the blame: after all, the old man can remember what it was like to be young, but the young man can't possibly know what it's like to be old (though the young can certainly know that grey heads are to be honored). I want protective fathers to remember when they were pursuing the women who are now their wives. I want them to remember what they were put through: I want them to remember what protective parents put the women who are now their wives through. I want people to remember that sexual frigidity within marriage is a horrendously tragic issue, and is as real a danger as sexual promiscuity without marriage.
> 
> Is that so much to ask?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Lawrence or others are trying to be such a brut that their daughter will never get married when the time comes. I think they will know the right man for their daughter when they see that man. If they have instilled any good qualities in their daughter and they themselves have those qualities, then their daughter will most likely gravitate to the man that her father approves of. Some wouldn't do this because of their rebellious nature and would want something entirely different from their father. Just because the young man has to work for their daughter doesn't mean they will have a frigid marriage life. A person who has a frigid marriage life has their own problems that were not caused by their father protecting them during the time they were choosing a mate. Men can precut what their daughter will do during her time of choosing her mate because she is under his headship. Using Rehab as an example is not a wise thing to do. One shouldn't give up their rules of conduct just because Christ had a harlot in His ancestral line.
Click to expand...


Sarah, I'm sure no one is _trying_ to be a brute. But there is no situation in human life where you can say, "this cookie cutter approach guarantees the right results". God doesn't give us that kind of guarantee. And when people develop that kind of idolatrous dependence upon the means very twisted things can result. 
The point about Rahab is that she didn't fit a precut mold: but she was nonetheless an excellent choice.


----------



## Grace Alone

This makes me think of my Bible study last summer where we discussed Ruth sneaking in and sleeping next to Boaz! That's a tough one to understand!


----------



## LawrenceU

py3ak said:


> sjonee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the supposition that he has unrequited feelings for her?
> 
> Perhaps I'm not the one to say these things, after all, I've only had one serious relationship, it happened when I was quite young, and so the whole getting married deal that is sometimes so difficult was something of a breeze for me. I understand that my experience is not normal or normative.
> 
> But it does motivate me to want to point out that you can't make precut rules for these situations. By the standards of most fathers, Rahab would have been a bad match: but she became the ancestress of Jesus. I want advocates of paternal authority to be severely critical, as that would show that they are conscious of the dangers of their position.
> 
> Dumbledore said something very wise to Harry, when he remarked that if an old man and a young man don't understand one another, the old man has to take the blame: after all, the old man can remember what it was like to be young, but the young man can't possibly know what it's like to be old (though the young can certainly know that grey heads are to be honored). I want protective fathers to remember when they were pursuing the women who are now their wives. I want them to remember what they were put through: I want them to remember what protective parents put the women who are now their wives through. I want people to remember that sexual frigidity within marriage is a horrendously tragic issue, and is as real a danger as sexual promiscuity without marriage.
> 
> Is that so much to ask?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think Lawrence or others are trying to be such a brut that their daughter will never get married when the time comes. I think they will know the right man for their daughter when they see that man. If they have instilled any good qualities in their daughter and they themselves have those qualities, then their daughter will most likely gravitate to the man that her father approves of. Some wouldn't do this because of their rebellious nature and would want something entirely different from their father. Just because the young man has to work for their daughter doesn't mean they will have a frigid marriage life. A person who has a frigid marriage life has their own problems that were not caused by their father protecting them during the time they were choosing a mate. Men can precut what their daughter will do during her time of choosing her mate because she is under his headship. Using Rehab as an example is not a wise thing to do. One shouldn't give up their rules of conduct just because Christ had a harlot in His ancestral line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sarah, I'm sure no one is _trying_ to be a brute. But there is no situation in human life where you can say, "this cookie cutter approach guarantees the right results". God doesn't give us that kind of guarantee. And when people develop that kind of idolatrous dependence upon the means very twisted things can result.
> The point about Rahab is that she didn't fit a precut mold: but she was nonetheless an excellent choice.
Click to expand...


