I do think, however, that US culture gives us some seriously mixed messages about sex, to the point that even those of us raised without religion can find ourselves feeling the pressure to remain chaste, and then feeling dirty when we don't.

Then there's the opposite side, which makes it sound like you're some sort of 'loser' if you haven't had sex before age 20. Yes, this is an exaggeration, but it's there.

Heh. That happens to me a lot--something comes up somewhere, and then I hear it in a bunch of very separate places, for a few days.

Plate of shrimp?

I don't think waiting is a stupid choice.

I didn't put this in my post because it seemed like a slightly different topic, but being pregnant with a baby girl has made me think a lot about what I want to tell her about sex.

I guess I do believe that sex is a simply a choice. It ought to be something you do because you want to. And yet, only with DH was sex ever something that I did because I wanted to *have sex* (so I guess I married the right guy). With other people, it just seemed like it often got tangled up in other stuff. That's what I want my daughter to avoid.

I've typed and erased about ten different thoughts here, so I guess I have no overall point, except that I'd better figure something out by the time she's a teenager.

I think the culture treats sex as if it were as significant as a Kleenex.

Actually, I disagree completely.

Yes, sometimes our entertainment (which is not our culture, just part of it) sometimes depicts sex as being significant as kleenex (though I would also argue that frequently that same entertainment depicts nasty consequences for treating sex as significant as kleenex, just like the Bible does).

But the sheer fact that nothing, not even horrible violence, is as guaranteed to get a large number of Americans all up in a tizzie as the depiction of any kind of sex, significant as kleenex or otherwise, is evidence enough that our culture does not, in fact, treat sex as significant as kleenex.

As a tangent to the sex & religion discussion: I have a couple of friends who were raised with very conservative religious values, and have since … wandered away from some of those values in regards to pre-marital sex. But they refuse to use condoms; they’re all on the Pill. When I asked one of them the other night why on earth she wasn’t using condoms, because the Pill doesn’t protect against disease blah blah blah, she told me that she didn’t did have sex with someone until she ‘felt ready for it emotionally’. To which I replied “Yes, which averages out to about two weeks for you, and you’ve had three boyfriends in the past five months. ‘Emotionally ready’ doesn’t mean ‘sure they’re disease-free’.” As the conversation progressed, it became clear that, in her head, condoms meant the sex was more sinful then sex without condoms. Both were not okay according to how she was raised, but condoms were a bigger sin.

Wheaton, maybe?

Yep, that's it.

This strikes me as entirely bad, not least because it's so likely to cause guilt over things that have already been done and hurt no one.

Totally. It comes from an interpretation of Matthew 5:28: "But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart." And at the time it seemed convincing, but the more I think about it, the less I think Jesus meant what they said he meant. My current interpretation is as follows: If I have an attraction toward someone that might lead toward me behaving inappropriately, I need to nip it in the bud. Since I'm married and committed to monogamy, this means if I meet a man I'd totally want to date if I were single, it's wrong for me to dwell on his charms and wish that Dylan were so slim/musical/tactful/whatever, even if I never think a single explicit thought. Because that could, conceivably, lead to an affair, if the attraction were reciprocated, and it's no good for my marriage anyway. Whereas I can guarantee you that writing sex scenes for my books or indulging in lustful thoughts about Sean Bean is rather beneficial to my marriage than otherwise.

Both were not okay according to how she was raised, but condoms were a bigger sin.

I had a roommate in college who was even sillier. Birth control meant you were planning to have sex, which was evil. The fact she slept with a different guy nearly every night meant she was too passionate to restrain herself, so that was OK. Every month, the great "Will I have my period?" drama played out in our dorm room.

Then there's the opposite side, which makes it sound like you're some sort of 'loser' if you haven't had sex before age 20. Yes, this is an exaggeration, but it's there.

That's the mixed part of it. You've got pressure to put out, and pressure to not put out, and damn, it can break your brain.

Interestingly, my best friend and I were talking about this last night.

Heh. That happens to me a lot--something comes up somewhere, and then I hear it in a bunch of very separate places, for a few days. How did you get on the subject?

Well, Best Friend called me to ask if she should fly to [another city] to meet a guy for a fling. A married guy. I told her that I wouldn't make that decision for her, because I don't know at what point the consequences of such a decision are too great *for her.*

And so then we started talking about the consequences of sex in general, and how we were both raised to believe that you wait until marriage. So first we used to think premarital sex was BAD. And then that attitude fell by the wayside. So then we used to think that sex with someone HAD TO be with someone you loved, who loved you, and that it had to be DEEPLY SIGNIFICANT AND LIFE-CHANGING EVERY TIME. And then that attitude fell by the wayside.

Which is the point where I said, okay, I used to think I would never have a fling -- just fun!sex with someone I wasn't in love with, but now I've done it, and I have no problem with it. But I still draw the line at picking up a total stranger and having sex with him.

And she said, oh, you'll get over that, too.

But I really don't think I will. That just seems so creepy and squicky.

Paul was, actually, not a woman-hating bastard, and I can explain further if anyone likes, or you can wait for JZ.

Gee, I wish you would, Teppy. Every time I start, I end up shutting my browser window in frustration, and not just because I itch when we hold historical figures to today's standards, but that's a part of it.

Well, it's not even a question of holding a historical figure to today's standards. It's a question of context. Paul was writing his letters to very specific communities of people at very specific times in history. He was addressing *that community's* issues at that moment. He was NOT proclaiming how all Christian communities throughout the rest of the world, for centuries upon centuries, should function.