Why Sex is Meant For Marriage, Pt. 2 "Women"

The point was raised in a comment on my first post concerning sex and its proper context, marriage, that has prompted this follow-up post. The claim was that my argument was from the perspective of a man and, therefore, I had only shown that it was right for man to save sex and sexual acts for marriage.

But what about women? Do the same principles apply for women as they do for men? This was a bit trickier for me, a man, to tackle with an argument from experience. I have met women and I have dated women, but I have never been a woman. However, I will draw on from what experience I have to prove in an argument complementary to my first that sex and sexual acts are meant for marriage according to the healthy feminine nature.

First, there some differences between the masculine and feminine natures. These are necessary to point out to show that my first argument in my previous post does not really apply well to women, but more importantly, to outline the challenges unique to a woman. I have often heard it said that men are more logically based than women, and that women can often allow emotion to "overrule their reason". I believe this to be an unfair characterization because it frames women as irrational beings (albeit, at times). In my opinion, it would be more accurate to say that the feminine nature generally favors seeking empathetic understanding with others as opposed to logical agreement. This method of communication can create a deeper connection between two people than a simple "agreement of facts" can. For conciseness though, I claim that men tend to express themselves in logical terms, and women tend to express themselves in terms of their emotional connection to a situation, person, etc.

All the other terms and premises from my previous post apply, such as exclusive uncommitted relationship. If you need a refresher on that one and others, click here.

Ok, now suppose we take the same couple that we considered in my first post in an exclusive uncommitted relationship. As sex and activities leading to sex are frequent, the woman will become charged with emotional stimulation (similar to how the man is physically stimulated). The act is physically pleasant, but the woman primarily draws on the emotional closeness that she feels towards the man. As the emotional attachment grows stronger, the woman needs to be constantly assured of the man's affections for her (which can cause heightened expectations on the man, thus straining the relationship). Ultimately, the exclusive uncommitted relationship is bound to end or see serious hardship. If it ends, regardless of who initiates the break up, the woman will be forced to annihilate the vast emotional bond that she so dearly invested herself in.

The sexual act and acts leading to it inevitably create an emotional bond between the man and the woman. This is a sacred trust that is necessary to being together forever; to invest in and empathize with the joys and sorrows of the other. It is so tight-knit that were it to be broken, both would suffer excruciating emotional turmoil. The sexual act and other associated activities lead to one of two outcomes: (A) a loving, lasting emotional attachment between a man and a woman that allows them to enjoy together emotional sunshine and weather together emotional darkness, or (B) the woman succumbs to insecurity and despair as she searches for a full, lasting emotional commitment in vain.

Considering the path (A), just as with the argument from the masculine perspective, I do not think this option is available to those in an exclusive uncommitted relationship. As soon as the woman consents to any activity leading to sex, she has forsaken, to some degree, her essential dignity as a woman. It is a woman's responsibility, especially in this day and age, to command respect from men by holding them to honorable standards. Women can have, if they choose, a seductive power over men's reason. The feminine nature confounds his reason and ignites his passions. In my experience, this is not a reciprocal attractions, meaning, men do not have this same seductive power over women. (James Bond does not count because he was engineered specifically to give men the notion that they too could make women swoon over them; it doesn't happen) Women, in my experience, may fall for a guy, but they are never as without their wits as a man is before a woman. Thus, in the exclusive uncommitted relationship, the woman has the reigns of Reason and must show the man that she demands his respect and his full commitment to her. Without this respect, that emotional bond will not properly form.

In the case of (B), a woman who has engaged in many sexually active relationships will begin to wonder either what was wrong with the men she has dated or, my more frequent experience, what is wrong with herself. In the pornographic culture that we live in, there is an enormous pressure on women to be flawless. Each successive break up and emotional PTSD will be negotiated with thoughts that she just needs to lose more weight, get plastic surgery, etc. This goes hand-in-hand with the (B) scenario outlined in my first argument. Men will become more critical of their woman's appearance and ultimately, their partner's physical appearance will not be enough for him. A woman will be able to sense this acutely, especially if she is aware of any unfaithful relationships or pornography that the man is engaged in. This will only increase her sense of insecurity. With increasing insecurity, she will steadily set her sights lower and lower and entrust herself to more abusive and baser men, unable to believe that she is worth anything higher. If all her future relationships engage in sexual acts, she will be aware constantly of her physical appearance and remain in deep insecurity regarding her man's expectations and, more importantly, her worthiness of respect.

The repeated "high-stakes" emotional investment for a woman in a sexually active relationship will leave deep scares on her self-esteem, making it difficult for her to take her dignified place as an equal partner in a lasting relationship. A woman must not underestimate the power she has over a man; and it is this power that she must wield responsibly or forfeit it to the man's physical appetites. If a woman does not pick up this charge, then it becomes very difficult for a man to control his passions in the relationship. Though he is no less responsible for reigning in his passions, no man should associate with a woman who fails to hold him accountable for them, and no woman should associate with a man who fails to respect her according to her dignity, body and soul.

