I just recently read a post by a woman who decided to hold off having sex before marriage. She titled the piece "wait was well worth it"and insists that she's writing the post as a beacon of support for those who are currently refraining from having sex before marriage. I was legitimately curious about how that experience might have felt and wanted some introspection into how something that seemed so unimportant to me (whether someone had sex or not) could be so important to her. Sadly, instead of introspection I only got the talk of an insecure person. I applaud her for being honest about how the sexual experience went, which she describes as "awkward and painful". However, that's about the only honesty you'll get in terms of her describing the experience. Instead she projects her own insecurities onto the experience. But before I get into why her post does very little in the way of describing the significance of "waiting til marriage", I want to make it clear that I don't think her narcissistic take on refraining from sex before marriage invalidates the significance of doing so. If you feel like the only way you can comfortably engage in sex is by waiting till the commitment of marriage is present, then I encourage you to do so. I pass no judgement on what one decides to do with their body or their sexuality. I will however pass judgement on a post that parades the significance of a particular act, without giving any reason that is intrinsic to the act itself.
The first perk the blogger throws out there is the relative ease of having sex when both partners have refrained from sex. She begins with how comforting it is to know that she isn't going to be saddled with an STD. This completely ignores the fact that her husband could have received a disease from birth or unclean needles, that could very well be passed on to her. Even if the likelihood of that being true is really low, the comfort she is feeling can be felt by a sexually active person, if the person in question is responsible before engaging in sexual activity. Talking with someone about their sex life and their health before engaging in sex isn't something that is only relegated to those who are sexually active, but something that anyone considering sex should do regardless if they believe both of them are virgins. While you want to trust your spouse, to assume that they wouldn't lie to you (especially after you've made virginity a vaunted trait) can lead you into engaging in risky sexual activity.
Furthermore, she also attributes that her husbands virginity took away pressure from her to feel like she needed to have sex in the relationship. While this might have been true, such pressure could just have easily been dispelled between one person who is sexually active and one person who isn't, by having an honest conversation about expectations when the relationship starts. Just because someone has had sex before doesn't mean they assume that their new partner is ready or would ever be ready to do the same. People who do pressure their partners into sex typically aren't good relationship material to begin with. So maybe the reason it was so comfortable for the blogger to be with her husband wasn't because he was virgin, but instead was a very good and understanding boyfriend.
Now the insecurity begins. After the blogger admits to the aforementioned description of her sexual experience as "awkward and painful", she tries to differentiate her sexual experience from the ones depicted in movies. She assumes that movie sex scenes are an accurate depiction of how sex would be before marriage (of course she is referring to sex scenes between two unmarried people), but never explains how her experience differs. She claims that she didn't feel the need to be "sexy" and that she wasn't "unsure" and implies that's how sex scenes in movies are. While, some sex scenes in movies definitely fit this bill, there are plenty of others where the two participants are willing, confident and can be completely goofy. Furthermore, actual sexual experiences differ from how it's portrayed in movies. Movies intend to capture the ideal moment and sex can sometimes be a sloppy obstacle course, especially the first time. If anything, the expectation that a movie scene would accurately capture anyone's sexual experience is ludicrous. The real reason the author is even bringing up this parallel is to try and reassure herself that what she had was "special" and someone who didn't abstain as she did could never have it. Instead of focusing on why the moment itself was special, she decides to emphasize that it was not like the sex other sexually active unmarried people have (a point she makes ignorantly, seeing that she has no way of knowing).
She furthers her projection by claiming her sexual experience was special because her husband "...was loving [her], adoring [her], enjoying being with the whole..." This could easily be true of a sexual experience someone has outside of marriage. The only time she describes something that can only be obtained sexually, while married, is when she states,"He was giving 100% of himself to me. Only me. Always me. Looking into my eyes, wanting only me forever." While to some this might seem beautiful, I personally just think it's selfish. I don't believe the power of a relationship comes from exclusivity. In fact, I think when you emphasize the exclusive nature of a relationship as its only saving grace, you degrade everything else that makes a relationship special. The same applies to an exclusive sexual relationship. I think more can be said about sex, when one is able to choose you over many others. But during marriage sexual choice is gone. Commitment replaces it.
What she is relishing is the fact that her insecurity has finally been dispelled. She knows this sexual experience and all future sexual experiences will only be between him and her. What's left unsaid is that the thought of him sharing a sexual experience with anyone else would have completely ruined this. It isn't purely the commitment that makes her find this so special, but instead the fact that no one else has had or can have what she has. Otherwise what she just described should be true for anyone who has sex while married, regardless of them being a virgin or not. Her emphasis on giving her "whole self"implies that it isn't possible for someone who has already had sex to give "their whole self." She is implying that non-virgins have somehow degraded themselves through per-marital sex. She is projecting her own insecurities about waiting and sexuality in order to justify her decision. This produces the illusion that her sexual experience was special because she was a virgin and not special because she was having sex with someone she loved.
