CHAPTER TEN

SHOULD SINGLES FEEL COMPELLED TO BE SEXUALLY INTIMATE?

Though the sex triangle helps many singles to postpone intercourse until marriage, it creates other problems. It actually encourages deeper and deeper sexual intimacy before marriage. The sex triangle requires that we keep our level of physical contact no higher than our level of commitment. But if the commitment is very high, say the second month of engagement or even three weeks until the wedding day, what happens to our physical intimacy?

PROBLEMS WITH THE TRLANGLE: LIMITS

The implication of the triangle model is that intimacy will be very high. The couple is told to refrain from intercourse, but most other forms of sexual intimacy seem approved, if this model is to be applied fully. Technically the couple may keep their virginity, but otherwise they are allowed to pursue sexual desires. Obviously one's value is threatened by this approach. But do we really want to teach singles that before marriage "anything goes" except intercourse?

I think that Richard Foster realized there were a few problems with the singles' sex triangle, even though he fully embraced this paradigm and suggested it to singles as a guide for behavior. He wrote,

I have sought to present a general principle for responsible passion that I hope will provide guidance without legalism. I would like to add to this two opinions of my own.... My first suggestion is this: since our purpose is to convey personal closeness and sharing without sexual intercourse, I think it would be wise to make the genitals and the woman's breasts off limits until marriage. These areas are just too explosive to be part of a mutual expression of affection and caring short of intercourse.

My second suggestion is that the engagement period not be too long--certainly not more than six months.

Foster warns singles to avoid the touching of personal areas before marriage in order to avoid possible intercourse. However, if they follow his triangle model, they would be compelled to disagree with his suggestion. The logic of the singles' sex triangle actually propels a couple to engage in petting and genital intimacies before marriage.

I discovered this when a single man, who was a leader in his church's singles ministry, spoke with me about a seminar on single sexuality that he and his fianc‚e attended. The speaker presented a version of the singles' sex triangle, and he and his fianc‚e accepted it, in his words, "hook, line, and sinker." Though they had been quite controlled sexually until that point, they believed that, in order to be healthy, they should become more physically intimate! As a result, they began to become sexually active to the point of mutual masturbation and orgasm, but they were still committed to remain virgins until their marriage. But in spite of their higher level of physical intimacy, they were feeling that their relationship honored God less and less, and they were feeling less and less qualified to be in Christian leadership.

"Rick, I try to convince myself that it's OK, but I would be totally ashamed if anyone in the church found out about it!" this leader told me. "I feel like such a hypocrite. I can't wait until we are married so I can quit feeling so guilty about this."

PROBLEMS WITH THE TRIANGLE: PATIENCE

His impatience is reminiscent of another suggestion by proponents of the model--that Christian engagements should not be longer than six months. As Foster explains, "By the time a couple reaches the point of engagement, they are entering levels of intimacy that should not be sustained for long without expression in sexual intercourse."

His timetable and conclusion are incorrect, for several reasons. First, how does Foster derive the specific limit of "certainly not more than six months"? The period is completely arbitrary.

Second, why does he believe that upon engagement, the couple are entering levels of intimacy that should not be sustained for long without expression in sexual intercourse." It is because the logic of the single's sex triangle naturally leads couples to get more physically involved once they are engaged.

Since engagement is high on the commitment scale, in order to keep the model in balance, couples have to proceed to a correspondingly high level of physical intimacy. This is why Foster recommends short engagements. If the couple really follows the model, they will remain virgins in a technical sense only. This development obviously was not a comfortable one for Foster, so he felt compelled to add his own opinions to correct the model. Yet rather than helping, in doing so Foster exposes the weakness inherent in the whole singles' sex triangles paradigrn. In my mind, his suggestions are proof that the singles' sex triangle model is a poor one.

Third, his suggestion that engagements not be long reflects a low view of the spirituality of Christian singles. One would imagine that Foster would consider patience to be a necessary prerequisite for marriage, and the lack thereof not an excuse to hasten the marriage date. This is all the more amazing because, from a historical point of view, within monasticism the vow of celibacy was a means of teaching patience and self-discipline. As Foster himself says much earlier in the book:

The vow of chastity also witnesses against wirestrained self-indulgence. It reminds us that discipline and denial are gospel imperatives. You see, our sexual intoxication is only representative of an all-pervasive mood of intemperance that dominates the world in which we live today. The Franciscan Brother Giles once said, "By chastity I mean to keep guard over all the senses with the grace of God.