I'm not proposing a 'cookie cutter'. The Lord knows my years as a pastor have taught me that there is no such thing. But, that doesn't prevent me from trying to do the absolute best I can for my daughter and her future husband, Lord willing. If there is a derailment along the way I trust God enough to trust him with her. Stuff happens. That doesn't mean we have to play with it.


----------



## py3ak

Lawrence, I wouldn't be surprised if you feel a little beset, and perhaps even hardly bestead, by the two similar threads. That isn't my intention, or I think anyone else's. Since the world (the majority of the population) is erring along the lines of permissiveness and promiscuity it is certainly necessary to be very careful. But that can easily mean that _within our small subculture_ the pendulum can go too far in the other direction. But as Lloyd-Jones always said, "Watch your strengths". It is on that very point that we may easily be tempted to excess.


----------



## LawrenceU

I don't feel pressed here at all. And I agree completely with your statement. We must work toward Biblical balance.


----------



## BG

*Also posted in the dating thread*

0


----------



## Tallen

Don't know if it was said, but:

Abstain from all appearance of evil. (1Th 5:22 KJVA)

It's easy math after that.


----------



## py3ak

See here.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Dumbledore said something very wise to Harry, when he remarked that if an old man and a young man don't understand one another, the old man has to take the blame: after all, the old man can remember what it was like to be young, but the young man can't possibly know what it's like to be old (though the young can certainly know that grey heads are to be honored). I want protective fathers to remember when they were pursuing the women who are now their wives. I want them to remember what they were put through: I want them to remember what protective parents put the women who are now their wives through. I want people to remember that sexual frigidity within marriage is a horrendously tragic issue, and is as real a danger as sexual promiscuity without marriage.



My dear brother, I appreciate this statement greatly. BUT, I know in my case that I remember my sin and depravity in that time of 'searching for a mate' and whether it was merely in thought or deed, I think much of what you are running into with the more conservative among us here (in this regard) is that we remember what we were and want nothing more than to spare our daughters that pain and emotional affliction. I lean heavily on Biblical implications in this regard, and though I don't have a verse for every action, it is a wholesome and Biblical love for my daughters in view of the world we live in to act in this manner, please understand that.

-----Added 3/20/2009 at 10:39:37 EST-----

I manage peoples' money for a living, and while dealing with the life savings of hard working folks is important, nothing weighs heavier than the God-given responsibility of raising my children in His ways. Hence the gravity and seemingly over-serious attitude toward it.

-----Added 3/20/2009 at 10:41:16 EST-----



> A pastor friend of mine once told me, *"The best way to learn something, is not by experience, but to listen to the wisdom of those who have gone before you and already made mistakes and follow their advice."*
> 
> If I could go back and do it all over again, I would not have permitted myself to date.



Ding ding ding!


----------



## LawrenceU

> My dear brother, I appreciate this statement greatly. BUT, I know in my case that I remember my sin and depravity in that time of 'searching for a mate' and whether it was merely in thought or deed, I think much of what you are running into with the more conservative among us here (in this regard) is that we remember what we were and want nothing more than to spare our daughters that pain and emotional affliction. I lean heavily on Biblical implications in this regard, and though I don't have a verse for every action, it is a wholesome and Biblical love for my daughters in view of the world we live in to act in this manner, please understand that.



Kevin, I could not have said it any better. That sums it up. Thanks.


----------



## py3ak

LawrenceU said:


> My dear brother, I appreciate this statement greatly. BUT, I know in my case that I remember my sin and depravity in that time of 'searching for a mate' and whether it was merely in thought or deed, I think much of what you are running into with the more conservative among us here (in this regard) is that we remember what we were and want nothing more than to spare our daughters that pain and emotional affliction. I lean heavily on Biblical implications in this regard, and though I don't have a verse for every action, it is a wholesome and Biblical love for my daughters in view of the world we live in to act in this manner, please understand that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, I could not have said it any better. That sums it up. Thanks.
Click to expand...


