Firsts Arent That Exciting

[debrand]

I had my first kiss at 12. It was exciting because it was my first but it wasn't really physically special. Because I am a kissing slut, I went on to kiss several boys. Most of those moments were awkward because I didn't know what I was doing

When we met, neither my husband nor I were virginal. The reason that our first kiss was wonderful was because we both knew how to kiss. There was no grating of teeth together, no slobber, etc.

One of the reasons that a first kiss is special is because the person can savor that moment. A 12 year old getting their first kiss, isn't going to jump into sex. They can get giggly over the first kiss or the first time that they hold a cute person's hand. And at 12 your expectations for a kiss are very limited. There is really no expectations to be dashed.

To me, the emphasis on being the first in everything is childish. It makes innocent acts like hand holding and kisses into something more sexual. It takes away the innocence of a first kiss, boyfriend, hand holding etc. I also think that it sets the couple of for disappointment. It's one thing to never have had sex until your wedding night. That is difficult enough to deal with but to never have kissed, or held hands? You can't savor the first kiss, or touch because you have to jump into sex.

I guess this is a bit of a rant. But I was curious, Zach Bates is not going to touch his finance until their wedding. Where does this type of thinking come from? There is nothing biblical about saving all special moments just for your spouse. How far do you think that this will go? Will they decide that their daughters shouldn't hear a male voice until their wedding night? I could see a fundie family putting their daughters in burquas so that way the boy can see her for the first time on their wedding night.

[maybeizfundie]

It comes from the idea that sexuality is not limited to The Act, but that it's better to have a wider "hedge" around it, if the goal is to keep sex and sexuality within marriage.

Having experienced that type of waiting, though we did hold hands occasionally when we were moving towards marriage, and kissed first the evening before we were married (because his church forbade kissing at weddings due to cultural sensibilities--and I should add, that first kiss was fabulous, even though it was a first for both of us), and those friends who I'm close enough to know waited and were fine with it, it doesn't seem like such a big dreadful scary deal to me. We had no issues with it or resultant from it. And it doesn't make us want to put our daughters (hypothetical daughters, since we don't have any yet) in burkas.

[debrand]

It comes from the idea that sexuality is not limited to The Act, but that it's better to have a wider "hedge" around it, if the goal is to keep sex and sexuality within marriage.

Having experienced that type of waiting, though we did hold hands occasionally when we were moving towards marriage, and kissed first the evening before we were married (because his church forbade kissing at weddings due to cultural sensibilities), and those friends who I'm close enough to know waited and were fine with it, it doesn't seem like such a big dreadful scary deal to me. We had no issues with it or resultant from it. And it doesn't make us want to put our daughters (hypothetical daughters, since we don't have any yet) in burkas.

I think that there is a progression among American fundies to move further and further toward extremes. That doesn't mean that all fundies are crazy people who go to extremes though. Did you ever think that just holding hands would be a big deal among some fundies? Doesn't it seem to you that some fundies are worshipping the first time for anything?

The first time that I had sex, I was lucky to have spent several sessions on just petting and fondling one another. It took me awhile to get ready for intercourse. And by awhile, I don't mean hours, I meant a few weeks. I don't think that it is wrong to wait until marriage to have sex but if you haven't kissed, touched or had sex, doing all your firsts in one short time period would be difficult.

I don't see hand holding as sexual. You wrote about a hedge to keep sexuality until marriage but how is touching your future spouse a sexual act? Of course, touch can be arousing but so can smell and sight. How thick a hedge does a couple need?

[tehgoobster]

It comes from the idea that sexuality is not limited to The Act, but that it's better to have a wider "hedge" around it, if the goal is to keep sex and sexuality within marriage.

Having experienced that type of waiting, though we did hold hands occasionally when we were moving towards marriage, and kissed first the evening before we were married (because his church forbade kissing at weddings due to cultural sensibilities--and I should add, that first kiss was fabulous, even though it was a first for both of us), and those friends who I'm close enough to know waited and were fine with it, it doesn't seem like such a big dreadful scary deal to me. We had no issues with it or resultant from it. And it doesn't make us want to put our daughters (hypothetical daughters, since we don't have any yet) in burkas.

I can see the reasoning behind that, but I don't quite agree with it. Kissing can definitely be sexual, but it can also be innocent and affectionate rather than sexual. The Bible seems to be pretty anti-lust, but why do some Christians believe that even affectionate, non-lusty kisses before marriage are wrong/sinful? Would this be where the whole emotional purity thing comes into play?

