PART III

HOW FAR IS TOO FAR?

CHAPTER NINE

SHOULD SEXUAL INTIMACY INCREASE WITH COMMITMENT?

"How far is too far?" At least one brave person asks that bottom-line question whenever I speak about sexual relationships. A man, thinking through the concepts yet still wanting an easy answer, asked, "How much can we get away with and still communicate value?" From a different motivational perspective, a woman asked, "What things can we do sexually and not get God mad at us?" Her question revealed to me that she really hadn't caught the major concept of sexuality as a way of protecting and asserting value.

"How far can we go and stay within God's limits?" another single asked on a card anonymously. "Are kissing, petting, holding hands, oral sex, and/or nudity permissible for Christians who are trying to abstain from intercourse before marriage?" Now, that's an honest, direct question.

THE IMPORTANCE OF VALUE

Before answering specifically, I'd like to once again repeat the two major theses of this book: sexual celibacy is a way of protecting and asserting personal worth and value, and the sex drive is God's way of motivating us to keep working on personal wholeness and interpersonal intimacy. Therefore, in order to decide how "far" two unmarried people should proceed sexually, the deciding factor will be our key word, value. We must ask ourselves, "How do the specific acts affect my sense of personal worth and value?" Therefore, the bottom-line answer to the question, "How far is too far?" is simple: Engage only in those physical expressions that protect and assert mutual value. What does that mean? The heart of the matter is not what singles can get away with. Instead, the issue is how sexual expression communicates and builds up a personal sense of value. But before we consider how we can build a sense of value through our sexual expression, let's hear from a couple of singles who illustrate that a person doesn't have to go "all the way" to feel devalued.

Sarah remained a virgin yet felt devalued before marriage. As she describes her relationship, "I look back to my past and although I did not have premarital sex, I can remember feeling used and "de-valued." At the time, I thought it was my problem since we were not going "all the way." Even today in my marriage, I still feel the pain from not asserting my own needs and sensitivities but trying (unsuccessfully) to please my husband. While this is changing, I realize that there are still areas where I am not totally honest with myself and my husband."

In "A Single Speaks," read about a woman who felt greatly devalued in her relationship even though she remained technically a virgin. She had strong, positive instruction from her church leaders, yet still felt devalued because of certain sexual activities.

A SINGLE SPEAKS

I grew up in a medical household where things were explained meticulously and without embarrassment. I recall asking my parents where the neighbor's dog got her puppies, and it was at that moment I received my reproductive lecture. My parents tell me that I was bored by their explanation and went outside to play after they were done, without asking questions.


It was in fifth grade when my first formal sex education took place in the school system, and I remember already being aware of all the information that was presented. In eighth grade there was another sex education unit, and this time I remember being more interested in the material. Issues of birth control and sexually transmitted diseases were addressed, and this became a controversial issue in the school system.

In terms of my education outside the school system and outside of the home, I really applaud the junior high and high school leaders at my church. Several Sunday nights were spent addressing the issues involved in sexuality, most especially the reality of desire in the adolescent. In looking back at my youth leaders, I believe they operated in the framework of value, respect, and gentle guidance, not condemnation with a list of don'ts. I continue today to be impacted by their healthy model of sexuality in a Christian context.

Aside from my educational experience in sexuality, I have little experience in the context of relationships. I am single and in my early twenties and currently not involved in what anyone would call a serious relationship. I remember my first real kiss was in the fifth grade when my boyfriend kissed me on the playground. I remember thinking it was funny but that I was also afraid. I then remember playing spin-the-bottle at boy-girl parties in junior high and kissing my junior high dance dates.

My experiences in junior high and then in high school included fondling, holding hands, hugging, and kissing. In high school the paradigm began to change when some of my friends started to have sex. It was at this point that I was very involved in church, and I did not feel pressured, but I was very intrigued by the experiences of my friends. I went to a very large high school and was in a very popular crowd that lots of kids envied. It was in my senior year that I felt pressure to get some more experience. I didn't want to have sex, but I felt that I needed more experience.

