| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Damian J. Anderson" |
| Date: |
19 Mar 2007 07:31:04 PM |
| Object: |
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/211/story_21140.html
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Rock journalist-turned-Christian Dawn Eden speaks to Beliefnet about
her discovery that sexual liberation is actually a prison. Interview
by Charlotte Allen
Dawn Eden, a writer and editor, is a self-described "agnostic Reform
Jew" and veteran of the New York City singles jungle who became an
evangelical Christian and then a Catholic. In her new book, The Thrill
of the Chaste: Finding Fulfillment While Keeping Your Clothes On, she
describes her conversion from a "Sex and the City" lifestyle that made
her miserable to a realization that saving sex for marriage was a
liberating experience. She also encourages unmarried women to think of
themselves not as "single" but as "singular"--defined by their
relationship to God, not a man.
The myth is that women who don't have sex get sex-starved and feel
like jumping on the next man they run into. Do you feel that way?
I used to. When I first started practicing chastity, I felt that I was
depriving myself for Jesus, so to speak. I was making this big
sacrifice, and God had better darn well appreciate it, because it
wasn't easy. And I had to be all buttoned up and uncomfortable around
men when I was really attracted to them. What I discovered is, first
of all, that is not a recipe for prolonged chastity. You are going to
fall off the wagon pretty quickly if you take that attitude.
And second of all, it's not really chastity. It's a word that I
learned recently, which I'll use in my next book, called continence.
It's simply the equivalent of abstinence, of physically preventing
yourself from having sexual activity. But chastity is really from the
inside.
So I began to practice that when, instead of concentrating on the fact
that I was depriving myself, I concentrated on being open to all the
blessings that the people around me had to offer, men and women. For
example, you start to go to a social gathering, not thinking, "Oh, I
hope I meet that one special guy," but just, "Oh, I'm looking forward
to meeting everybody there." When you open up your perspective, you
begin to experience the joys of chastity.
Do you feel sexual temptation these days? And what do you do? Say a
prayer?
I do find the Miraculous Medal prayer helps a great deal: "O Mary,
conceived without sin, pray for us who have recourse to thee." But for
those who do not practice the Miraculous Medal prayer, then, what I
would advocate is just stepping back, as often as you can, and looking
at what you're doing, and what the person you're attracted to is
doing. Ask yourself: "Am I setting myself up to let this person use me
for sexual pleasure? And am I using this person for my sexual
pleasure?"
If you really are in love with a man, and you really want to kiss him,
a kiss can, in that context, be a beautiful expression of love. It
takes on a different color when, once you're kissing, you get
passionate, and you think: "If I touch his neck right here, he is
going to get excited, I know he will." Then it takes on the aspect of
objectifying the other person. That's not a road that you want to take
when you're chaste.
How do you deal with the cultural expectations that if you're trying
to be chaste, there's something wrong with you?
Chastity is for rebels . Chastity is not for people who are conformist
and meek little turtledoves, who don't want to rock the boat. I have
always been a rebel. I have always enjoyed being on the edge and
offending people who I thought deserved to be offended. Now, as a
Christian, I've had to change. I've had to try to either get rid of or
transform that part of me that is a provocateur. But I have to say,
even though I still have to undo some of the angry aspects of my
rebelliousness, I do find that if people are annoyed by my chastity,
part of me just thinks: "Well, kiss my tuchis," as my mother would
say.
What do you think about our culture? We've now had 40 years of the
sexual revolution. In the 1950s, chastity was kind of the universal
norm. Now we have a completely different kind of culture where young
people seem to spend their 20s experimenting with each other, and
different kinds of sex and arrangements that aren't going to last. Do
you think it's possible to change the culture at this point?