Her insecurity comes full circle in her next paragraph, where she talks about how she would never have to worry about being compared to another woman. This bellows back to her obsession with exclusivity in the previous paragraph. It's not enough that he loves her, but instead he needs to not entertain any possibility that he could love anyone else. She admits that if he had sex with his previous fiance it would have made her incredibly uncomfortable. This is only the case because of insecurity and insecurity is ok. But when you project that insecurity as affirmation for a decision, then you're engaging in denial.
One might wonder why I have decided to come out and shame this woman, which is essentially what I did. That's because while she claims she had no intention of shaming those who aren't virgins, her post only serves to differentiate between sex before marriage and sex after. It doesn't expound on the significance of sex and how that was amplified by marriage, but instead focuses on how one type of sex is inferior to the other. These claims made me upset primarily because they are based off of the selfish insecurities of the author, which she now forces onto all of her readers. Furthermore, she put a ridiculous article on the post, which had nothing to do with sex before marriage. The article is a NY Times piece that speaks of the possible downsides of cohabitation (i.e. living with your partner before marriage). The article cites a specific type of cohabitation and doesn't indict the practice, but instead indicts poor relationship planning and lack of communication. The author implies several things by posting this article on this particular post. First, that people have sex when they live together, which may be the prevailing truth, but can be false. Second, that the underlying reason behind the dysfunctional marriages in the article were because of the mere practice of cohabitation and in part sex before marriage. Both of these assumptions are simply not true. People choose to have sex. And marriages don't fail because of not waiting. Again the author leaves the reader with the mantra "I dodged a bullet" when she had sex, instead of emphasizing how gorgeous her experience was. I want to reiterate one more time that I am not advocating for a particular stance on sexual activity. What I'm fighting against is the implicit shaming of those who have engaged in sex before marriage, specifically when that shaming is coming from a narcissistic insecure source.
But her clearly deluded and insecure state might not be her fault. Abstinence education is often taught with a message of insecurity and fear mongering. Perhaps this woman was simply passing on insecurities that were forced upon her due to the incredibly sexually repressive policy of the church. Maybe she went to a high school that preached abstinence. The point is I simply don't feel right throwing all the blame on her. I feel this the product of a patriarchal society that forces women to judge their self worth based on their own sexuality and how exclusive it has been is pervasive and unfair. She tries to make this logic work both ways by applying the same standard to her husband, but something tells me that if he had written this post it would have been completely different.
Original post: http://learningtobeanewlywed.blogspot.com/2012/05/wait-was-well-worth-it.html
NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The first perk the blogger throws out there is the relative ease of having sex when both partners have refrained from sex. She begins with how comforting it is to know that she isn't going to be saddled with an STD. This completely ignores the fact that her husband could have received a disease from birth or unclean needles, that could very well be passed on to her. Even if the likelihood of that being true is really low, the comfort she is feeling can be felt by a sexually active person, if the person in question is responsible before engaging in sexual activity. Talking with someone about their sex life and their health before engaging in sex isn't something that is only relegated to those who are sexually active, but something that anyone considering sex should do regardless if they believe both of them are virgins. While you want to trust your spouse, to assume that they wouldn't lie to you (especially after you've made virginity a vaunted trait) can lead you into engaging in risky sexual activity.
Furthermore, she also attributes that her husbands virginity took away pressure from her to feel like she needed to have sex in the relationship. While this might have been true, such pressure could just have easily been dispelled between one person who is sexually active and one person who isn't, by having an honest conversation about expectations when the relationship starts. Just because someone has had sex before doesn't mean they assume that their new partner is ready or would ever be ready to do the same. People who do pressure their partners into sex typically aren't good relationship material to begin with. So maybe the reason it was so comfortable for the blogger to be with her husband wasn't because he was virgin, but instead was a very good and understanding boyfriend.
Now the insecurity begins. After the blogger admits to the aforementioned description of her sexual experience as "awkward and painful", she tries to differentiate her sexual experience from the ones depicted in movies. She assumes that movie sex scenes are an accurate depiction of how sex would be before marriage (of course she is referring to sex scenes between two unmarried people), but never explains how her experience differs. She claims that she didn't feel the need to be "sexy" and that she wasn't "unsure" and implies that's how sex scenes in movies are. While, some sex scenes in movies definitely fit this bill, there are plenty of others where the two participants are willing, confident and can be completely goofy. Furthermore, actual sexual experiences differ from how it's portrayed in movies. Movies intend to capture the ideal moment and sex can sometimes be a sloppy obstacle course, especially the first time. If anything, the expectation that a movie scene would accurately capture anyone's sexual experience is ludicrous. The real reason the author is even bringing up this parallel is to try and reassure herself that what she had was "special" and someone who didn't abstain as she did could never have it. Instead of focusing on why the moment itself was special, she decides to emphasize that it was not like the sex other sexually active unmarried people have (a point she makes ignorantly, seeing that she has no way of knowing).