One of my best friends in high school had parents that were away every weekend, and we had parties at her house, especially in the hot tub. It was one night after a football game when I was in the hot tub with a guy I liked, but didn't know well, and engaged in heavy petting.

The next morning I felt disgusting. I actually threw up because I had done that, and my friends could not believe I was so upset. They kept telling me I was a nice innocent person and should not feel guilty. I was dramatically affected by this experience. I could not even face this guy in school, and when he gave a party, I didn't want to go. He was so nice and felt horrible that I was so upset. Ultimately I had betrayed my own belief system and felt that I had devalued myself. From that point on, I did not put myself in those kinds of situations. I graduated from high school, went off to college, and had dates to all my sorority events but did not date anyone seriously.

As the stories of Sarah and our other single person illustrate, the issue of "how far can singles go?" is not as simple as it may first seem. Though neither of these singles had premarital sexual intercourse, they both claim to have been devalued by sexual expression other than intercourse. What these singles have to teach us is that it is not direct intercourse alone that can make a single feel devalued. Any sexual activity, if engaged in prematurely, can be injurious. That's why it's crucial that singles have a clear idea about what to do and what not to do in dating.

In search of the answer to these questions, singles flock to Christian bookstores, seminars, and counseling sessions, hoping to find a clear, ethical model to help them navigate these risky storms. The answers are as diverse as they are confusing, ranging from "Don't do anything at all" to "Anything goes." But again, what singles need is not a list of dos and don'ts; they aren't helped in the long run by a rule book that's supposed to guide their behavior. What singles really need is a sensible model with which they can make their own, informed decisions about how far is too far. My appeal in this book is for a new model, a sexual ethic for singles based on value and commitment.

AN INADEQUATE MODEL: THE SINGLES' SEX TRIANGLE

The idea of a sexual ethic based on commitment, of course, is not new. For many years, respected Christian authors, counselors, and professors have been teaching what I call "the singles' sex triangle" as a practical guideline for Christian singles. This popular model is helpful yet incomplete, even though it is probably the most popular ethic for singles and sexuality today. We will explore its weaknesses shortly, but first let's acknowledge its benefits and its advocates.

The singles' sex triangle remains the dominant model, and it certainly is in vogue in Christian academia. In fact, recently I attended a panel discussion on singles and sexuality at an evangelical seminary, where the professors in the counseling department presented the triangle with enthusiasm. In my early years in singles ministry, I too felt this was the best model available and taught it to a few singles groups. But with each presentation, I discovered more and more flaws within the argument and finally abandoned it after I was able to pinpoint the missing element.

Simply put, this ethic teaches that the levels of physical involvement and commitment should be equal. As the level of commitment rises, so too should the amount of physical intimacy. This is best illustrated by a triangle, in which one leg represents the physical side of a relationship, and the other represents the commitment side. The apex of the triangle is marriage, at which time sexual intercourse is said to be appropriate.


The triangle implies a progression of involvement. As two singles grow closer and closer in their relationship and move towards marriage, this should be reflected in a gradual and yet commensurate rise in both their sexual intimacy and in their commitment to exclusivity. For example, let's imagine that two singles named Roy and Barbara meet and decide to date. On their first date, the singles sex triangle would teach that both physical intimacy and commitments should be kept minimal. The couple should engage only in small levels of physical expression to correspond to the fact that they do not share any strong commitments to each other. As their dating life progresses and their love and commitment to each other grows, so too their life together can be gradually and safely built. In our diagram, this progression looks like successive layers of an Egyptian pyramid.

This is the picture of a balanced sex triangle. However, if Roy and Barbara were to become so enraptured that they jumped in the sack on that first date, they would throw the triangle terribly out of balance, putting the future health of their blossoming relationship in danger. To get too close too soon physically puts an enormous strain on a relationship. It's difficult to keep everything in perspective and balance when one side is wildly out of proportion.