As a Christian, I have to believe in hope for salting the culture. We
are called to be salt and light. I don't believe that all the sexual
revolution [is] going to disappear. But I do believe that hearts can
be changed, whether it's one heart [or] a million hearts. We have a
duty as Christians to show people that when they take part in what's
called the pro-choice culture, the choices that they make to have sex
without seeming consequences actually narrow down their choices
emotionally and spiritually. With every "yes" that they are saying to
casual sex, to contraceptive sex, they are saying "no" to the
blessings of sex within a loving, committed, lifetime marriage, where
you experience sex in all its fullness, and in all its potential for
fertility.
Do you think that that is the worst thing about casual sex? That it
shuts it off to the goodness of that experience?
Oh, completely. It jades you. It hardens you. One thing that I found
very interesting about the television show Sex and the City is that
it's surprisingly honest, in the sense that the characters are all so
superficial. And they have this hard shell. Sarah Jessica Parker's
character, for all her seemingly openness in her body, and in her
willingness to physically let a man in, her face is pinched. And
tense. And you can just see the fear, even in those characters' eyes,
of really allowing a man inside.
A friend of mine who has two daughters who are in their late 20s, and
they are committed to chastity. They're all very good Catholics. And
they're having a terrible time finding men. Men will go out with them
and then decide that, well, they're not going to have sex with them,
there's no point pursuing this relationship. My friend is in despair
about her daughters. She feels that they might never get married.
If you're a religious person, if you're a Christian, then you have to
believe that God is the matchmaker. Having faith means that you ask
God to let you exhibit all the graces that you've been given as a
woman. When you do that, not only will you enjoy life more, but you
will be attractive in a way that you couldn't have imagined before.
Yes, it is very hard to find men who will wait. But I know for a fact
that they are out there. And the more that you despair, the more that
you are not trusting God to set you up.
That said, you do have to put yourself in places where you will meet
men. Doing the positive things, taking advantage of the opportunities
that God sends. But if you're taking advantage of all those
opportunities, and you haven't met someone, that simply means that the
one person God has chosen for you hasn't come yet.
What do you think about the fact that virginity, which used to be
idealized, now seems to be regarded as a burden? It's something that
young girls want to get rid of as soon as they can.
I absolutely thought that my virginity was a burden. I thought of it
as an albatross around my neck.
I remember when I was about 20 years old, having a makeout session
with a man. At this time, I was trying to save my virginity for my
true love. I knew that I tended towards depression, [and] I was afraid
that if I lost my virginity to someone who wouldn't stay around, it
would be shattering to me--which was rather prophetic on my part.
So I remember making out with a man, and telling him, "There's
something I should tell you. I'm a virgin." And he said to me, "If you
ever want to lose your virginity, don't tell the guy you're a virgin."
So I know how our culture treats that.
Can we get that respect for chastity back?
I think the way to get [it] back, ironically, is not to put so much
emphasis on virginity. Virginity has replaced chastity in our
culture's language, in the sense that people refer to chastity as
secondary virginity. I've actually had very good-natured arguments
with fellow Christians about this, because people who teach abstinence
in schools rely upon the term secondary virginity. But in my view, the
term secondary virginity implies that you can only be chaste if you
are a virgin.
So if you're not a virgin, you have to pretend to be one in order to
be chaste. Not all of us can be virgins. For some of us, that train
has already left the station. But we all can be chaste.
Do guys still ask you out?
(Laughs) Not as often as they used to, because I'm no longer putting
out the "I'm available" vibe, like I used to. Guys can tell pretty
easily when a woman wants to, you know, put out that she's willing to
put out. (Laughs)
But recently I was at a party-really a discussion or salon on the
Upper East Side, hosted by a Catholic friend. I met a young Catholic
man there, younger than me. We were just chatting. I asked him what
was he was reading currently, and he said Men and Marriage, by George
Gilder. I said, "Oh, are you engaged?" And he said, "Oh, no, not at
all. I just want to get married someday, and I thought I should learn
more about it."
I said to him well, I certainly must be traveling in the right circles
now, because in the circles where I used to travel, I would never in a
million years meet a man who would admit to reading a book about men
and marriage.