Celibacy teaches patience. This is a lesson of value. We all could benefit from a refresher course in self-discipline in this very basic area. Maybe that's one reason the apostle Paul, when speaking about sexual expression within marriage, recommends that Christian married couples, from time to time, abstain from sex for the purpose of prayer: "Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer" (I Corinthians 7:5). How can abstinence add to one's prayer life?

Temporary celibacy, Paul is suggesting, would be a sort of fasting. It is well known that the effectiveness and pathos of prayer is increased when accompanied by fasting from food. But food is not the only thing from which we can fast. As I heard Foster teach once in an excellent sermon, Christians should also fast from such common things as the telephone, the television, and the theater. In each case, denying a desire or need helps us to focus better on God as the true solution to our ultimate desires and needs. As Christians fast, the self-discipline and demand for patience lead them to reflect upon their deeper need to depend on God and patiently trust in His timing.

Thus one benefit that is derived from encouraging couples to remain celibate before marriage is the patience and self-control it teaches them. Then when two people finally marry, they both can know full well that they are marrying someone who has the ability to delay gratification and control his/her urges. They can be assured that their marriage is founded on patience and a proper foundation. They are not marrying because they are quickly losing control. Unfortunately, the singles' sex triangle does not promote this type of patience and self-control--it encourages the very opposite.

Celibacy, even during engagement, is much like a fast before a big meal. It makes the person appreciate the meal more and savor the tastes. I remember a time when I fasted from food for several days to pray intensely for the health of a family member. I wanted to break the fast with a meal that would be easy to digest, so I fixed a pasta salad. Never have I enjoyed a simple meal so much, and never has pasta salad tasted so wonderful. Though this was not the primary reason for my fast, it certainly turned out to be a welcome benefit.

In the singles' sex triangle model, couples are urged to experience more and more, keeping only that final act of penetration for the wedding night. This would be parallel to recommending that someone just fast from the main course but be allowed to fill up on all the appetizers available. The persons eventual enjoyment of the main course would be spoiled. A person who fasts only from the main course is just fooling himself or herself; that would not be a fast in its true intent. It is an excuse for indulgence, not an experience of dependence. It is a detour, not a discipline. Couples whose only goal is to remain virgins in the technical sense (avoiding penetration) are also indulging themselves. Such a virginity is not virginity in its true intent. It is just an excuse, a rationalization.

PROBLEMS WITH THE TRIANGLE: CLARITY

The comparison of temporary sexual celibacy with temporary fasting from food is helpful in pointing out yet another problem with the singles' sex triangle ethic. By denying oneself in the physical arena, a person's other senses and insight tend to become more sensitive. For instance, during the extended fast that I mentioned earlier, I was praying not for myself but for a family member. And yet the longer I prayed and went without food, it seemed the real issue became not the illness in someone else but some blind spots in my own life. Towards the end, I was overcome with a strong conviction that I had to make some apologies to people I had offended, and I had to make them before I ended the fast.

So with much fear and trembling, I called up a few people and asked if I could drop by their homes. Once inside, I explained what I was feeling, accepted responsibility for the way I had caused them pain, and asked for forgiveness. What a healing experience (at least for me)! Driving home for the fast-breaking meal, I felt as if a ton of bricks had been lifted off my shoulders. It was such a powerful experience that I almost forgot the primary reason for my fast. One of the greatest benefits of fasting from food is that it helps one see issues more completely and clearly.

The same is true with the physical fasting that is usually called premarital celibacy. When a couple who desires to be intimate physically chooses to abstain, it will heighten their insight and awareness into other areas of their relationship. Conversely, if couples become too involved sexually, that can actually inhibit true love from developing.

This is especially true in terms of communication. Sexual involvement may keep two people from really getting to know one another. Couples that get too deeply involved physically often find that to be the consuming part of their relationship--to the deprivation of all other aspects. They don't talk together as much, they don't read the Bible as often, and they don't pray with as much intensity or introspection.

A discussion between Walter Trobisch and one of his counselees, Miriam, clearly illustrates this. Miriam and Timothy were engaged to be married. Trobisch began the discussion in a straightforward manner. "What worries me the most about your relationship is the fact that you are evidently not able to talk together. Timothy didn't even know how old you were, Miriam, nor how much education you have had, nor how much you earn. Actually, I knew more about you than Timothy did. How do you explain that?"

Miriam answered Trobisch, explaining that they had become sexually active only four weeks into their engagement.

"What does this have to do with your inability to talk together?" Trobisch asked.

"Very much," Miriam replied. "It soon became the main thing, the main reason for our dates. We knew that when we met we would end up dating. We thought just of this one thing. Everything else became secondary."