[debrand]

maybeizfundie, why didn't you wait until your wedding night to have your first kiss? I'm not being sarcastic with that question. I'm serious. You kissed the evening before, but why? If you are putting a hedge around your sexuality, why not just wait until after the wedding? I'm not making fun of you. I'm just trying to understand.

Among some fundies, there seems to be expectation that firsts are wonderful. Firsts, for me, were meh. Not good, not bad. There really wasn't anything sexual about holding hands with a boy or my first kiss. It was very sweetly innocent and awkward.

Again, I don't' think that there is anything wrong with waiting to have sex. But I also don't think that it makes a couple better individuals or have stronger marriages. It's a personal choice, that is all.

What confuses me is the way some fundies seem to be worshiping first kisses, first touches etc. And I wonder how far such idolization will go. I also think that the hedge around sexuality can make all sorts of innocent things seem sexual. Of course, that might not be true for you, maybeizfundie and I dont' want to stereotype your beliefs.

edited because I kept adding to the post

[clibbyjo]

My first"real" kiss was at 15 and I had no idea what I was doing and it was embarrassing and sucked. He was the skate guard at the rink and I was a regular skater. He would play Depeche Mode for me.... That was pretty innocent and it took all summer to even get to that point. By the time school started I found someone new.

[Austin]

I think that many Christians put sexual purity above all others sorts of purity. As in, a bride can be a nasty piece of work, but as long as her precious hymen isn't breached, everything's good. She's pure. Uh-huh.

I say that as someone who was a virgin (as was my husband) when we married. It was definitely our choice to wait, as there were plenty of opportunities not to be, as we dated in the very typical way (no chaperones or courting nonsense). But that's just what we thought was best at the time (for a variety of reasons that didn't have much to do with purity). And I would never correlate our virginal status on our wedding day with the quality of our marriage, as I think our marriage would have been good regardless. I have heard that touted many times and I can't help but think, "If your virginal status plays such a big role in the quality of your relationship, maybe you need to take a closer look at that relationship". But that's just me.

I think many Christians make an idol of purity itself, and puff themselves up with such great pride over it that it becomes a little ridiculous. There are other more important ways to be godly, in my view.

Oh, as far as the first kiss, I believe it was with my neighbor Darius when we were seven or so. The earth did not move:D

[bananacat]

Firsts aren't special, even the first time having sex. It's usually awkward because these things take practice, both to know what you're doing and to feel comfortable enough to enjoy it.

I've had sex with many men. There was a man I dated a few years ago, my first love. And even though we had both had sex with other people, it was still special between us. It doesn't have to be the first or only time you've done it to be special. If it's the right person, it will be special no matter how much you've done it before. I honestly don't even remember my first kiss, but I remember all the kisses that actually meant something. They're more more important.

[maybeizfundie]

maybeizfundie, why didn't you wait until your wedding night to have your first kiss? I'm not being sarcastic with that question. I'm serious. You kissed the evening before, but why?

Because we knew we wouldn't be kissing at the wedding, or for many, many hours after that. We had a wierd/awkward/atypical situation, and would be leaving from our wedding to travel across the country to get my parents back to the airport they would be leaving from, and we needed to go to the capital city as well for documentation and stuff. Not to mention aquiring a few random passengers in the car who also needed to get to the city. (Obviously, this didn't happen in America, lol) Zero privacy or opportunity to be alone at any point during that day. The situation the evening before would have prevented anything from going farther, as well.

We don't think it's *sin* to kiss before marriage. We felt it was wiser (not "holier") for us to limit physical contact, given our belief that sex needed to wait, so we did.

I have a friend in one of the very conservative anabaptist sects, and she and I talked about this. She and her husband decided not to even hold hands before marriage, and that was their "hedge", but her parents had told her that they didn't feel it would be sinful, or even more physical touch, though obviously sex was out of the question. She and her husband are obviously, sweetly, adorably in love after 10 years married. If that's the route Zach Bates wants to go, I think he and his bride will be just fine.

I don't know that it's necesarily as much about "sin" as about individual's assessment of what would be wise and what would contribute to their goal of sexual restraint before marriage. Sure, some churches make law where there shouldn't be. But my reading of even the stronger adovcates of limited physical contact doesn't make me feel guilty about kissing several hours before marriage rather than several hours after, because I don't see it as sin, even by their standards.