I was very careful not to volunteer my card to this young man. Because
I, first of all, have this book coming out, and I didn't want [him] to
say, "Oh, a chaste girl gave me her card--told me to come up some time
and see her." Also he's a bit younger, so I didn't want to seem like
this older woman moving in.
Well, he proceeded to get my email address from this host, and he
contacted me. We're now dating, and our first dinner date was on the
night that my book came out.
He's just absolutely wonderful. So that was something that actually
came about, because I was not putting out that vibe. And yet he knew
where I stood, in terms of chastity. He's chaste himself. If you are
putting out the vibe that says that you're a woman of substance, that
men of substance will seek you out.
--
Damian J. Anderson
Damian.Anderson@gmail.com
PO Box 6488
Silver Spring, MD 20916, USA
+1-301-921-0082
"You do not lead by hitting people over the head - that's assault, not
leadership." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
19 Mar 2007 09:00:05 PM |
|
|
Here's to not being stuck married to her...
paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
20 Mar 2007 01:13:25 AM |
|
|
On 2007-03-20 11:00:05 +0900, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net> said:
Here's to not being stuck married to her...
paul
Don't you mean him, Paul?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Duca" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
20 Mar 2007 06:19:15 PM |
|
|
in article 2007032015132575249-bgoogle@maccom, Eric at wrote
on 3/20/07 2:13 AM:
On 2007-03-20 11:00:05 +0900, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net> said:
Here's to not being stuck married to her...
paul
Don't you mean him, Paul?
A man named Dawn?
Paul
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
26 Mar 2007 08:04:58 AM |
|
|
On 2007-03-21 08:19:15 +0900, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net> said:
in article 2007032015132575249-bgoogle@maccom, Eric at wrote
on 3/20/07 2:13 AM:
On 2007-03-20 11:00:05 +0900, Paul Duca <p.duca@comcast.net> said:
Here's to not being stuck married to her...
paul
Don't you mean him, Paul?
A man named Dawn?
Paul
Just responding to your fantasies...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elf M. Sternberg" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
20 Mar 2007 12:27:17 PM |
|
|
"Damian J. Anderson" <Damian.Anderson@gmail.com> writes:
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Grief, if that name doesn't cry out "I'm a porn star," I don't
know a name that does.
Elf
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
20 Mar 2007 09:02:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 10:27:17 -0700, Elf M. Sternberg <elf@drizzle.com>
wrote:
"Damian J. Anderson" <Damian.Anderson@gmail.com> writes:
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Grief, if that name doesn't cry out "I'm a porn star," I don't
know a name that does.
Ehn. Works for an evangelist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Anlatt the Builder" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
20 Mar 2007 12:58:03 PM |
|
|
Chastity isn't for rebels. Chastity is for people who decide, after
due consideration, that they would be better off being chaste. It
could be because they feel more centered when they are chaste, or
because they were not enjoying their sexual experiences, or because
they found their sexual lives out of control, or for religious
reasons, or for any other reason.
Similarly, sexual activity is for people who decide, after due
consideration, that they wish to be sexually active. For whatever
reasons.
I have no objection to chastity or sexual activity. May everybody find
what works best for them! But people like Dawn Eden, who apparently
need to convince themselves that THEIR experience is everybody's
experience; that if chastity is right for them, then it must be right
for everybody; that people who live differently than they do must be
secretly unhappy.... These are people who are not secure in their own
choices, try to make up for it by lecturing other people, and have an
unhealthy obsession with other people's sex lives. They are not role
models for anyone.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
19 Mar 2007 10:06:38 PM |
|
|
Damian J. Anderson wrote:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/211/story_21140.html
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Rock journalist-turned-Christian Dawn Eden speaks to Beliefnet about
her discovery that sexual liberation is actually a prison. Interview
by Charlotte Allen
Dawn Eden, a writer and editor, is a self-described "agnostic Reform
Jew" and veteran of the New York City singles jungle who became an
evangelical Christian and then a Catholic.