The application of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a little subtle. Children can get away with assuming that since they would really like a little jar of goop, so would everyone else, and hence they give goop as a gift (although I must admit those little jars of goop do have an odd fascination). But adults know that "doing unto others" involves a _refusal_ to project ourselves. I like it when people buy me books from my Amazon wish list; that doesn't mean that I can buy other people books from _my_ Amazon wish list and they will be equally happy.

So here is the question for the more "conservative": did your parents walk you through a courtship? If the answer is "no, and I wish they had" are you sure that projection on your part plays no role in what you are planning to do? If the answer is "yes, and it was a nightmare", what are you planning to do differently? If the answer is, "yes, and I loved it" are you sure that you are not assuming your child has the same personality that you did?


----------



## kvanlaan

> The application of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a little subtle. Children can get away with assuming that since they would really like a little jar of goop, so would everyone else, and hence they give goop as a gift (although I must admit those little jars of goop do have an odd fascination). But adults know that "doing unto others" involves a refusal to project ourselves. I like it when people buy me books from my Amazon wish list; that doesn't mean that I can buy other people books from my Amazon wish list and they will be equally happy.



Agreed, but since the way I behave toward my children is the product of much Biblical study and contemplation, I think I should share it and advocate it! How much do I have to hate someone to keep from a brother a gift that God has given me? We are a confessional group here, we're not talking about a special 'revelation' like the WOF bunch. We're talking about application of Scripture in the light of grievous sin. (Sure, some of this may fall under Christian liberty, but I am offering hard-won wisdom, if I can call it that, to save others from what I have suffered and inflicted upon others). 

I would plead in tears with my child not to date if it did not involve the confession my own sins in the process. Because I've seen the bottom, and know that my child, as someone I love and care for, does not belong there as a Christian, I will do anything to keep them from going there. I see courtship/abstinence from the appearance of sin as a viable way of doing that.


----------



## py3ak

Well, as I suggested elsewhere, maybe sometime soon when things are otherwise calm we can look at the Scriptures whose implications would touch on this point.

And of course you should advocate your position: you should also expect rational opposition, and you shouldn't lay heavy burdens that are difficult to bear upon others. For instance, _requiring_ young men to submit a detailed history of their past sins to a stern potential father-in-law, when in actuality if such a topic is any of your business, it will be because they have come to trust you, is a dicey proposition. Also, any man worth having a a husband _will_ have the ability to blow you off when you're wrong, and defy you when you overstep your boundaries.


----------



## kvanlaan

> And of course you should advocate your position: you should also expect rational opposition, and you shouldn't lay heavy burdens that are difficult to bear upon others. For instance, requiring young men to submit a detailed history of their past sins to a stern potential father-in-law, when in actuality if such a topic is any of your business, it will be because they have come to trust you, is a dicey proposition. Also, any man worth having a a husband will have the ability to blow you off when you're wrong, and defy you when you overstep your boundaries.



That's just it, I don't know that I would require a confession of past sins to _me_; I would hope he would confess these things to my daughter, though. Who am I to hold a man to moral perfection? A sure knowledge that he is cleansed by Christ's blood _is_ something I'd like to see before I give my blessing. Not that I'm going to take him to the basement, shine a flashlight in his eyes, and interrogate him until he cracks, that's not it at all. I want to get to _know_ him, even as another son. Please don't mistake my vigilance for some sort of crusade to pummel him verbally/emotionally to break his will and spill his soul to me. I just want to be able to stand before the Lord and say that I have honestly done my best in this regard.



> and defy you when you overstep your boundaries.



I don't think that what I am proposing to do is this in the least.


----------



## LawrenceU

Right there with you, Kevin.


----------



## py3ak

But some men are looking to know, in some cases even before their daughters do: or if they want to know but won't ask the fellow in question they'll grill their daughters on that point. I'm glad you don't fall in that camp; making that explicit, as these threads have accomplished on a couple of points, keeps your position from being used as support or cover for arrogant notions of parental privilege extending to blatant invasiveness.