To switch metaphors momentarily, relationships are like cargo ships. If a ship is loaded carefully and properly, it can carry enormous weights and perform terrific tasks. But if the ship is loaded improperly, the whole thing will sink. This is especially obvious in an extreme situation: if the crew tried to fully load only one side of the ship while leaving the other side almost empty, disaster would result. Even if they recognized the problem and tried quickly to put more cargo on the empty side, in most cases it would be too late. The ship would capsize. That's what happens to couples who load their budding relationship with too much on one side, while the other side remains empty. In terms of the singles' sex triangle model, their unbalanced relationship, which emphasizes physical intimacy too soon, looks something like the triangle below, left.

But danger lurks not only on the physical side. A couple can also become out of balance by committing themselves too quickly. If Roy and Barbara became deeply infatuated that first night and in the throes of infatuation decided to get married, the singles sex triangle again, would be out of balance, as shown below, right.


The singles' sex triangle is an illustration that is clear, sensible, and easy to apply. Its genius, and why it has been so popular among Christian educators and teachers, is its ability to give singles a reason to slow down their drive for sexual intimacy--it gives singles a clear reason for not hopping in the sack at any time. In addition, the singles' sex triangle has helped singles understand that developing intimacy is a process; to build a high-quality, lasting relationship takes time and' balance.

This view appeared in print first in 1971 in the small book I Married You, by Walter Trobisch. I Married You was targeted not only for married couples but also for those contemplating marriage or already engaged. The triangles drawn by Trobisch were slightly different, but the message was the same. This illustration was a powerful educational tool for Trobisch in his work in Africa and helped him convince his unmarried parishioners not to rush into sexual intimacy. One of his students took readily to the illustration and commented on how he saw this played out in the lives of other young Africans:

What usually happens is this: The young man says to the girl, "I love you," and what he means is just an inch in the direction of faithfulness. But the girl is so happy about it that she, in turn, allows him to go three inches in the direction of intimacy. Then the boy thinks, This worked fine, so he adds another inch toward faithfulness. The girl replies by giving him four more inches in the direction of intimacy. Before they know it, they end up at the sex angle, without being about to carry the full responsibility for this step. Instead of parallel lines you then have slanted lines.

A more recent exposition of the singles' sex triangle can be found in Richard Foster's Money, Sex, and Power. This 1985 book was his insightful, contemporary application of the three traditional monastic vows of poverty, celibacy, and obedience to the current issues of money, sex, and power. In his chapter "Sexuality and Singles," Foster deals with the important issues of fantasies, masturbation, and the single life.'

Foster gives a clear definition of what we have called the singles' sex triangle: "Increased physical intimacy in a relationship should always be matched by increased commitment to that relationship." Thomas Jones recommends Foster's approach as a healthy one and does not see the problems inherent nor the inconsistencies in his suggested guidelines. Jones says, "The morality of petting depends entirely upon the nature and depth of the relationship between two people......... The only dependable method to measure the strength of a relationship is to ask what kind of promises, or commitments, the two people are willing to give to each other."

Seminary professor Lewis Smedes in his groundbreaking book Sex for Christians also endorses the triangle model. He describes how this approach affects one form of physical expression, "petting," or caressing: "Petting is a halfway house between shunning all physical expressions on the one hand, and rushing swiftly toward sexual intercourse on the other. But petting can also be one-tenth or nine-tenths of the way home. The deeper and closer to commitment the personal relationship is, the more heavy the petting properly become."


PROBLEMS WITH THIS GEOMETRY

There are several serious problems with this approach. What is meant by petting? What constitutes "light" physical intimacy versus "heavy" intimacy may be different to different people, and the physical responses triggered also may be different.