Why am I not surprised that idiots see sex in terms of either
unbridled licentiousness or chastity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
20 Mar 2007 01:15:30 AM |
|
|
On 2007-03-20 12:06:38 +0900, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> said:
Damian J. Anderson wrote:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/211/story_21140.html
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Rock journalist-turned-Christian Dawn Eden speaks to Beliefnet about
her discovery that sexual liberation is actually a prison. Interview
by Charlotte Allen
Dawn Eden, a writer and editor, is a self-described "agnostic Reform
Jew" and veteran of the New York City singles jungle who became an
evangelical Christian and then a Catholic.
Why am I not surprised that idiots see sex in terms of either
unbridled licentiousness or chastity?
Because the difference between chaste and not chaste is pretty much
like alive and dead or pregnant and not pregnant.
People that don't see that could also be said to be the idiots.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
20 Mar 2007 08:24:55 PM |
|
|
On Mar 19, 11:15 pm, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-20 12:06:38 +0900, "Santolinachamaecyparissus"
<santol...@juno.com> said:
Damian J. Anderson wrote:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/211/story_21140.html
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Rock journalist-turned-Christian Dawn Eden speaks to Beliefnet about
her discovery that sexual liberation is actually a prison. Interview
by Charlotte Allen
Dawn Eden, a writer and editor, is a self-described "agnostic Reform
Jew" and veteran of the New York City singles jungle who became an
evangelical Christian and then a Catholic.
Why am I not surprised that idiots see sex in terms of either
unbridled licentiousness or chastity?
Because the difference between chaste and not chaste is pretty much
like alive and dead or pregnant and not pregnant.
WHOOOOOOOSH.........
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
20 Mar 2007 09:01:18 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:15:30 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-20 12:06:38 +0900, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> said:
Damian J. Anderson wrote:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/211/story_21140.html
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Rock journalist-turned-Christian Dawn Eden speaks to Beliefnet about
her discovery that sexual liberation is actually a prison. Interview
by Charlotte Allen
Dawn Eden, a writer and editor, is a self-described "agnostic Reform
Jew" and veteran of the New York City singles jungle who became an
evangelical Christian and then a Catholic.
Why am I not surprised that idiots see sex in terms of either
unbridled licentiousness or chastity?
Because the difference between chaste and not chaste is pretty much
like alive and dead or pregnant and not pregnant.
Your response seems irrelevant. Someone who found unchastity to be
constraining would only feel that way, if they felt somehow obligated
to say yes to every man because they chose to say yes to one man.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
26 Mar 2007 08:07:14 AM |
|
|
On 2007-03-21 11:01:18 +0900, David Johnston <david@block.net> said:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:15:30 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-20 12:06:38 +0900, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> said:
Damian J. Anderson wrote:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/211/story_21140.html
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Rock journalist-turned-Christian Dawn Eden speaks to Beliefnet about
her discovery that sexual liberation is actually a prison. Interview
by Charlotte Allen
Dawn Eden, a writer and editor, is a self-described "agnostic Reform
Jew" and veteran of the New York City singles jungle who became an
evangelical Christian and then a Catholic.
Why am I not surprised that idiots see sex in terms of either
unbridled licentiousness or chastity?
Because the difference between chaste and not chaste is pretty much
like alive and dead or pregnant and not pregnant.
Your response seems irrelevant. Someone who found unchastity to be
constraining would only feel that way, if they felt somehow obligated
to say yes to every man because they chose to say yes to one man.
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married. After
that it is called fidelity. Chastity is just fidelity before you say
yes to that one.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
26 Mar 2007 01:37:28 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:07:14 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-21 11:01:18 +0900, David Johnston <david@block.net> said:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:15:30 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-20 12:06:38 +0900, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> said:
Damian J. Anderson wrote:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/211/story_21140.html
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Rock journalist-turned-Christian Dawn Eden speaks to Beliefnet about
her discovery that sexual liberation is actually a prison. Interview
by Charlotte Allen
Dawn Eden, a writer and editor, is a self-described "agnostic Reform
Jew" and veteran of the New York City singles jungle who became an
evangelical Christian and then a Catholic.
