Of all the reviews to get...
Jun. 4th, 2003 01:21 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
misscamI did not just get one suggesting I should work in a wedding for Lina and Gimli because the reviewer was uncomfortable seeing them having sex and not being married.
*checks* Yes, I did.
I'm sure my parents, unmarried and together for 27 years now, would be amused. If anything, that review is likely to make me *not* write in a wedding at all. I had considered it, but mostly because a wedding Dwarf style would be fun.
Oh well, we'll see.
*checks* Yes, I did.
I'm sure my parents, unmarried and together for 27 years now, would be amused. If anything, that review is likely to make me *not* write in a wedding at all. I had considered it, but mostly because a wedding Dwarf style would be fun.
Oh well, we'll see.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: As a hopelessly old-fashioned prude myself...
Date: 2003-06-09 02:55 pm (UTC)Before I start with the opinion giving process, let me first say that, like Rose, I am a conservative Christian. Keep that in mind, or don't. Whatever.
Also keep in mind that I'm hopelessly tired right now. If this isn't exactly coherent, forgive me. I need sleep. :P
About double standards:
They disgust me. However, as I am a Christian I will again speak from this general point of view.
Christians are expected by God to be pure when they get married. Not women. Not men. Everyone. God doesn't have double standards. Someone mentioned something about surveys and such before. I can't remember who at the moment. In any event, they were mentioned. I read not too long ago about a survey taken amongst women that remained pure until they were married versus those that hadn't. The virgin brides tended to be more satisfied sexually than the women that didn't wait.
I personally think that regardless of being "satisfied" or not, you shouldn't sleep with anyone until after you're married to that person. I realize that this isn't the "norm" in 2003 and hasn't been for a while now, but what's normal isn't always what's right. In fact, since it is 2003, it's usually wrong!
I also feel it's wrong for those who aren't Christians or of any other conservative faith to act as if we who are should accept more liberal opinions, while those with more liberal opinions aren't accepting of ours. Talk about your double standards, eh? Before anyone flies off the handle here, I'm not pointing at anyone in particular. I'm just putting into words something I've noticed in general for a long time. It irks me, y'know...
On the wedding dress and its color:
In modern society, white is considered the color of purity. Regardless of who started this trend, that's the way it is.
Men do wear white sometimes. At my own wedding, I plan to wear white (and with a clear conscience), but I want my groom to wear black. Not because of anything other than I prefer black tuxedos instead of white or any other color.
People may think that remaining pure until you're married is out-dated, back-woodsy or some other negative descriptive term, but I am a virgin and plan to be one when I get married. I only hope that my future husband has the same respect for me.
One thing that bothers me...
Date: 2003-06-09 03:33 pm (UTC)Why does being a virgin have anything to do with being 'pure'? Using the terms synonomously suggests that virgins are clean and anyone who is not a virgin--whether a whore OR a married woman who has only ever slept with her husband, is soiled or tarnished somehow.
Seriously. Think about it. You said yourself that ths idea is to remain pure until you're married. Why pure? Sex is sex whether you're married to the person you're having sex with, or not. So if you're pure prior to the loss of your virginity, you're going to be impure (dirty, tainted) after the loss of it. A wife will be just as impure after losing her virginity as an unmarried woman.
The suggestion that virginity equals purity, while loss of virginity equals being soiled, just confuses me. That's all.
Re: One thing that bothers me...
Date: 2003-06-09 03:47 pm (UTC)Well, the way that I mean virgin is a given, right?
As far as virginity=purity while loss of virginity=impurity goes, I'll put it this way: IF you are married to the person, you are still pure. Thus the whole "keeping the marriage bed pure" bit that people like to use. (This meaning, of course, that you sleep only with the person you're married to period. Not that you only keep the particular bed you share free of any other sexual activity.)
*sigh* This is difficult for me to explain to those that possibly don't share the same beliefs I do.
If you are not married to someone and you sleep with them, you become unclean or impure. Yes, you are tainted. Soiled. Whatever word you prefer. If you refrain from such activities until you are married, and then keep to these activities with only that person, you remain pure, although you lose your virginity.
Virginity DOES equal purity, but not having your virginity still intact does NOT automatically equal impurity. It depends on how it came to be lost.
Does that make better sense? Like I said, I'm tired and not very coherent right now. :P
I'm also having a bad day for some reason. That doesn't help one put one's thoughts into words does it? :P
Re: One thing that bothers me...
Date: 2003-06-09 07:34 pm (UTC)TOPIC CLOSED.
Re: As a hopelessly old-fashioned prude myself...
Date: 2003-06-09 07:32 pm (UTC)Closed, get it? My LJ is indeed my livejournal, and not a fricking debate forum. Could you please have enough respect for me to actually read my actual posts before you launch into some speech?
As for I also feel it's wrong for those who aren't Christians or of any other conservative faith to act as if we who are should accept more liberal opinions, while those with more liberal opinions aren't accepting of ours. Talk about your double standards, eh? Before anyone flies off the handle here, I'm not pointing at anyone in particular. I'm just putting into words something I've noticed in general for a long time. It irks me, y'know...
You know, you might know people like that, but that does not make it all right for you to do the same. I am not Christian, for the hundredth time. I feel no obligation to adhere to Christian moral standards, and thus there is no point launching into a speech of why it is right to wait on my LJ(I haven't started posting on your with 'Oh, you must see the widom of Odin and have wild orgies'). I read that post and feel Christian ethics stuffed down my throat for the umptenth time. I shouldn't have to. I said the topic was closed, could you kindly *all* respect that (yes, Amy, I'm looking at you too).
TOPIC CLOSED. Now. If you have grief with me, you can e-mail me a big fat rant.
Thanks Saphie, for actually reading my entries.
Re: As a hopelessly old-fashioned prude myself...
Date: 2003-06-09 08:00 pm (UTC)Bwahahaha!! *rolls on the floor, laughing so hard her sides hurt*
I'm sorry, I know, I know, no more on the subject, but that line just lept up and twoped me on the side of the head. Too good to pass up.
*wanders off, giggling*
Re: As a hopelessly old-fashioned prude myself...
Date: 2003-06-10 10:03 am (UTC)And I did say that I wasn't pointing to anyone in particular with my statement about opinions. And I meant that.
But this'll be my last word on it, unless you'd rather continue the discussion. I don't mean to offend when I speak, nor was I attempting to cram anything anywhere.
Again, my apologies for continuing the thread.
Re: As a hopelessly old-fashioned prude myself...
Date: 2003-06-10 10:47 am (UTC)However, I'm sorry that I caused you irritation, Miss Cam. Won't happen again.