Clearly individuals will view the allowable levels of physical intimacy differently. Out of curiosity I once asked an entire singles group to fill out the singles' sex triangle anonymously, noting only their gender. On the physical intimacy side, I wrote the words, in ascending order: kiss, caress, disrobe, and intercourse. They were to put on the commitment side what they felt an appropriate stage for each action was. As you might have guessed, even though they were all active members of a Christian singles group, their responses came back quite varied. One surprise to me was that the gender did not make a difference--both women and men gave a large variety of answers.

Of course, most of them were pretty conservative. One woman's response matched that of about half of the group: (picture)
Several men gave responses that were even more traditional: (Picture)

Others' responses were not so conservative, to say the least. One woman gave an interesting response:
Intercourse: it's a mutual desire for both people
Disrobe: it's a mutual desire for both people
Caressing: it's a mutual feeling for both people
Kiss: it's a mutual feeling for both people

This woman distinguished between "a mutual feeling" and a "mutual desire." To be honest, I have no idea what the difference might be between having a mutual feeling and a mutual desire, but I guess she believed it was important enough to distinguish between keeping her clothes on or not.

Another woman had a much more specific time line for when certain physical intimacies were appropriate:
Intercourse: engagement
Disrobe Engagement
Caress: month
Kiss: 4th date

Similarly, a man was able to get quite specific:
Intercourse 2 months
Disrobe - weeks
Caress 2 weeks
Kiss 1 date

Now if I were dating someone with this view, I would want to know early in the relationship! In the same way, I would want to be aware of the following woman's singles' sex triangle:
Intercourse married

Disrobe When you feel close and are friends
Caress You care about each other
Kiss doesn't mean much 3rd or 4th date.

This last response is full of problems. It's good that she reserved intercourse for marriage, but I consider it strange that she disrobes whenever she feels close and the person is a good friend. Does that mean she disrobes with lots of friends? And how is it different from her answer to caressing-does she care about people and sexually caress them without feeling close to them or being good friends? Finally, what is the difference between dating and caring for someone? Does she date people she doesn't care for? I guess the saddest part is the little statement that kisses don't mean much.

It sounds to me as if she has been treated cheaply for so long that she has come to forget that kisses can be a valuable expression between two people. Her logic is confusing, to say the least. She is like a ship without a compass. Frankly, I wonder if she ever says no to anyone who wants her sexually.

Though she is certainly responsible for her actions, in one sense she could also be perceived as a victim. The loss of moral guidelines in our culture has left people in this bankrupt state, unable to make informed moral decisions. This is especially evident in the final triangle, done again by a woman:
Intercourse you feel married and hopefully you are legally at this point too
Disrobe - when you feel married
Caress you feel more special
Kiss when you feel special

ENGAGEMENT AND COMMITMENT

The previous five triangles suggest that increasing commitment can result in complete physical intimacy. Thus engagement becomes grounds for heavy sexual involvement. Indeed, many Christians believe that withholding physical intimacy during engagement is unnecessary. After all, a commitment has been given with a ring, and it is likely there has been a public announcement of engagement. Those who think sexual union during engagement is acceptable typically accept the faulty biblical interpretations of a pastor or a youth pastor, or of misinformed friends.

Sadly, the idea of commitment being sufficient for physical union is being taught in some of today's most conservative, Christian colleges and by some evangelical ministers. Listen to one woman's account of such an ethic--and her resultant rationalization:


In October of my senior year I met my [future] husband. We met at my Halloween party, and he called me two days later for a date. Well, I had never been on a true date, so, being the shy person I am, I asked if I could cook dinner for him. He was hooked. After two weeks of dating we were kissing and heavy petting. We began sleeping together (no sex). We had told each other we loved each other many times by this point. In December we talked about marriage and decided to make that commitment. We made love for the first time nine months after we met. I never felt devalued. In fact, our pastor that did our premarital counseling discussed what marriage meant to God. There never were any ceremonies or weddings. This means little to God. It is the commitment made between two people before God that is true marriage.