Why am I not surprised that idiots see sex in terms of either
unbridled licentiousness or chastity?
Because the difference between chaste and not chaste is pretty much
like alive and dead or pregnant and not pregnant.
Your response seems irrelevant. Someone who found unchastity to be
constraining would only feel that way, if they felt somehow obligated
to say yes to every man because they chose to say yes to one man.
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say "no"
to anyone you want.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
27 Mar 2007 10:16:19 AM |
|
|
On 2007-03-27 03:37:28 +0900, David Johnston <david@block.net> said:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:07:14 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-21 11:01:18 +0900, David Johnston <david@block.net> said:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:15:30 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-20 12:06:38 +0900, "Santolina chamaecyparissus"
<santolina@juno.com> said:
Damian J. Anderson wrote:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/211/story_21140.html
Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels'
Rock journalist-turned-Christian Dawn Eden speaks to Beliefnet about
her discovery that sexual liberation is actually a prison. Interview
by Charlotte Allen
Dawn Eden, a writer and editor, is a self-described "agnostic Reform
Jew" and veteran of the New York City singles jungle who became an
evangelical Christian and then a Catholic.
Why am I not surprised that idiots see sex in terms of either
unbridled licentiousness or chastity?
Because the difference between chaste and not chaste is pretty much
like alive and dead or pregnant and not pregnant.
Your response seems irrelevant. Someone who found unchastity to be
constraining would only feel that way, if they felt somehow obligated
to say yes to every man because they chose to say yes to one man.
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say "no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Serial
monogamy is not chastity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
27 Mar 2007 12:58:00 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:16:19 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say "no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Serial
monogamy is not chastity.
The subject was not whether it was chastity or not but whether
chastity was freedom or not. I think you make it quite clear that it
is not freedom.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
27 Mar 2007 06:59:47 PM |
|
|
On 2007-03-28 02:58:00 +0900, David Johnston <david@block.net> said:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:16:19 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say "no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Serial
monogamy is not chastity.
The subject was not whether it was chastity or not but whether
chastity was freedom or not. I think you make it quite clear that it
is not freedom.
How so?
Seems to me a lot of men promote sluttery as freedom so that they have
more targets to indulge their appetites.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
28 Mar 2007 07:16:13 AM |
|
|
On 28 Mar., 01:59, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-28 02:58:00 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:16:19 +0900, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say "no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Serial
monogamy is not chastity.
The subject was not whether it was chastity or not but whether
chastity was freedom or not. I think you make it quite clear that it
is not freedom.
How so?
Seems to me a lot of men promote sluttery as freedom so that they have
more targets to indulge their appetites.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
That would be irrelevant. If a person has a choice, that person is
free. A person can choose to be chaste, choose to have sex with a
particular person, choose to have sex with anybody he/she feels
attracted to etc. As long as the choice is not imposed by others,
that person is free.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
28 Mar 2007 11:40:57 AM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2007 05:16:13 -0700, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 28 Mar., 01:59, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-28 02:58:00 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:16:19 +0900, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say "no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Serial
monogamy is not chastity.
The subject was not whether it was chastity or not but whether
chastity was freedom or not. I think you make it quite clear that it
is not freedom.
How so?
Seems to me a lot of men promote sluttery as freedom so that they have
more targets to indulge their appetites.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
That would be irrelevant. If a person has a choice, that person is
free. A person can choose to be chaste, choose to have sex with a
particular person, choose to have sex with anybody he/she feels
attracted to etc. As long as the choice is not imposed by others,
that person is free.