Timothy and Miriam's case is tragically common. Couples often know each other physically before marriage but don't discover who the other person really is until after the wedding. 'That's one reason that married life can be such a rude awakening for so many people. They don't know the person they married, except in a sexual way. That's one reason why as a pastor I ask couples who are sleeping together to abstain until the marriage. I try to explain the positive side of single sexuality--that temporary celibacy is a way of asserting and protecting value. Usually they are quite enthusiastic about working on giving their future marriage a solid moral foundation.

When a couple truly fast from sexual involvement, their lives usually are affected in one of three ways. First, they may discover a whole new depth and joy in their love together. As one man said, "This temporary celibacy has taught me that even without sex I'm a lucky man to have her. In fact, I'd marry her now even if we couldn't have sex!" Second, they may realize that their relationship was fairly vacuous without sex. As a result, they begin to work on improving the other areas of intimacy, the social, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual areas. Some seek out Christian counselors to help them with problem areas, such as family history, step-parent issues, or dealing with the ex-spouse. In this way, they end up with a much stronger and more balanced marriage than they ever would have had without premarital abstinence.

The third way couples are affected is that they may reconsider their engagement. Some couples discover that sex was the magnet that held them together, and that without it they have no relationship. Many couples decide at that point to call off the wedding.

I remember a couple where the woman, Alice, deeply wanted to agree to temporary abstinence before their marriage, while her fianc‚e, Terry, was extremely angry at me for even suggesting it. They had made an appointment with me because they wanted a quick wedding, and they thought I would casually agree to perform their marriage quickly. They were shocked when I refused to marry them on their timetable and under the present conditions. I clearly stipulated that I would not marry them unless they agreed to remain celibate until the marriage. Terry was furious and told Alice that they should just find another Pasteur to marry them. But something motivated Alice to go along with my suggestions. Terry tried to talk her out of it, but Alice held to her decision. As a result, Terry was without sex for a while. During that time, he began to notice some things about her that had escaped his attention before. In fact, he made a startling discovery--he decided that Alice was emotionally unstable and quite manipulative. The hardest lesson for him to admit was that this was especially true sexually--she had used sex to control him. The very thing that Terry liked so much was the tool she was using to trick and capture him.

Terry broke up with Alice, and both of them felt quite devastated. But God wasn't finished in their lives. His grace and kindness always exceeds even our wildest dreams. In time Terry met another beautiful Christian woman and developed a much healthier relationship. Alice too met a new man, but this new guy was very different from Terry. Like Alice, he was an emotional and sensitive person, so was much better suited for her. He even viewed as assets what Terry had seen as liabilities. They too were able to develop a healthy, Christian relationship. Both new couples eventually wed and to this day have strong, healthy, Christian marriages.

I don't see Alice much anymore; she and her new husband moved away because of a job transfer. But Terry and his new wife are still actively involved in our church, and I have the unique pleasure of witnessing the joy they bring each other and others. I have never brought up the subject of Alice to Terry, and I thought it would become a part of the forgotten past. But one day Terry and I were in a group of couples when a man named Bob related the story about "a horrible minister" who refused to marry him and his new wife.

"What kind of holier-than-thou jerk" this man complained, "would refuse to marry someone. I mean, who I marry is my business, not his. Marrying is his job--I should've sued him for discrimination and emotional damages."

As the only Pasteur in the circle, I was feeling pretty uncomfortable with this diatribe. I was deep in thought, trying to figure out a caring and yet assertive response, when Terry beat me to the punch.

He said, "I know just what you mean. I was engaged to get married once, and a Pasteur refused to marry us. Was I ever mad. I would lie awake at night just thinking of ways that I could get even with that guy. But then some other things happened, and I learned that the woman I was engaged to was really messed up. I just couldn't see it because I was so hot and heavy to get married. What a fool I was. I almost made the biggest mistake of MY life. So I broke up with her, and pretty soon met my wife, Julie. Now I thank God for that guy who had the guts to say no to me when I needed it most."

Bob huffed and puffed a bit and then changed the subject. When the group later dispersed, Terry walked away with me. When it was just the two of us, he leaned over and quietly said, "Hey Rick, I meant what I said. I never have thanked you for what you did 'cause I was just too embarrassed to bring it up. But I think about it all the time. I almost totally messed up my life. I was mad at you for a while, but I hope you'll forgive me for it. I really appreciate now that you told me no when I needed to hear it most. Thanks."

"You're welcome, Terry," I said. "That's what friends are for."

Because of that experience, the depth of our friendship was greater than ever before. As close friends know, the strength of quality friendships is forged on the anvil of tough love. There is no other way.

