Law of Chastity- What does it mean?

[Vort]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

It's ok Ben. I was just being sensitive for no reason.

I am for affection without arrousal. Hands and minds in appropriate places.

For men, this is impossible. Affection IS arousal.

And our feminist-infected notions notwithstanding, this is not a bad thing. Sex is the glorious act that allows men to feel things they would otherwise experience only partially or with great difficulty. It should be no surprise that a goodnight kiss does different things to a man than it does to a woman.

Sisters, you are welcome to this idea of "affection without arousal", but please realize that it's not reality for men, at least when applied to male/female dating relationships. It's some weird kind of science fiction. Why do you think that some men think that feeling arousal for someone is the same as feeling love for her? Why do you suppose they are surprised that their demonstration of arousal to some female acquaintance is met with feelings of repugnance instead of flattery?

[unixknight]

Originally Posted by Vort

For men, this is impossible. Affection IS arousal.

And our feminist-infected notions notwithstanding, this is not a bad thing. Sex is the glorious act that allows men to feel things they would otherwise experience only partially or with great difficulty. It should be no surprise that a goodnight kiss does different things to a man than it does to a woman.

Sisters, you are welcome to this idea of "affection without arousal", but please realize that it's not reality for men, at least when applied to male/female dating relationships. It's some weird kind of science fiction. Why do you think that some men think that feeling arousal for someone is the same as feeling love for her? Why do you suppose they are surprised that their demonstration of arousal to some female acquaintance is met with feelings of repugnance instead of flattery?

^This.

I once heard a good guideline for keeping one's behavior within the bounds of the LoC... namely, if you wouldn't do it in front of your Bishop, don't do it.

Now, that's a guideline. Like, sharing an extended kiss might be fine, and yet not something I'd do with the Bishop present, so on some level it may be overcautious, but as they say, "aim small, miss small."

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by Vort

For men, this is impossible. Affection IS arousal.

And our feminist-infected notions notwithstanding, this is not a bad thing. Sex is the glorious act that allows men to feel things they would otherwise experience only partially or with great difficulty. It should be no surprise that a goodnight kiss does different things to a man than it does to a woman.

Sisters, you are welcome to this idea of "affection without arousal", but please realize that it's not reality for men, at least when applied to male/female dating relationships. It's some weird kind of science fiction. Why do you think that some men think that feeling arousal for someone is the same as feeling love for her? Why do you suppose they are surprised that their demonstration of arousal to some female acquaintance is met with feelings of repugnance instead of flattery?

You know, I am ok with men and women being wired differently. But I have a hard time grouping holding handles, hugs goodnight, and even a really good extended kiss into breaking the law of chastity.....even if it does rev an engine for one or more involved. The law of chastity is more about control than it is about never feeling sexual impulses.

[Jenamarie]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

You know, I am ok with men and women being wired differently. But I have a hard time grouping holding handles, hugs goodnight, and even a really good extended kiss into breaking the law of chastity.....even if it does rev an engine for one or more involved. The law of chastity is more about control than it is about never feeling sexual impulses.

Ah, yes, holding handles. The "Romantic Touch" for the reubenesque among us. (myself included)

[Misshalfway]

LOL . Well now you know what really melts my butter!

[beefche]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

The law of chastity is more about control than it is about never feeling sexual impulses.

I agree with this statement. I will add a caveat, though. I also believe that single people should avoid doing things to our partner that will get their motor running. If I know that putting my hand on his leg turns my bf on, then I would make sure I didn't do that. The same thing might not do that to me, but if it arouses him, then I have the responsibility to avoid it.

Vort, interesting to know about men. <wondering how this thread is going to affect my upcoming singles conference actions....>

[Generally_Me]

I read a book once that defined the difference between chaste and celibate. Reading over this thread it appears people are using the "celibate" definition in place of "chastity". Not necessarily bad, IMO.

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by beefche

I agree with this statement. I will add a caveat, though. I also believe that single people should avoid doing things to our partner that will get their motor running. If I know that putting my hand on his leg turns my bf on, then I would make sure I didn't do that. The same thing might not do that to me, but if it arouses him, then I have the responsibility to avoid it.

Vort, interesting to know about men. <wondering how this thread is going to affect my upcoming singles conference actions....>

Yeah. I am with you. But I would think the primary responsibility would be for your BF to know what pushes him too far and stop it on his own. It would be rather weak for him to blame you for lighting his fire when you really just meant to pat him on the knee.

[Misshalfway]

Originally Posted by Generally_Me

I read a book once that defined the difference between chaste and celibate. Reading over this thread it appears people are using the "celibate" definition in place of "chastity". Not necessarily bad, IMO! A little overboard, but not bad.

I think it is important to say that we aren't talking about celibacy here......before marriage OR after it.

I think some think that they can't or "shouldn't" have any pleasurable affection between the sexes in order to keep the law. I think this is wrong to place such shame around normal, natural human processes and desires. And one is wrong to think that fidelity and chastity inside of marriage can't be exciting and satisfying. We are talking about keeping passions inside proper bounds and used for selfless purposes. It is the selfishness and lusts and indulgences that we are trying to discipline. Discipline does not mean turning the water off completely or only turning the water on when a baby needs to get made or never taking ones garments off. Hyper responsibility is not better than normal responsibility.

[beefche]

I agree Miss 1/2 with all your statements--are you me?

I think we need to remember that intimacy is a God given gift and sacred. There is nothing shameful or wrong or bad--it's all about timing and limits.

I have the responsibility to let my bf know that touching me in that manner pushes me in a direction I don't want to go--he then has the responsibiilty to respect that and not do that particular touching. I think a relationship that is mature and based on mutual respect would include discussing these matters. I need physical affection and would need for my bf to show me he cares. We can discuss what is acceptable and what isn't.

After marriage, the same prinicple applies. There should be mutual respect and openness about what is acceptable and what isn't. I don't believe that "anything goes" after marriage. But I do believe that it is difficult to relax our "stop" buttons--going from "don't touch my knee" to "touch me all over" is sometimes difficult to adjust to.

Was that rambling? What was the question?