[tehgoobster]

Yeah, if a couple looks at it as a personal choice and doesn't act sanctimonious about it, then I don't have a problem with it at all. If it works for them, then more power to them. It's the people who look down on others for being less pure or even sinful for holding hands, kissing, and "giving away pieces of their heart" that I disagree with.

[BlackHawk]

For me, personally, firsts were very special. I don't think it has made my relationship with my partner, by any means. I do think it's okay to wait, and we'll outline both options for our children some day. I think our first kiss, about 6 months after dating, was awesome. Awkward, yes, but still awesome. We were also each other's first partners. He just never cared to date and I refused to date cause I thought it was wrong. But date we did. 6 months in to our relationship at his apartment we kissed. We didn't have sex till we knew we were it for each other, but that was because I knew I wanted to wait till I was fully committed to have sex. I think it came from the horrible stereotype of gay men fucking around... I wanted to distance myself from that and prove to my parents that I was capable of a loving relationship and not fucking around. I think some part of me at that time thought if I could prove that they'd love me again, HAH so didn't happen.

Anyway, I think it's okay to wait. I don't think it's a requirement for salvation however. I do think it's hilarious that fundies talk about not worshiping idol gods, yet they worship virginity and sexual purity. It's just weird to care that much about your children's love life.

[debrand]

I understand your personal view point Meaybeizfundie. But you aren't denying that there is a movement among some fundies(not you of course) to idoloze firsts and virginity?

Thank you for answering and not being offended. I want to say again that I think that people should decide for themselves what they find comfortable doing sexually.

On one hand, I am glad that your friend decided for themselves what level of contact was comfortable for them. Were your friends afraid that they would have sex or were they trying to protect themselves from any thoughts of lust? I'm not putting your friends down. I'm just trying to understand. Did you friends make a big deal about not holding hands? The Bates have apparently announced their son's decision on their blog. That would make it harder for him to change his mind later on.

Again, I want to say, I don't think that anyone is wrong or weird to wait until marriage to have sex.

[maybeizfundie]

Not denying it, no. Like I said, there are certainly churches that make a law of it, where there is no Biblical foundation.

Re: my friends, I don't think they were afraid, necessarily. Their parents managed to uphold the no-sex thing while being more liberal about touching. But I do think they felt they would rather be more cautious than do thing that might bring them closer to the "lust" line that they were determined not to cross. They didn't make a big deal out of it, because they (as a group) tend not to make a big deal out of things. Super quiet people, overall. And they don't blog, I think blogging and social networking are still out of their "ordnung" though some do use email for business and they use electrecity and cars. My friend told me because I was curious about her church's stance regarding this issue and asked her directly.

I wonder if the Bates family blogged about it due to questions? I can imagine "courtship standards" would be one of the first things people asked about.

[LilMissMetaphor]

But I was curious, Zach Bates is not going to touch his finance until their wedding

Probably just as well. Weddings can be expensive...

[debrand]

Probably just as well. Weddings can be expensive...

[liltwinstar]

I think that some of this strict "no-touching, no-sex, no-thinking-about-sex" comes from the fact that many fundie parents have no concept of child/adolescent development. Basically, you're a child until the moment you say "I do" - so behavior that would be inappropriate for a child of 12 is *still* inappropriate for a grown woman of 25. I would be really disturbed/worried if my (hypothetical) 12 year old was having sex. I would not care if my (hypothetical) 25 year old is having sex - in fact, I would probably worry if my 25 year old was *not* having sex.

So, basically, all I'm trying to say is that these type of parentally imposed rules just reinforce the idea that grown, adult children are incapable of making their own decisions regarding their own bodies. I really think that these "purity" decisions are WAY more about asserting the authority of the parents than they are about maintaining the "purity" of the kids. I have absolutely no problem with a couple deciding to wait for sex (or kissing or handholding or whatever) becuase they feel that's best for them. I don't think it's cool for a parent to tell her adult child what to do with her body. To me, it's just totally inappropriate. As an adult, I don't tell my parents how to handle their sex life (ewww), so I don't think they should be telling me how to handle mine.

[Trynn]

It doesn't really bother me when a couple makes a decision not to kiss till marriage. What does bother me is when people (usually conservative Christians) draw a line and say "we will not cross this line, but we will come as close to it as possible." One particular couple I know, whom I called The Happy Couple, decided not to kiss till marriage. However, they never let go of each other the whole time I was with them (a long weekend.) And they would cuddle so much that even our neighbors (camping neighbors) raised their eyebrows, and these were people on the non conservative end of the scale here.

