He's celibate until marriage, and dates won't tolerate it

Chicago Sun-Times ^ | June 15, 2003 | Mary Mitchell

[RnMomof7]

That's odd. My husband has always said that was one of the things that attracted him to me, that and my sense of right and wrong. Different strokes, I guess.

I once heard a Chineses Proverb that said something to the effect that a man that has nothing on his mind but sex has nothing of importance to think about

How nice that your husband enjoys you for more than a "playmate" , you got a keeper

[Mister Magoo]

Look at the facts. This guy obviously has issues, and if you can't see that, you're blinded by your belief system.

[supercat]

Stats show the divorce rate is higher amount people that live together before marriage than those that do not

Of the events:

1. First Base
2. Second Base
3. Third Base
4. "Home"
5. Cohabitation
6. Ring #1
7. Ring #2

It seems that there are 105 possible permutations (I suppose one could do the bases in non-standard sequence, but it seems likely). Are there any surveys that provide a somewhat detailed breakdown of marriage success for the different sequences, rather than just separating people into those where (5) precedes (7) vs. those where (7) precedes (5)?

[Pan_Yans Wife]

To me, self control shows maturity.

Being promiscuous does not prove that someone is a heterosexual. Being promiscuous proves that emotional maturity may take longer to achieve. Waiting until you are emotionally mature, makes the sexual experience have that much more weight, than a roll in the hay. Sex within the marriage framework, should be a reward for committed couples, given freely to each other.

[Wilhelm Tell]

A couple of things bother me:

1. It seems that every private matter is now some sort of public and usually political matter. On the left you have hedonists who broadcast every odd thing they do -- we are supposed to listen with admiration to all the details of their orgys and their gay or bi or transgendered genderbenderism. On the right, you have people making public professions of celibacy or virginity or whatever. I remember when Clinton was in office and a religious group held some sort of pro-celibacy rally near the White House. At the rally, a lot of teenagers proclaimed their intention to remain celibate. I am sympathetic to people wanting to counter the hedonists with something a little more sane, but I was dismayed at so personal a matter being turned into a political rally. I was thinking, "What's this? Are we supposed to have a national sex policy in the same way the left talks about having a national industrial policy or socialiced medicine?" I was also concerned about the physical integrity of so many young virgins being placed almost within reach of Bubba, but that is another story.

2. One thing you can be sure of -- the left will continue to politicize sex. They really don't see anything as being a private matter -- and I mean private in the sense that one is considered competent to make one's own choices without the help of the annointed. The left has co-opted sex -- sex is just another tool, so to speak, which is why some "transgendered" rally will predictably turn into a demand for more socialism, and a "gay pride" march will denounce "American imperialism" and demand socialized medicine and a 20 hour workweek. The left is anxious to bring all sorts of fringe people into the movement, lest they miss the all-important chainsaw fetish vote. It is all a numbers game.

3. I can excuse the left of their cynical numbers game because that is the way they think -- if they thought differently, they would no longer be the left as we know it today. I would be no more shocked at them then I would be surprised that a leopard didn't change its spots. However, I am disappointed when the right does the same thing and takes what should be a private matter and turns it into a public spectacle. It would be a victory for decency if the right could, as much as possible, de-politicize sex. I know this is not always possible because the left is busy making everything a political issue. Still, we should abstain from making new political issues of what should be private matters. A case in point is this story. Methinks that holding a press conference after a date, announcing that one is still celibate, is the most certain way to ensure that one's celibacy will continue forever! While a man not being able to commit to a relationship and not having sex might be more healthy than the usual (The "usual" being a man not being able to commit to a relationship but lying to his girlfriend of the moment and having sex) -- I have to wonder about a man so self-important to think that his personal situation is worth a press conference.

4. I really don't understand this trend in contemporary America to make every personal matter into a media circus or a political rally. I said I don't understand this trend to make everything personal a public matter, but I admit it is sometimes enlightening. I remember several years ago when Clinton's misconduct became headline news. At about the same time Bob Dole was advertising for Viagra. The leading Democrat was accused of being a serial rapist while a senior Republican politician talked about his impotence. That is everything you need to know about the American two-party system.

[sauropod]

After talking to Washington, I recalled something my father used to say when his daughters started dating: "Why buy the cow when the milk is free?"

OTOH, if one has already bought the cow and the milk dries up, why keep feeding it?

[4mycountry]

Gene pool could use a little chlorine, huh?