True. The real issue is not whether chastity is unfreedom but whether
unchastity takes away your freedom as Dawn Eden claimed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
28 Mar 2007 04:15:02 PM |
|
|
On 2007-03-29 01:40:57 +0900, David Johnston <david@block.net> said:
On 28 Mar 2007 05:16:13 -0700, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 28 Mar., 01:59, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-28 02:58:00 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:16:19 +0900, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say "no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Serial
monogamy is not chastity.
The subject was not whether it was chastity or not but whether
chastity was freedom or not. I think you make it quite clear that it
is not freedom.
How so?
Seems to me a lot of men promote sluttery as freedom so that they have
more targets to indulge their appetites.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
That would be irrelevant. If a person has a choice, that person is
free. A person can choose to be chaste, choose to have sex with a
particular person, choose to have sex with anybody he/she feels
attracted to etc. As long as the choice is not imposed by others,
that person is free.
True. The real issue is not whether chastity is unfreedom but whether
unchastity takes away your freedom as Dawn Eden claimed.
And it does.
Because the consequences of your actions are not something you can
choose... and the consequences of unchastity are well known and mostly
detrimental. Disease, heartbreak, destroyed relationships, betrayal,
destroyed trust, destroyed self-esteem, unwanted pregnancies,
abortions, children born to poverty and ignorance out-of-wedlock and so
on are the unwanted consequences.
Chastity until marriage and fidelity in marriage avoids all those
unwanted consequences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
29 Mar 2007 04:25:20 PM |
|
|
On 28 Mar., 23:15, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-29 01:40:57 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On 28 Mar 2007 05:16:13 -0700, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 28 Mar., 01:59, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-28 02:58:00 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:16:19 +0900, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only =
one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say =
"no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Serial
monogamy is not chastity.
The subject was not whether it was chastity or not but whether
chastity was freedom or not. I think you make it quite clear that it
is not freedom.
How so?
Seems to me a lot of men promote sluttery as freedom so that they have
more targets to indulge their appetites.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselste=
gn -
That would be irrelevant. If a person has a choice, that person is
free. A person can choose to be chaste, choose to have sex with a
particular person, choose to have sex with anybody he/she feels
attracted to etc. As long as the choice is not imposed by others,
that person is free.
True. The real issue is not whether chastity is unfreedom but whether
unchastity takes away your freedom as Dawn Eden claimed.
And it does.
Because the consequences of your actions are not something you can
choose... and the consequences of unchastity are well known and mostly
detrimental.
That is not a fact.
Disease, heartbreak, destroyed relationships, betrayal,
destroyed trust, destroyed self-esteem, unwanted pregnancies,
abortions, children born to poverty and ignorance out-of-wedlock and so
on are the unwanted consequences.
Nonsense.
Chastity until marriage and fidelity in marriage avoids all those
unwanted consequences.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
All of those fantasy consequences.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
30 Mar 2007 04:04:21 PM |
|
|
On 2007-03-30 06:25:20 +0900, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk> said:
On 28 Mar., 23:15, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-29 01:40:57 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On 28 Mar 2007 05:16:13 -0700, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 28 Mar., 01:59, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-28 02:58:00 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:16:19 +0900, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only
one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say
"no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Serial
monogamy is not chastity.
The subject was not whether it was chastity or not but whether
chastity was freedom or not. I think you make it quite clear that it
is not freedom.
How so?
Seems to me a lot of men promote sluttery as freedom so that they have
more targets to indulge their appetites.- Skjul tekst i anførselste
gn -
That would be irrelevant. If a person has a choice, that person is
free. A person can choose to be chaste, choose to have sex with a
particular person, choose to have sex with anybody he/she feels
attracted to etc. As long as the choice is not imposed by others,
that person is free.
True. The real issue is not whether chastity is unfreedom but whether
unchastity takes away your freedom as Dawn Eden claimed.
And it does.
Because the consequences of your actions are not something you can
choose... and the consequences of unchastity are well known and mostly
detrimental.
That is not a fact.
Disease, heartbreak, destroyed relationships, betrayal,
destroyed trust, destroyed self-esteem, unwanted pregnancies,
abortions, children born to poverty and ignorance out-of-wedlock and so
on are the unwanted consequences.
Nonsense.
Chastity until marriage and fidelity in marriage avoids all those
unwanted consequences.- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
All of those fantasy consequences.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
31 Mar 2007 01:02:00 AM |
|
|
On 30 Mar., 23:04, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-30 06:25:20 +0900, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk> said:
On 28 Mar., 23:15, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-29 01:40:57 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On 28 Mar 2007 05:16:13 -0700, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 28 Mar., 01:59, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-28 02:58:00 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:16:19 +0900, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only
one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chasti=
ty.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say
"no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Ser=
ial
monogamy is not chastity.
The subject was not whether it was chastity or not but whether
chastity was freedom or not. I think you make it quite clear that=
it
is not freedom.
How so?
Seems to me a lot of men promote sluttery as freedom so that they h=
ave
more targets to indulge their appetites.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rsels=
te
gn -
That would be irrelevant. If a person has a choice, that person is
free. A person can choose to be chaste, choose to have sex with a
particular person, choose to have sex with anybody he/she feels
attracted to etc. As long as the choice is not imposed by others,
that person is free.
True. The real issue is not whether chastity is unfreedom but whether
unchastity takes away your freedom as Dawn Eden claimed.
And it does.
Because the consequences of your actions are not something you can
choose... and the consequences of unchastity are well known and mostly
detrimental.
That is not a fact.
Disease, heartbreak, destroyed relationships, betrayal,
destroyed trust, destroyed self-esteem, unwanted pregnancies,
abortions, children born to poverty and ignorance out-of-wedlock and so
on are the unwanted consequences.
Nonsense.
Chastity until marriage and fidelity in marriage avoids all those
unwanted consequences.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
All of those fantasy consequences.
Denial is not a river in Egypt.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselstegn -
You have made unsupported assertions. They remain unsupported.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
28 Mar 2007 04:42:06 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:15:02 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
Chastity until marriage and fidelity in marriage avoids all those
unwanted consequences.
In return for binding you to someone for life regardless of whether
you can stand them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
30 Mar 2007 04:03:44 PM |
|
|
On 2007-03-29 06:42:06 +0900, David Johnston <david@block.net> said:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:15:02 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
Chastity until marriage and fidelity in marriage avoids all those
unwanted consequences.
In return for binding you to someone for life regardless of whether
you can stand them.
Barring the abusive, addicted, whoremongering/whorish and/or slothful,
not being able to stand someone is often a question of your character
and not theirs.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
30 Mar 2007 07:11:44 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 06:03:44 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-29 06:42:06 +0900, David Johnston <david@block.net> said:
On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 06:15:02 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
Chastity until marriage and fidelity in marriage avoids all those
unwanted consequences.
In return for binding you to someone for life regardless of whether
you can stand them.
Barring the abusive, addicted, whoremongering/whorish and/or slothful,
Don't forget the terminally self-righteous.
not being able to stand someone is often a question of your character
and not theirs.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
28 Mar 2007 02:03:51 PM |
|
|
On 28 Mar., 18:40, David Johnston <d...@block.net> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2007 05:16:13 -0700, "thomas p." <tonyofbe...@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
On 28 Mar., 01:59, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-28 02:58:00 +0900, David Johnston <d...@block.net> said:
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 00:16:19 +0900, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only =
one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity... until married.
No it isn't. Waiting until marriage is the definition of chastity.
That's the point.
Oh, and even if you have said yes to _two_ men, you can still say =
"no"
to anyone you want.
It is still a difference between being chaste and not chaste. Serial
monogamy is not chastity.
The subject was not whether it was chastity or not but whether
chastity was freedom or not. I think you make it quite clear that it
is not freedom.
How so?