She furthers her projection by claiming her sexual experience was special because her husband "...was loving [her], adoring [her], enjoying being with the whole..." This could easily be true of a sexual experience someone has outside of marriage. The only time she describes something that can only be obtained sexually, while married, is when she states,"He was giving 100% of himself to me. Only me. Always me. Looking into my eyes, wanting only me forever." While to some this might seem beautiful, I personally just think it's selfish. I don't believe the power of a relationship comes from exclusivity. In fact, I think when you emphasize the exclusive nature of a relationship as its only saving grace, you degrade everything else that makes a relationship special. The same applies to an exclusive sexual relationship. I think more can be said about sex, when one is able to choose you over many others. But during marriage sexual choice is gone. Commitment replaces it.
What she is relishing is the fact that her insecurity has finally been dispelled. She knows this sexual experience and all future sexual experiences will only be between him and her. What's left unsaid is that the thought of him sharing a sexual experience with anyone else would have completely ruined this. It isn't purely the commitment that makes her find this so special, but instead the fact that no one else has had or can have what she has. Otherwise what she just described should be true for anyone who has sex while married, regardless of them being a virgin or not. Her emphasis on giving her "whole self"implies that it isn't possible for someone who has already had sex to give "their whole self." She is implying that non-virgins have somehow degraded themselves through per-marital sex. She is projecting her own insecurities about waiting and sexuality in order to justify her decision. This produces the illusion that her sexual experience was special because she was a virgin and not special because she was having sex with someone she loved.
Her insecurity comes full circle in her next paragraph, where she talks about how she would never have to worry about being compared to another woman. This bellows back to her obsession with exclusivity in the previous paragraph. It's not enough that he loves her, but instead he needs to not entertain any possibility that he could love anyone else. She admits that if he had sex with his previous fiance it would have made her incredibly uncomfortable. This is only the case because of insecurity and insecurity is ok. But when you project that insecurity as affirmation for a decision, then you're engaging in denial.
One might wonder why I have decided to come out and shame this woman, which is essentially what I did. That's because while she claims she had no intention of shaming those who aren't virgins, her post only serves to differentiate between sex before marriage and sex after. It doesn't expound on the significance of sex and how that was amplified by marriage, but instead focuses on how one type of sex is inferior to the other. These claims made me upset primarily because they are based off of the selfish insecurities of the author, which she now forces onto all of her readers. Furthermore, she put a ridiculous article on the post, which had nothing to do with sex before marriage. The article is a NY Times piece that speaks of the possible downsides of cohabitation (i.e. living with your partner before marriage). The article cites a specific type of cohabitation and doesn't indict the practice, but instead indicts poor relationship planning and lack of communication. The author implies several things by posting this article on this particular post. First, that people have sex when they live together, which may be the prevailing truth, but can be false. Second, that the underlying reason behind the dysfunctional marriages in the article were because of the mere practice of cohabitation and in part sex before marriage. Both of these assumptions are simply not true. People choose to have sex. And marriages don't fail because of not waiting. Again the author leaves the reader with the mantra "I dodged a bullet" when she had sex, instead of emphasizing how gorgeous her experience was. I want to reiterate one more time that I am not advocating for a particular stance on sexual activity. What I'm fighting against is the implicit shaming of those who have engaged in sex before marriage, specifically when that shaming is coming from a narcissistic insecure source.
But her clearly deluded and insecure state might not be her fault. Abstinence education is often taught with a message of insecurity and fear mongering. Perhaps this woman was simply passing on insecurities that were forced upon her due to the incredibly sexually repressive policy of the church. Maybe she went to a high school that preached abstinence. The point is I simply don't feel right throwing all the blame on her. I feel this the product of a patriarchal society that forces women to judge their self worth based on their own sexuality and how exclusive it has been is pervasive and unfair. She tries to make this logic work both ways by applying the same standard to her husband, but something tells me that if he had written this post it would have been completely different.
Original post: http://learningtobeanewlywed.blogspot.com/2012/05/wait-was-well-worth-it.html
NYT article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/opinion/sunday/the-downside-of-cohabiting-before-marriage.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment