The historical origin of the pre-marital sex debate, and what we can learn from it. Intention and motivations. #hookup #culture

#hookup #culture

Okay, so we all expect any political restriction on sex lives is fundamentally tied to religion. Of course it is, right?

So let’s talk about it.

Contemplation
Contemplation

Where, exactly, does the no premarital sex culture begin in western civilization. We might wonder, for instance: does Judaism, the precursor to Christianity, ban premarital sex?

Did mideval societies post the life of Christ adopt Christian views on sex, or not?

Turns out that in fact Judaism and the Torah (Old Testament of the Bible) do not restrict pre-marital sex in any way. This means you Jewish girls are free to do as you please. And it also means women in Jerusalem are able to engage in casual sex as they wish.

In Judaism there is this ancient Biblical concept that we today call would call a friend with benefits, or even a long-term girlfriend or perhaps even a situation such as unmarried long-term cohabitation. Yes, there is a word for this.

I think this is great, because among millennials and younger, people aren’t really getting married as often or as young. Wouldn’t it be great if we could galvanize some sort of socially acceptable label to more formalize this situation? I think so.

So I was very excited when I found and read this article: https://www.virtueonline.org/cohabitation-marriage-lite-or-new-concubinage

The word is ‘Concubinage’ and rather than wife or girlfriend the word is ‘Concubine.’

Apparantly concubinage was totally cool and common in mideval Spain and bc. Biblical Times. A concubine is essentially a wife, without wedding vows or legal commitments, perfectly capturing the phenomena of long term cohabitation without marriage.

Okay, so where does this idea that such an arrangement is actually unethical and bad come from? Why did it fall out of step? How did it become that marriage is the only proper way to do things, with legal binding contracts sanctioned by government officials?

Well, the idea comes actually from Jesus Christ. In biblical times, concubines were commonplace, often supplementary to wives. Sort of like sex slaves when you think about, but also not really. Concubinage was completely voluntary and usually happened between people of different social castes or statuses. So maybe it was more similar to sugar baby culture.

But also not really, because concubiniage readily applies to any long term sexual relationship without marriage that includes cohabitation. It was just a more free loving time, in general.

So here’s why Christ was ‘not cool’ with this set up. He basically believed that without any sort of binding legal contract and set of committed vows — put against the commandment that one shall not lie, no less — that this would expose either person (but mainly the women — yes, patronizing) in concubiniage from being disposed of casually after any old disturbance. Thus, Jesus decided that binding sex to legal and let’s face it, God himself, contracts this would protect women from being taken advantage of by men. Yeah, it really is that simple and that patronizing.

So that’s where this whole thing comes from. Christ spread this idea and doctrine to curb and prevent people from getting hurt or from being taken advantage of and disposed of sexually by forcing people to commit (and swear oath under God’s name, similar actually to how we swear in members of government today over a Bible, which is actually a very strange practice for an acclaimed ‘secular state’) to exclusive commitment until death. 💀

How does this affect us today in present times?

Well, the vast majority of the United States is Christian and many of our laws and cultural practices are heavily influenced by Christianity. So, even among members of this site, and even among women, we see conflict and within group differences on opinions with regards to this very subject.

Many men want to know: what’s the deal with casual sex, and how can we convince women to want it? Or at least (they) think they want that until they get it and then find out it ain’t all it’s cracked up to be, and perhaps they develop feelings and get hurt or whatever. Either way, it crosses the mind of every horny hormonal teenage boy. That I guarantee.

So surprised 😲 he will be to find that he’ll get a wide sweeping range of inconsistent answers that spark wild cat-fights where other women will accuse other women who claim to not engage in casual sex or do so very infrequently liars, to which the one being accused of lying will fire back by calling the other girl a slut. And so on, etc.

Leaving the boy with essentially no good or valuable insight or information what so ever. And probably leaving him wondering if the whole thing was just a conspiracy to misdirect boys in general. Funny but true, I guarantee it.

So so why did Christ make these claims?

Well, let’s take a look at the linked article.

“In ancient times, there was an option for a man who desired a regular sex partner but did not wish to marry her. He could take a low-status woman as a concubine. He could enjoy her company as long as it pleased him, and he could dismiss her at any time. The man made no promises and signed no contract; consequently, the concubine had few legal protections. Any children that she bore would have an inferior legal status.

The early Church fought long and hard against concubinage. It insisted that such a sexual relationship, without the permanent and total commitment expressed in marriage vows, was immoral and unjust. Over the course of a thousand years, concubinage retreated into the shadows of social disapproval.”

Right. But now today we are seeing a revival of concubiniage, and it’s no longer just the man who has all the power over a concubine. In fact, concubine is a genderless term. Sure, there are men who pump and dump (I am guilty of doing this once too; regret it). But now there are a lot more women who ‘pump and dump.’ Though I’d like to make a better idiom for them, cause’ let’s be honest, they don’t ‘pump.’ How about ‘collect and forget.’

That sounds much better, yeah? Lots of women will collect and forget. Meaning, they’ll either hook up or take what they want from men, and then get out of there and forget about them going forward. The female equivalent of pump and dump.

So what did the Christian Church get wrong?

Well, I agree that essentially using women in the form of pumping and dumping, and subsequently ghosting after sex is probably wrong. It’s actually, yeah, pretty fucked up and traumatic. In this way, the Church was right to criticize the practice of concubation. But where they took the left turn and went wrong is the part where they thought imposing lifetime commitments and legal bondage to two specific persons until death was the correct fix.

And I think it’s this later cause that feminism has been trying to fight and undo. They say, yeah don’t pump and dump me but woah let’s hold off the legal contract that states we’re forced to be together until death. That’s a wild commitment to make with someone.

