Dear Shayna, 

Thank you for your article but I believe that many Christians tend to under estimate the importance of sex in a healthy marriage.  I am speaking as a happily married man, married for almost 30 years, and the father of two wonderful daughters; one of whom is now also happily married, the other has a healthy (I believe non-sexual) relationship with her boyfriend. 

You state, “Sex was only intended to be a minor part of arelationship”.  That is to greatly underestimate the importance of sex!  Sex is the one thing that sets a marriage relationship apart from any other relationship.  I love my wife dearly!  I love my daughters dearly!  The thing that distinguishes my relationship with my wife form my relationship with my daughters, is sex.  It is also what distinguishes my daughter’srelationship with her husband from her relationship with me. 

I understand that we live in a society in which sex has been cheapened by promiscuity.  Sadly the reaction of the church has largely been to play down the importance of sex, even sex within marriage. 

Sex between a husband and wife is something very special! Please don’t underestimate the importance that sex plays in ensuring a healthy and lasting marriage.

Courtenay

Hi Courtenay,

Thank you for commenting.  You are correct in stating that sex is one of the distinguishing characteristics of marriage and thus, yes, its importance should not be unduly downplayed.  Through the statement you quoted, I intended to draw focus to the fact that sex cannot be used as the sole means to make a relationship better (by having "good sex" or "better sex").  So much of our views of sex are often focused on making the experience more pleasurable in the short term (hence, through the G-spot), it is important to acknowledge that sex should still be an enduring quality of a good marriage.  Thank you for doing that.

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today 

Hey Shayna - I always enjoy your blogs particularly because of your unique focus on God's important place within interpersonal relationships.  

As SDA's, I was always under the impression that we can always improve that unique Christian God/Man/Woman trifecta, and that as Christians, we should prioritize that trifecta above the one-on-one bedroom relationship.

However, do you agree that while there is clearly not a causal relationship between good sex and a healthy relationship, there is often a causal relationship between bad sex and an unhealthy relationship?  And by good sex, I mean an act that encompasses both mutually rewarding physical and emotional connection and satisfaction.  And do you agree that, perhaps due to our puritanical roots, SDA's are often poorly educated in regard to what constitutes good, physically and emotionally satisfying and healthy sexual activity?

I ask because in one comment here, we got a glimpse of what is a very common, albeit admittedly unhealthy and unfortunate, view of sex, specifically that women are forced to put up with it (or "tolerate" it) in order to get their men to pay attention to them, to desire them, to connect with them, and to stay with them.  This in spite of the fact that women were designed with the only body part in either gender that exists explicitly for deriving sexual pleasure!  Accepting the notion that men are better at enjoying sex is akin to thinking that daddy is better at nursing the baby.  The mom is the one with the body parts specifically designed to get milk to the baby, so rather than ending up with a hungry baby and a daddy with sore nipples, we should be smart enough to let mommy's body do what it does best.  Applying this logic to sex just takes a little education - and a lot of practice!

If I could be so bold as to refine a fantastic line from your above quote, "... it is important to acknowledge that good, quality sex should still be an enduring quality of a good marriage."

Hi Statefarmsteve,

Since relationships are comprised of spiritual, emotional, and physical components, then yes, a deficiency in any of them will cause difficulty in a marriage.  Since the sexual experience can contribute to a couple's emotional well-being, then yes, if a couple is experiencing sexual difficulties, it will definitely strain their marriage.

As for the Adventist perception of sex, I think that we often embrace two extremes.  Before marriage, we don't talk about or encourage physical contact of any kind.  After marriage, we are expected to be having good sex, but no discussion about what encompasses it or what to do if it doesn't happen, is offered.  Although it may be easier to err on the conservative side of sexual discussion, talking about sexual issues would both normalize the experience within marriage and perhaps, as you suggest, help couples who need it.  As for the appropriate venue to do so, I don't advocate addressing it from the pulpit, but a couples' small group for married folks wouldn't be a terrible idea. 

The problem with actually executing this idea is that traditional sex therapy focuses on the same principles that the G-spot article does: self-gratification.  I suspect that many churches fear open discussion that can be perceived as distasteful or raunchy.  To be able to incorporate the biblical role of sex into a small group requires a very skillful pastor who is able to address the topic openly, but without losing a distinctly Christian focus.

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today 

Hey Shayna - I'm not too sure about traditional sex therapy, but I'd think that a focus on self-gratification is the exact problem for couples that lands many in therapy.  Today's properly educated therapists focus on teaching their patients how to get physical and emotional mutual satisfaction within a sexual relationship.