[Hildy]

The best line of the whole article: "We have to stop using each other," he said. "One way to do that is to abstain."

[hellinahandcart]

No, I don't think I'm reading too much into it.

They were dating for six months and she wanted a committment (and sex)

No, she was willing to abstain until marriage also. She just wanted to know that it was all LEADING to marriage, so that the abstinence would be (a)bearable (b)OVER with, someday, and he couldn't assure her of his good intentions in that department.

Even though I'm only hearing his side of things, I will take him at his word, and here's what HE said she said: "But after six months, she wanted me to make a commitment. She felt if she knew we were going to marry then she could abstain."

That doesn't say anything about marrying there and then, or even setting a date. They were already abstaining from sex with each other, so there was also no question of their getting engaged and then having sex before the wedding. The problem was, she's on the marriage path, he's obviously not. Not with her, anyway.

He should have let her down easier and earlier. What woman wants to wait indefinitely for a man to determine his own feelings? The fact that he didn't "use" her sexually doesn't change the fact that he still messed with her head.

And that's not nice either.

[Okies love Dubya 2]

"Being promiscuous does not prove that someone is a heterosexual. Being promiscuous proves that emotional maturity may take longer to achieve. Waiting until you are emotionally mature, makes the sexual experience have that much more weight, than a roll in the hay. Sex within the marriage framework, should be a reward for committed couples, given freely to each other."

AMEN, SISTER :)

[Hildy]

Are you saying that after six months you know someone well enough to get married? Uh uh.

[sauropod]

Home cooking is good ;-).

[TheSpottedOwl]

Even FreeRepublic has many women not worthy of him.

Personally I think I'm too good for the little pompous ass (as well as too old, thank God). I'd never treat a man the way he treated her.

I reread the article, and I have to conclude that he does come off as a pompous ass. That tone of moral superiority kind of grates on your nerves. It's so ironic that this article turned up this morning, as I was thinking about my 5 year dry spell, and how cranky I'm getting, hahahaa!

It's one thing to have good morals, but the whole purpose of dating when you are young is to find the person that you will spend the rest of your life with. There should be signs of affection; if there isn't when you're dating, there sure won't be any after the marriage.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

My husband and I dated and lived together for two and a half years, before we married. However, I knew that I could marry him, within the first three months, and I would have, if he had asked me then. Instead, we waited, until later.

We have been married for seven years, now. Having said all of that, I do NOT recommend cohabitation! And, I do not know if I would do everything the same as I did back then.

[supercat]

Are you saying that after six months you know someone well enough to get married? Uh uh.

Well, I got engaged after 4 and married after less than 8½. So it's not entirely out of the question.

Still, I think what she was asking was not a promise that he would with certainty marry her, but a discussion of what issues remained to be resolved, and a promise that if all such issues were resolved satisfactorily he would be willing to marry her.

[4mycountry]

>>>But if you are still celibate at 33, there is something wrong.

Uh, nooooo, that means you've actually waited to have sex instead of sleeping around. What's wrong with that? Is there a law that says you can't keep it to yourself? That you can't wait until you're married to let it out? If my daughter finds a man who has waited all his life and hasn't done it somewhere else, I would die 100% happy.

And BTW, he said he started being celibate. He wasn't always that way. Read the article.

I personally applaud this man. I think it's great, what he's doing. So many people --esp. guys--- want to have as much sex as possible. It's really nice to hear that not everyone has that on their mind--and that some people still have morals. He may not have the first stuff now, but it's still great that he's waiting for marriage before he does it again.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

I don't think it was wrong of her to want a time-frame. Either you know you want to marry, or you know you don't. She did the right thing, by moving on.

[RnMomof7]

Of the events: 1. First Base 2. Second Base 3. Third Base 4. "Home" 5. Cohabitation 6. Ring #1 7. Ring #2

Time that should be spent building a relationship being used to play often means when the 7th inning stretch comes one of the two has taken their ball and bat to look for a new field to play in

That way you never have to get to know the fine points of the game, or what the other player may have really been capable of

[hellinahandcart]

The left is anxious to bring all sorts of fringe people into the movement, lest they miss the all-important chainsaw fetish vote. It is all a numbers game.

Because they are running out of normal people.

I have to wonder about a man so self-important to think that his personal situation is worth a press conference.

Well, let's be fair. He's part of a breakfast panel discussion called "What Men Don't Like to Talk About".

Bwaha! I am imagining a very silent breakfast meeting. Most men I know, when they don't want to talk about something, do not make a sound...