And if you’re forced to choose between that and nothing, well that’s not fair because then your sexual satisfaction goes unmet. But choosing to meet some sexual satisfaction along the way to finding someone maybe like that doesn’t mean you agree to mistreatment in the form of rape, sexual slavery or getting pumped and dumped and ghosted either.

In essence, a binding contract was the wrong solution to the problem.

Its wrong for two reasons. 1) It assumes only men have any say or agency over themselves and their concubine. And 2) ironically it also encourages men to not take accountability over their choices and their behavior, and allows them to put legal bandaids on their bad habits rather than change.

So what hat does feminism teach, and how might conservatives vs. liberals’ views on this topic be different?

Well here’s what (1) and here’s how (2).

Number 1) feminism with regards to sexual liberation does not imply stereotypically wild slutty behavior is desirable nor does it imply that women want to raped. What it does imply is that they want the freedom to engage in concubiniage without the abuse of males taking advantage of them and their sexual desires. This explains why so many women report feeling ‘cheap’ or ‘used’ or ‘depressed and disgusting’ after bad hookups or hookups that give them bad experiences. It’s not the sex part that makes them feel bad, it’s the guy’s attitude, his treatment of her and his behaviors that make them feel bad. It’s he taking advantage aspect that causes harm.

This is how one reaolves the paradox of ‘I want to engage in casual sex often, but then still heavily discriminate who I engage with.’

2) Women have to hold themselves to the same standards that they hold men to. This means, it can’t be cool to ‘collect and forget’ if it isn’t also cool to ‘pump and dump.’ You must be consistent in your behavior or you are not being reasonable or fair. I think this is where many men find seeds of frustration with regards to ideas such as hypergammy. When men complain about feminism and how feminism is ruining women, and how feminism is turning women into sluts and all that, they are really just talking about being treated in the very same way the Christian Chuch actually confirms as unjust about old-Biblical Times concubinage. And so I think they have a point here and are justified in saying so. After all, women don’t like to be pumped and dumped. Men don’t like to be collected on and then forgotten.

There is ine exception, and that’s where both parties consent prior to being pumped and dumped before they begin. That’s a different story. That seems to be fine, and I don’t think the Christian Church would object to that sort of thing with the same reasons they used to justify the legal and ethical doctrine of binding two people until death into marriage.

So, that’s why conservatives dislike premarital sex. This is literally the historical origin of the thought.

After seeing this laid out clearly in this way, I am pretty sure it’s most definitely wrong.

And there are are so many more interesting and complicated aspects to this debate. Because if we go ahead and say that marriage is oppressive and the wrong solution to the problem of men misbehaving, then what kind of message is that sending?

How do we slice out who gets sex and when? In saying this we are also supporting a notion that women have the right to sex outside of commitment. But it also seems just as prevalent that we are not saying men have the same right to sex outside of commitment. And again, it is precisely here where some men get very defensive and begin objecting. It’s an unequal double standard.

Okay, so what if we remove the double standard and requalize. What do we get? Well, if we say that men have the right to sex outside commitment, then what kind of message does that send?

What happens when men have a right but are denied access to it? What happens when men are given the right to sex outside commitment but can’t find a willing partner, then what happens?

Certainly we don’t want to permit rape, right?

Okay. We can rule that out, but then what? All that’s left to ensure this ‘legal right’ (please realize I’m thinking only hypothetically for the purpose of thought experiment to think things fully through as if they were true — in Philosophy we do this all the time. It’s how we learn and understand things from complex situations and thoughts) becomes prostitution and sex work. And actually, this might not be such a bad avenue. And indeed, many feminists have already caught on to this sort of legal reasoning thinking logically through possible solutions to this sort of quagmire and they say, ‘yeah. Let’s legalize sex work. That way, both men and women can be given this sort of right to sex without commitment and no side will be denied that right.’ Fair enough.

But let’s not consider an alternative where we don’t like the idea of sex work. We realize it’s a viable solution to the problem at hand, but for whatever reason personal or otherwise we simply say ‘no to sex work.’ Okay. Are there any other possible solutions, besides just going back to the ‘no sex before marriage’ doctrine?

Well, this is tougher but I think there is.

It’s the situation where women hold themselves to the same standards they demand from men. Essentially this eliminates double standards and enables people to engage in concubiniage free of manipulation and hurtful behavior, and succeeds in becoming less demanding and damning that traditional marriage. It places a heavier responsibility and burdon on casual sex than unrestriction, but a burden that is less than full on marriage commitments.

Just imagine it, “no sex before concubiniage!Sound cool right?

It seems to me to just be a basic burdon asking only common human decency and basic levels of respect for your sexual partners just one notch above how you would treat people you don’t care about.

So I think this could work successfully as an ethical framework to guide people into a socially accepted widely adopted culture of concubiniage.

Is it clear that there is a need for such a thing? Well, yeah probably. I mean, these guys sure could have benefited from such a thing: https://www.vice.com/en_uk/article/nn9xng/what-its-like-taking-a-grown-mans-virginity

Anyways. This isn’t a slut shaming piece. Really it isn’t. I am totally fine with people who have multiple partners. A little jealous? Yeah sure. But not judging.

I was just curious about the historical origins of the debate we are seeing play out today and then consider both sides and their rationales for what they believe and why, and then think about and offer up my own original solution or idea on how to move forward and best solve the debate.

🤷🏻‍♂️✌🏻

0 0

Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions

What's Your Opinion? Sign Up Now!

What Girls & Guys Said

0 0