The problem with a therapeutic approach to sex is that it requires couples to first fail, then survive the disappointment, survive the hurt, survive the anger, understand the problem, find the courage to seek help, uncover the proper resources to best heal the damage, and finally, put in the work it takes to get better.  I'd guess that better than 9 of 10 couples experience some level of sexual frustration.  Most of those never get past the survival phase, much less come to understand, seek help, find it, and rise above the initial failure.  Some muddle around in survival mode for years, some see their marriage fail, and many just put up with an unsatisfying bedroom relationship.  

I'm not a trained psychologist or therapist, but I completely agree with your assertion that an unsatisfying sex life, much less a bad one, will inevitably damage a marriage.  Perhaps then, we should forgo therapy as the solution to better sex for SDA couples, and encourage education.  We've got to get away from lumping Sex in with Drugs and Rock 'n Roll as dirty words within our culture, and really work to find an appropriate approach to talking about and learning about sex.  

As a culture, we've created the atmosphere in which couples too often fail at what we all recognize is a key element of the marriage relationship.  As David Read pointed out earlier, Conservative Christians too often believe sex is to be enjoyed by men, and merely tolerated by women.  Essentially, we accept that men can be bad sexual partners and women should put up with it.  Then, we men get upset when at some point, our wives stop wanting to engage in what is often a bland, and too frequently a bad, miserable experience.  I liked the CNN G-spot article, in that it calls attention to and teaches us about what is too often an ignored component of sex - particularly within a Conservative culture like ours - female sexual pleasure.  

Should we sexualize the pulpit?  No, of course not.  We don't want to put earmuffs on our kids during second service.  Are pastors the best sex counselors?  Maybe yes, but probably no.  I've never seen the MDiv syllabi, but I bet more time is spent studying the State of the Dead than goes into the Sexual State of the Living.  I have many good pastor friends, and I'd guess that a properly educated and trained therapist/counselor has more quality information and quality therapeutic skill than all of them combined.  

Perhaps our Church educational leaders shouldn't just hope Pastors graduate with the skill to offer information appropriately, the ability to create workshops and/or an open door atmosphere that allow couples easy access to quality counsel.  Workshops are a great idea for education, but aren't appropriate in many therapeutic situations, especially since therapy often requires delving deep into years of very private hurt and pain.  Both types of assistance are important, and our church should maybe look at making both more readily available.  

From David Read - 

"It is an exaggeration, but not much of one, to say that men put up with the hassles of the relationship in order to get the sex, whereas women put up with the sex to get the relationship. " feb 18,2010 

David, why is it that I can't even quote you without you contradicting me?  I have never claimed to have to "put up with" things I enjoy.  I never have said that I have to put up with ice cream.  I've never said that I have to put up with a great round of golf.  And I've certainly never had to put up with sex.  All of those things I consider quite lovely.  So I apologize if I somehow misinterpreted your words "put up with" to mean "not enjoy." 

And, now, you're holding up Prostitution as proof that men and women are different.  I have to insist that Prostitution has absolutely nothing to do with, no similarity to, and no relationship to a happy, healthy, monogamous sex life.  The example of sexual relationship that you refer to is actually quite the opposite of a happy, healthy, monogamous sex life.  In your example of sex, money is exchanged because there is no expectation or requirement for mutual physical and emotional satisfaction.  Men are paying for the privilege of doing it badly, and women are selling it because they woefully undervalue their bodies and their souls.  

Are men and women different?  Sure! (This shocking admission from an oft-accused "liberal.")  The anatomical differences of male and female genetalia are analogous to the sexual physical and emotional differences - one completes the other.  The physical and emotional bonds are unbelievably strong when the physical and emotional parts of both males and females connect.  When a man and woman emotionally and physically connect during sex, it's explosively mutually rewarding.  

If I might be so bold as to stereotype the genders, the woman usually is better at emotionally connecting, because women tend to be the higher life form emotionally, and the couple must work together to help the man rise to the emotional occasion.  The flip side of the coin is that physical enjoyment comes easier for the man, simply because the mechanics are plain and simple in contrast to the more sensitive, delicate instrumentation of the female body, but likewise, the couple must work together to help the female discover and develop the physical pleasures of sex.  What they eventually arrive at, together, and I emphasize "together," is amazing, magical, mind-blowing, knee-shaking, leg-cramping, face-twisting, laughter-inducing fun, and neither the man or woman will have to "put up" with it in order to get what they want.  It will be what they want.  But it takes education and effort to arrive at that point - random shots in the dark have very little chance at getting there.  