----------



## puritanpilgrim

Remember what grandma said:

"Keep your feet on the ground and your shoes on."

And she was right...


----------



## he beholds

puritanpilgrim said:


> Remember what grandma said:
> 
> "Keep your feet on the ground and your shoes on."
> 
> And she was right...



That's the rule at Geneva College during visitor's hours (when boys were allowed in girls' rooms and vice versa). The door also had to be open!


----------



## Ex Nihilo

he beholds said:


> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what grandma said:
> 
> "Keep your feet on the ground and your shoes on."
> 
> And she was right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the rule at Geneva College during visitor's hours (when boys were allowed in girls' rooms and vice versa). The door also had to be open!
Click to expand...


At my college, the rule was _one_ foot on the ground.


----------



## he beholds

Ex Nihilo said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what grandma said:
> 
> "Keep your feet on the ground and your shoes on."
> 
> And she was right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the rule at Geneva College during visitor's hours (when boys were allowed in girls' rooms and vice versa). The door also had to be open!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At my college, the rule was _one_ foot on the ground.
Click to expand...

I guess one is better than none!


----------



## Ex Nihilo

he beholds said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the rule at Geneva College during visitor's hours (when boys were allowed in girls' rooms and vice versa). The door also had to be open!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At my college, the rule was _one_ foot on the ground.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I guess one is better than none!
Click to expand...


Actually, now that I think about it, it _was_ both feet on the ground, but only if the male and female were on the same piece of furniture.


----------



## Tripel

Ex Nihilo said:


> At my college, the rule was _one_ foot on the ground.



Isn't that a rule in billiards?

This feet on the ground thing...is that a serious rule, or is that just a general guideline for defining acceptable behavior?


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Tripel said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At my college, the rule was _one_ foot on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Isn't that a rule in billiards?*
> 
> This feet on the ground thing...is that a serious rule, or is that just a general guideline for defining acceptable behavior?
Click to expand...


That must have been what I was thinking of!

It was a serious rule.


----------



## Tripel

Ex Nihilo said:


> It was a serious rule.



Was that the only rule? I don't want to go into too much detail, but some people following just the letter of the law could still have a good time.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek

Tripel said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> At my college, the rule was _one_ foot on the ground.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't that a rule in billiards?
> 
> This feet on the ground thing...is that a serious rule, or is that just a general guideline for defining acceptable behavior?
Click to expand...


It used to be a real rule in Holleywood Film making. Of course you young whippersnappers wouldn't know that.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

Tripel said:


> Ex Nihilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a serious rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that the only rule? * I don't want to go into too much detail, but some people following just the letter of the law could still have a good time*.
Click to expand...


Indeed so -- this was often joked about by incoming 18-year-olds.

It wasn't the only rule, of course. We also had to have the doors open, lights on, and were subject to periodic room checks. And the general rule against sexual immorality applied.


----------



## ZackF

Ex Nihilo said:


> he beholds said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> puritanpilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember what grandma said:
> 
> "Keep your feet on the ground and your shoes on."
> 
> And she was right...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the rule at Geneva College during visitor's hours (when boys were allowed in girls' rooms and vice versa). The door also had to be open!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At my college, the rule was _one_ foot on the ground.
Click to expand...


That was my grandmother's rule at the dinner table.


----------



## Idelette

Jesus is my friend said:


> There is much excellent advice here and I just wanted to add and I believe this is important for the man to hear:
> 
> You as future leader of a potential marriage need to "draw a line" in the sand so to speak and be the one to set boundries before your lady friend/fiancee whatever,This is a very important step in leadership,to set the example,so I believe whatever decision you come to after recieving the scriptural support/Godly counsel, you need to initiate,in this you will show her you love and respect your Lord,her and her parents and she will hopefully see you making Godly decisions,This goes very deep and is crucial for the development of a Godly courtship,the alternative would be a potential disaster.But in laying your foundation in these seemingly small decisions you are laying a foundation in Christ for your (and His) future Bride



I couldn't agree more!


----------