PROBLEMS WITH THE TRIANGLE: BROKEN ENGAGEMENTS

The singles' sex triangle has one other problem I must point out, even though engaged couples hate to hear this. Engagement is not marriage, and couples sometimes "fall out" of engagement. Whenever I bring this point up to an engaged pair, one or both will say, "Well, that may happen to some couples. But it won't happen to us!" Of course, all of us tend to view ourselves as the exception. "Other couples may struggle, but we won't."

That's similar to married couples who struggle. Trouble often appears, and divorce is a fact of life. However, when husbands and wives are told to nurture their marriages, they sometimes say, "Others may have trouble in their marriage, but not us. Others may get a divorce but that will never happen to us." How much better to admit that it might be a possibility and prevent it by preparing for struggles in advance. A married couple that realizes money can be a source of conflict will be much better equipped to deal with financial issues than a couple that naively assumes it won't be a problem for them.

In the same way, an engaged couple should admit to themselves that sometimes engagements are broken, and it could happen to them. If the couple proceeds merrily after the model of the singles' sex triangle and becomes heavily involved physically, they will discover the breakup even harder to bear. Because of this possibility, wise couples will keep their sexual involvement to a minimum.

Juan and Monique were deeply committed Christians who learned this truth. Juan had grown up in the church and was a gifted singer and a lay leader in the church choir. Monique moved to the city from another state, and since she too loved to sing, she joined the choir. There they met and immediately were attracted to one another.

As musicians, they both were romantics, so their dating life began in storybook fashion full of roses, candlelight dinners, and music. Soon they were deeply in love and were talking marriage. After dating only a couple of months, they became engaged.

Along with the engagement, they felt permitted to become more involved sexually, though they both wanted to reserve "the act," as they called it, until marriage. And though they did everything but "the act" they were able to control that final desire. Yet as their passion and intimacy escalated, other things were disintegrating. There were things about Juan that bothered Monique, and vice versa. And as is common with couples that drew together quickly, their relationship fell apart quickly. Before they realized it, the engagement was off and there was an impenetrable wall between them. They were still able to be cordial with one another in church, but without respect.

As Monique said, "Whenever I see Juan I can't help but think about the things we did together sexually. I don't respect myself, and I certainly don't respect him. Because it was tough to see him and because I felt unworthy, I quit the choir. But I think now I may even have to find another church to attend. I can't worship with him up in front, still singing in the choir.

"I know this sounds terrible, but I can't help it--I see him up there and imagine him without any clothes on. It sort of spoils my ability to worship! In fact, it has messed up my whole walk with God. I wonder if I ever will be able to forgive myself and get these images out of my mind.

"I wonder sometimes what would happen if I told everyone about the things we did together. Would they let him stand up front still? Would they kick us both out of the church? What a fool I was. I wish I could go back in time and do things differently. But I was so sure that we were going to be married and that that would make everything OK. Was I ever wrong."

The best course of action, Monique realized in hindsight, was to keep sexual involvement to a minimum--even during engagement. As a result, in our church I often ask engaged couples two questions to help them think through this issue:

1. If you were to break up, would you still be able to be friends? Don't get involved so deeply sexually that if you broke the engagement, it would be an embarrassment to see each other socially.
2. Married couples have sex and everyone knows it. It's socially acceptable. They don't worry about their family and friends discovering what they do together in private. How about you? Do you worry about being discovered? Would you be comfortable telling your family and friends about what you do together in private?

These may seem extreme questions, but for the many couples who date and do not marry, they are crucial. The truth of the matter is that a person will usually date several people before finding his or her eventual marriage partner. Many people will even be engaged a few times before actually making it all the way through a marriage ceremony. To put it bluntly, no one is married until he or she is married. And even if a couple begins dating, becomes sexually involved, and still marry, that doesn't mean that they will not carry some baggage or guilt into their life together. And it doesn't imply that such a couple would recommend to others that it's OK to be sexually involved before marriage.

Tonya eventually became engaged to her boyfriend after six and one half years of dating, but she lost her virginity during her first year and remained sexually active up to their engagement. They are planning to occupy a four-bedroom home they recently purchased and look forward to starting a family once married. But she recommends against extended sexual intimacy before marriage, calling it Russian Roulette.

My story is a happy one, yet I know of too many who do not turn out like this, which is why I say that my circumstances are ones of pure luck since I never got a disease, never got pregnant, and stayed with him. Even though my story is good, I would still say people should wait for marriage for sex because it's like Russian Roulette; you never know whether it's your lucky day or not.

CHAPTER ELEVEN

THANKS FOR VISITING! GOD BLESS YOU!

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