I personally believe that the gross disservice to women is that many men tend to be so bad at both the physical and emotional aspects of sex so as to give many women absolutely no shot at enjoying it fully.   That gross disservice is sadly coupled with the gross disservice of spreading the gross untruth that the disparity in enjoyment is just the nature of things, when the real problem is that so few couples ever learn how to properly physically and emotionally engage in mutually rewarding sexual relationships.   

Statefarm, I guess it is progress that you are acknowledging differences between the sexes.  You still seem to be saying, however, that women would want it just as often as men if only men were better lovers.  That just isn't true.  I've yet to meet the man who thought he was a bad lover, but for those who are, maybe they just need to learn where the G-spot is (among other things).  But the most important sex organ by far, even for men, is the brain, and that goes double for women.  And if the woman is emotionally involved in the relationship, causing her to achieve a physical climax is usually not all that challenging, even for the average, selfish male lover.

But even assuming that the woman is, ahem, satisfied every time, a typical woman is still not going to want sex as often as her husband (just as the typical husband is not going to be as good at the emotional aspects of the relationship as the typical wife).  Men just need the physical act of marriage more, and more often, than women.  Any decent marriage counselor will tell you that frequency that seems like alot to a woman might not seem like alot to a man.  I've often heard Dr. Laura and others try to explain this to women.  I once heard her, in a advising a wife, say something along the lines of: "You know there are times when you are not hungry, you don't really need to eat, but then you do anyway and afterward you say, 'that was very good.'  It is the same with sex.  You may not feel the need, but if your husband initiates it, go along with him and you'll probably say afterward, 'that was very good.'" 

Men need to work on the emotional aspects of the relationship, and trust that if they take care of their wife's emotional needs, she will usually not need much prompting to take care of his physical needs.  Likewise, women need to be reminded that if they will enthusiastically take care of their man in the bedroom, he will be much more cheerful about seeing to her emotional and relationship needs. 

From David Read - 

Statefarm, I guess it is progress that you are acknowledging differences between the sexes.  You still seem to be saying, however, that women would want it just as often as men if only men were better lovers.  That just isn't true.  

David, not only have I never said that men and women are some kind of identical, androgynous mush, but I never once referred to frequency, have I?  You're reaching deeply into your mind's crevasse for what I "seem to be saying" in a typical effort to take a swipe at me.  You can keep your sarcastic compliment about what you view as my progress - I truly wouldn't want to ever subject myself or those around me to your brand of progress. 

Shayna,

Not to throw too big of a wrench in your argument but in my experience atheist couples tend to do better than most Christian couples. Stats seem to bear that out. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistfamiliesmarriage/a/AtheistsDivorce.ht...

That said the picture I imagine is more complex but so much for "God at the center" argument as an insulator against marital discord. 

Doctorf,

Thank you for the comment.  As you stated in your comment, yes, the picture is more complex than we often like to acknowledge.   I looked at the sites you posted, and they both appear to be citing an article written by George Barna.  I'm not familiar with this particular article, so without speaking from a point of ignorance (besides what is written on the websites you sent, of course), I would simply urge you to consider the nature of the study itself. 

One of the websites you sent identifies a central flaw in the study:  that research subsets--such as subjects who are identified as "Christian"--are not well-defined.  I suppose that those who identified themselves as "Christian" believe in God, but I think that a more concrete definition would serve as a more useful indicator about the precise variable (prayer? church attendance? family worship?) that can be linked to marriage failure. 

Moreover, I think that it's important to note that the prevalence of marriage within the two religious cultures probably varies markedly.  I don't know if atheist couples usually marry with the same frequency that Christians do, but I would surmise that they don't.  After all, it is usually faith-based reasons that compel Christians to marry, rather than living together without being married.  This is an important distinction, and one that should be considered carefully when drawing conclusions about such a large population set (all the Christians in the world or all the athiests in the world).  If there are more Christian married relationships than non-married relationships, a study that doesn't account for prevalence within a population could suggest that there are more Christian divorces total.  The case may be that there are more Christian marriages to begin with.  

I would encourage you not to accept a particular viewpoint ("Christian marriages don't last as long as athiest ones...") based on a single study, which has, by its own admission, many flaws in its design.  As you probably know, reproducibility is the hallmark of good research. I would urge you to find other studies, with better outlined parameters and supporting data, before accepting this one.  That being said, the proposition you have raised is certainly an interesting one and when I have some free time, I will try to find full text of the article.

Finally, I just wanted to clarify that God at the center of a relationship is by no means an insulator against marital discord. If anything, Christian marriages will face far more adversity than non-Christian marriages.  The key to preserving a Christian marriage is one's relationship with God.  This is why the last piece of advice I give is to, "pray, spend more time worshipping together, and increase personal devotional time." It is the active practice of faith itself, not just the belief in God, that has to be used as a coping skill in marriage.  Marital discord will be present in every marriage, regardless of religious beliefs.