Authors Note: Ok, there it is. This is all based on my experiences and careful thought, but it is by no means infallible, whatsoever (a deep contrast to my other writings ;) just kidding) Whatever your thoughts, man or woman, please comment. This is a forum for serious discussion and I'll be the first to submit myself to guidance in this area.

Why Sex is Meant For Marriage, Pt. 1 "Men"

As a philosopher, I am always looking for rational explanations to things. I have devised my own rational system (some would call it a "philosophy") and I feel compelled to place everything I experience into that system as best as I can. I am also a man of faith, but there is something sweetly gratifying about coming to a reasonable conclusion based on one's experiences. In this process, I feel like I'm progressing somewhere and my sincere and thoughtful observation of the world is moving me towards that goal. It's really awesome, also, to receive divine revelation in one's prayer because you receive the answer without knowing how that answer was arrived at rationally. It is a rational answer (discrediting those who claim faith is irrational), but the proof to how one comes up with that solution can remain a mystery to us for some time. Still, I like to come to the answer on my own, if I can.

The thought occurred to me that the reason why sex is meant for marriage is because sexual intercourse and the intimate, affectionate acts that lead to up to it are ordered to married commitment.

Consider a man in an "uncommitted" relationship, meaning he has a girlfriend. Personal opinion: if a man and a woman are dating, that relationship cannot be healthy unless they are exclusively uncommitted to one another (and I know people define "dating differently, but I consider this goes for any form of romantic relationship other than marriage). "Exclusive" in the fact that that both parties are not "looking around" romantically (i.e. they have chosen to focus their romantic interests on this one person), and "Uncommitted" in the sense that this dating relationship is not meant as a long-term commitment (just a lead-in to marriage) and the courtship or dating arrangement can be broken at any time by either party for any reason, good or bad. I believe this also includes the period of engagement, and that the only difference between dating/courtship and engagement is that a man and a woman are preparing explicitly for marriage. The intention of a commitment has been spoken, but they still have not bound themselves morally to one another. (which is my assumption of those in marriage, albeit not a very good assumption for this culture)

Also, if you commit yourself to someone, I assume that you commit yourself to the whole of them. I do not think it's even worth discussing the execrable individual who would only commit themselves only to a human being's physical presence. So you make a commitment to another person, body and soul, because you make the free and actively conscious choice to love them.

Ok, now that I've defined most of my terms, suppose sexual intercourse is a frequent practice in this particular exclusively uncommitted relationship. Frequent physical stimulation can condition a man to expect psychologically that level and frequency of physical stimulation on a regular basis. Any increase in this status quo may create an increase in expectation, but any decrease will either be met with a painful expectation readjustment process for the man or a search for sexual gratification elsewhere (explained below).

In the case of sexual acts, a man and a woman are at their most vulnerable. They are "getting to know" (in the Biblical sense) one another in the most vulnerable and intimate way possible. It is like a shared secret that only the two of you know. And you both must promise never to tell another soul. It's not only a physical secret, but an emotional and spiritual secret that is beyond words. And it is in keeping that secret that there lies the sacred commitment. It is a very fine line (especially in the present culture) between (A) considering this vulnerable intimacy a sacred thing that a man is charged with the duty to protect and care for, or (B) the alternative, claiming ownership of it for his own ends and taking pleasure in it for its own sake.

It is impossible for the former option (A) to be selected in an exclusively uncommitted relationship because the man is purporting to commit and learning to commit at the same time. The man cannot commit to protect and venerate that which he has not proven himself capable of protecting and venerating. In other words, he cannot give what he does not have: recognition and respect for the woman's sacred honor. Dissenters' counterargument: this "proving" and "committing" times do not have to correspond to or have anything to do with when/if the couple gets married. My Response: for anything involving temptation and basic human urges, the justification of self-autonomy has been proven time after time to be the exact thing that leads man to lose his autonomy; I submit myself to authority on this.

If the latter (B) is chosen, a great attention to the woman's physical details will arise in the soul of the man. He will begin to focus on those physical qualities that excite him, at the expense of considering and cherishing the woman as a whole human being. If the relationship continues like this, he will cease to have a fixation with this specific woman's physical qualities and will begin to center his attention on those same physical qualities, but this time, of women in general (i.e. forsaking the beauty of her face and focusing on the various beautiful qualities of women's faces in general), turning to unfaithful relationships and pornography (in all-to-frequent worse-case scenarios) to slake his demand of physical stimulation, mentioned above. All of this might be an entirely subconscious reaction, but nevertheless, its reality becomes painfully apparent if one studies how the man treats the woman when such pleasant affections are not exchanged when he desires them.

However, although marriage makes (A) truly possible, it does not magically make (B) an impossible circumstance to find in a marriage. Marriages in these modern times are constantly assaulted by these temptations and many fail to weather the difficulties. However, the commitment can always be re-realized and made again and again as long as the spirit is willing.

All this comes about when men and women fail to acknowledge the gravity of the affections they show one another, whether it be the act of sex itself or acts that are intrinsically ordered to and end in the sexual act. I claim that (A) is impossible in an unmarried state and if you find the consequences of (B) to be undesirable, then unless there are alternatives I am unaware of, sex and acts leading to sex are meant for marriage because marriage is a relationship of complete commitment.