So really, I think you can still be extreme without kissing. Josh and Anna's handsex, anyone?

Basically, I think kissing, in moderation, is ok when dating, even though I used to be absolutely against it.

Personally, I've never kissed, but that's because I've never had any real interest in guys.

[keen23]

I do think that the absolute "no sex" "no touching" "no kissing" is a matter of control. Control that parents hold over their children, hedged in a warning that "god thinks this is sinful and you'll go to hell if you don't follow these rules."

There seems to be a pretty natural progression from kissing to touching to sex, and it's probably a lot more natural when it doesn't all happen in a span of a few hours (or minutes, if the bride is unlucky).

For me, my first kiss was at age 12, and I didn't do much more than kiss for the next 3 years. At 15, things got a little more frisky, and I finally had sex for the first time at age 17. I always felt that I was in control of my body. I didn't do things that I didn't want to do, and at the same time, I didn't have anyone telling me that sex was only for marriage. I think it was pretty much understood that teens have sex, and you can only hope that they are taking precautions.

ETA- The first time I had sex was with another virgin. We had no clue what we were doing. But it was still fun. And because it was with someone that I had been dating for six months before that time, we were comfortable with each other, and able to laugh at the situation. I can't even imagine the mindfuck that would have happened had I been raised with no touching, and then thrown into a marriage bed with someone I had never even kissed.

[emmiedahl]

In a lot of ways, it removes control from the female. In most teen relationships, the girl is the rate limiting factor. A boy is probably okay with meeting, kissing and having sex in the same ten minutes, but most girls require more time to become comfortable. So if you don't let a couple touch in a normal way and then expect them to score a home run when ordered, you are basically saying: the pace of romance should not be controlled by the female.

[maybeizfundie]

And that's why I appreciate my husband so much. None of that is true of him.

*I* was not the limiting factor. He was self limiting, on purpose, from the time he understood what that limitation was and why his faith called him to it. Neither one of us was the only "control". Part of why we found ourselves such a good match was that we were mutually agreed on this and the other aspects of our faith that were very important to us individually.

I can certainly understand a distaste for the double standard that often shows up. It's not true of everyone who waits, though.

[emmiedahl]

I am taking an anthro class on gender, so I am really seeing potential misogyny everywhere I look lately. It's why you should avoid the eebil ejucashun. My sociology teacher is turning me into a Marxist as well. :D

[dairyfreelife]

What would you have to worry about if your 25-year-old was not having sex? There is nothing wrong with a 25-year-old not having sex. Maybe they just haven't found someone to be with yet? Maybe they are intensely focused on education instead a relationship? 25 is still young. What's the hurry?

I ask this because I get this ALL the time and it drives me crazy. People act like something is wrong with me. I just haven't found anyone to be with yet. It's the way life works sometimes.

[liltwinstar]

I guess I should have worded that better - I would just want my 25 year old to be happy and to have fulfilling relationships, and I guess see sex as part of that. Also, some of my thinking is becuase of my own baggage, where, even when I wanted to have sex and was mentally ready, my body wouldn't cooperate. That's more what I was thinking of - not necessarily that someone hadn't met the right person/people yet.

[clibbyjo]

What would you have to worry about if your 25-year-old was not having sex? There is nothing wrong with a 25-year-old not having sex. Maybe they just haven't found someone to be with yet? Maybe they are intensely focused on education instead a relationship? 25 is still young. What's the hurry?

I ask this because I get this ALL the time and it drives me crazy. People act like something is wrong with me. I just haven't found anyone to be with yet. It's the way life works sometimes.

No, there is nothing wrong with it if it is YOUR choice. My oldest niece just turned 25 last week and she has never even touched a boy. She had one courtship a few years ago and after she broke up with him she has had no more. Her only chance to meet someone is at a backwoods IFB church in West Virginia. How many non-married 25 year olds do you think are there? She lives and works at home. She cannot even go to the mall alone. None of this is her choice. She has been brainwashed since birth if she doesn't follow this path she will burn in hell. So, if it is your choice to not have sex is one thing, I do not believe my niece was ever given the chance to decide for herself.

[emmiedahl]

OT: West Virginia? Is it that bad? I have an internet friend at med school there in Morgantown (I think that's the name) and she made it sound like it was a great place to live. Should I cross it off the list?