Yes, Pastor Stedman, I do feel that in God's eyes we were married. Our pastor agrees. You may not, because you place value on a paper document and a ceremony. In biblical days a wedding consisted of the groom taking the bride into his tent and before God stating their commitment to one another and then consummating the marriage. It is important that before you preach your sermon on value that you find out what marriage means to each individual. Our marriage has been wonderful and our sex very intimate and strong. You may find yourself devaluing a person because their beliefs differ from yours. Be careful. You may try to fix someone that doesn't need fixing. It is important that you define your idea of marriage so that everyone understands where you are coming from.

Though this woman was obviously disturbed and angry at my presentation, I considered it an honor that she was willing to write to me these very honest and vulnerable thoughts. But her logic is a bit lacking in a few areas. First of all, though some couples in the Old Testament times did not go through elaborate marriage ceremonies, many did. In Genesis 29, Jacob agrees to serve Laban for seven years for the privilege of marrying his younger daughter, Rachel. At the end of the seven years, Jacob said to Laban, "Give me my wife. My time is completed, and I want to lie with her" (Genesis 29:21). Obviously, though the two were betrothed, they had no sexual relations until after the seven years and the completion of their marriage feast. There are many more examples in the Bible of couples refraining from a sexual relationship during their engagement, including Joseph and Mary, the mother of Jesus (Matthew 1: 18 -19).


Another mistake in this woman's letter was her appeal to her own feelings and the suggestion that I find out "what marriage means to each individual." As any ethicist knows, feelings are not a good basis for ethical judgments, and the meaning of marriage cannot be found by popular survey. From a Christian standpoint, it is not each person who defines what marriage is, but God Himself though the Scriptures. Finally, though she tried to relate her situation to an Old Testament custom, I doubt if she and her fianc‚e really made their commitment to marriage and their sexual consummation public knowledge, as those ancients did. Before taking anyone into a tent, they would make their commitments openly and publicly, and the whole community would know that they were physically consummating that public vow in private.

I am happy for this couple that, in time, things have worked out well. Unfortunately, other equally committed couples are not so fortunate and do feel devalued by sexual intimacy too soon. Listen to the equally honest account of Theresa, who was a leader at an evangelical college ministry:

I always felt it was very important for the woman to be a woman and be pure sexually before marriage. But I had a friend that went to [a conservative Christian college] and told me that there she learned that if you had sex before marriage, but it was just with the man you would later marry, it was OK, because that's how they did it in Old Testament times. I no longer believe this to be true, but unfortunately this encouraged me to get sexually involved briefly with an old boyfriend years ago. I am sorry I believed her. That little bit of false teaching has caused me much pain over the years.

Though I had read and heard a lot about the benefits of being celibate as a single, I really had lost the feeling (that I once possessed) that my celibacy and purity were of value.

Obviously, this idea that sex before marriage between engaged or committed couples has been destructive in the lives of many single adults. Sure, there are a few who sleep together before marriage and don't get hurt--just as there are some people who play Russian roulette and live to tell about it, and kids who play with fire and don't burn anything down. Once I even heard of a man whose parachute didn't open, and he lived to talk about it. In spite of his story, I wouldn't suggest that people should try to skydive without parachutes, play Russian roulette, or mess with fire. And just because the ancients had certain social practices or because people in the Old Testament did things a certain way, it doesn't follow that we should uncritically adopt those measures today. If that were the case, those who commit adultery would have to be killed--and we would lose half of our adult population. From the comments above and a study of the singles sex triangle it is clear that increasing physical intimacy can rob a person of value.

The triangle model clearly has problems, whether one is engaged or just beginning to date. It raises key questions about protecting our value as a person (and the value of our partner), questions we will discuss in the next chapter.

CHAPTER TEN

THANKS FOR VISITING! GOD BLESS YOU!

[ Index | Internet | Salvation | Computer | Botany | Study | Personal ]