Seems to me a lot of men promote sluttery as freedom so that they have
more targets to indulge their appetites.- Skjul tekst i anf=F8rselsteg=
n -
That would be irrelevant. If a person has a choice, that person is
free. A person can choose to be chaste, choose to have sex with a
particular person, choose to have sex with anybody he/she feels
attracted to etc. As long as the choice is not imposed by others,
that person is free.
True. The real issue is not whether chastity is unfreedom but whether
unchastity takes away your freedom as Dawn Eden claimed. =20
I can see no reason to think so, and no reason was given. It is a non-
issue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Johnston" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
28 Mar 2007 02:09:52 PM |
|
|
On 28 Mar 2007 12:03:51 -0700, "thomas p." <tonyofbexar@yahoo.dk>
wrote:
True. The real issue is not whether chastity is unfreedom but whether
unchastity takes away your freedom as Dawn Eden claimed.
I can see no reason to think so, and no reason was given.
She felt obligated to sleep around.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
26 Mar 2007 03:09:44 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:07:14 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity.
Sorry, no. Chastity, in reference to sex, is saying "no". Before
marriage, during marriage, after marriage ... the word has nothing to
do with marriage.
Online Etymology Dictionary
chastity
c.1225, "virginity, celibacy,"
WordNet
chastity
noun
1. abstaining from sexual relations (as because of religious vows)
.. until married. After that it is called fidelity.
Marital fidelity has nothing to do with *having* sex, but *with whom*
you have it. Chastity is about having it - if you do you aren't.
Chastity is just fidelity before you say yes to that one.
How do you figure that not having sex (chastity) is the same as having
sex (which marital fidelity includes)? Is this some new dialect of
English? "Christianlish"?
Or is it just you making things up?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric" |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
27 Mar 2007 07:01:44 PM |
|
|
On 2007-03-27 05:09:44 +0900, Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> said:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:07:14 +0900, Eric <bgoogle@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity.
Sorry, no. Chastity, in reference to sex, is saying "no". Before
marriage, during marriage, after marriage ... the word has nothing to
do with marriage.
Online Etymology Dictionary
chastity
c.1225, "virginity, celibacy,"
WordNet
chastity
noun
1. abstaining from sexual relations (as because of religious vows)
.. until married. After that it is called fidelity.
Marital fidelity has nothing to do with *having* sex, but *with whom*
you have it. Chastity is about having it - if you do you aren't.
Chastity is just fidelity before you say yes to that one.
How do you figure that not having sex (chastity) is the same as having
sex (which marital fidelity includes)? Is this some new dialect of
English? "Christianlish"?
Or is it just you making things up?
Point is that chastyity is the normal course of life until it is
replaced with the next stage in the normal course of life. Chastity is
fidelity before marriage.
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: Dawn Eden: 'Chastity Is for Rebels' |
28 Mar 2007 07:17:57 AM |
|
|
On 28 Mar., 02:01, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
On 2007-03-27 05:09:44 +0900, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> said:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:07:14 +0900, Eric <bgoo...@mac.com> wrote:
Saying yes to one man and only one man (or to one woman and only one
woman) is the proper definition of chastity.
Sorry, no. Chastity, in reference to sex, is saying "no". Before
marriage, during marriage, after marriage ... the word has nothing to
do with marriage.
Online Etymology Dictionary
chastity
c.1225, "virginity, celibacy,"
WordNet
chastity
noun
1. abstaining from sexual relations (as because of religious vows)
.. until married. After that it is called fidelity.
Marital fidelity has nothing to do with *having* sex, but *with whom*
you have it. Chastity is about having it - if you do you aren't.
Chastity is just fidelity before you say yes to that one.
How do you figure that not having sex (chastity) is the same as having
sex (which marital fidelity includes)? Is this some new dialect of
English? "Christianlish"?
Or is it just you making things up?
Point is that chastyity is the normal course of life until it is
replaced with the next stage in the normal course of life. Chastity is
fidelity before marriage.-
There is nothing abnormal about having sex before marriage. Married
or not married, a person who refrains from any sex is chaste; and a
person who has sex is not chaste.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