Best regards,

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today 

Shayna,

Your questioning how a Christian is identified, would certainly be by the individual's own statement.  Is there some other way?

Perhaps the more successful marriages of atheists are because they are better educated than the general population, which, in itself, is a better situation for favorable marriage rates. 

Also, those in the Bible belts are largely more self-identified as Christian, but as the study shows, they are also not as well-educated as the other groups. 

A recent article in either the NYTimes or the WaPo (I will check for the link) shows that more college graduates are cohabiting before marriage, but that their marriages result in fewer divorces with the exception that  most are engaged prior to cohabiting.  This was the case with a couple I know, she had not only finished her PhD but had been practicing a year or so, and he, a college graduate is highly intelligent.  They  bought a house together after becoming engaged, and have been happily married now for six years.  They also had a long courtship so they were best friends before marriage.   

The attitude toward premarital sex is somewhat the same with monogamy in gay couples.  Why should couples contemplating marriage be judged on whether or not the sex is the main magnet just as in same-sex relationships it is the physical aspects that first and foremost come to mind; seldom is the idea of mutual compatibility and having similar tastes and  enjoying similar things.  Companionship is what will outlast the sex for older couples. 

Shayna,

While you may not accept the Barna study on marriage and cohabitation, what are the other sources that you have studied?  There are many available on the web, including a very lengthy one by the NIH, I believe.

Unless you can show studies refuting Barna,  which is very reputable for its particular area, I would suggest that you back up your thesis with more data if you find such  study flawed. 

Elaine,

In order of the questions you ask, my responses:

1.  Yes, there is some other way to define "Christianity" in a scientific study.  I answered this question in the response to Doctorf.  Namely, the variables that encompass "Christianity" need to be explained. Please see previous comment, in which I ask if "Christianity" is defined as someone who prays? attends church? engages in family worship? 

2.  Education level versus rate of divorce would be an example of a parameter that can be defined (with regards to #1), so this may be something that can actually be explored.  However, I am not familiar with the study that you are referencing.  As you know, I am a full-time medical student and can only do recreational research when I have free time.  Like I promised Doctorf, if you post a link, I will look at it when I have time and respond appropriately.  I regret that I simply don't have time to do independent research on questions posed in the comments section.

3.  As I have stated in previous blogs, the basis for the opinions presented in this blog come exclusively from the Bible.  With that in mind, the reason that sex has its place within a marriage (or outside of marriage, as you point out) is because the Bible says it does.  Please reread the blog for clarification.

4.  As a scholar and an aspiring physician I disagree that the Barna study would be considered "reputable."  As in my comment to Doctorf, the SCIENTIFIC hallmarks of good research are reproducibility, well defined study parameters, and publication in a peer-reviewed journal.  Repostings of a single study on consumer based websites are considered to be the LEAST reputable source of information, as are stories about the one person we knew who happened to have success story that validates our point. 

That being said, I am always interested to hear the opinions of my readers, regardless of their respective means of finding their information.  This is why I promised Doctorf that I would try to locate the full text of the Barna article and read it.  If you post information about education level and divorce rate, I will also read that.

Finally, while I appreciate your suggestion that I find  research to support the notion that atheist marriages don't last as long as Christian ones, that is not the purpose of this blog.  I welcome you to share YOUR opinions in the comments, but I cannot research the basis of those opinions for you.  It is also important to note that the opinions expressed on this blog are FAITH-based.  Therefore, the only source I feel compelled to cite, in defense of those opinions, is the Bible.  I hope that provides some clarification.

Best regards, 

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today 

Shayna,

Thanks for your reply.  As for the Barna "study" it is only a poll showing its findings, which is truly not a study, as I am not certain where such a study could be located.  However, one who is writing on a subject should be versed in the contemporary statistics.

As for the Bible:  It is somewhat ambiguous on premarital sex as the attitudes expressed are merely reflective of the times in which it was writte and when marriage for females was not only far less  younger, but they were considered either the property of their fathers who could choose their respective husband.  Such conditions are unknown in first world countries, so it is very difficult to turn back the clock in many ways.

While the Bible sets forth principles, we should be careful in extrapolating those which may, or may not be applicable today.  Interpretation is always subjective, and unless one wishes to abide by the Middle Eastern customs which still reflect the Bible times, then women should not be in the public work force, but kept in the home protected from engaging in public duties--which is as it was in Bible times. 

Does any woman wish to remain secluded and have her future husband selected by her family, mainly for his financial security offered?  Most marriages then were of much older men. Should we return to the marriage dowry? The only requirement then was the the bride give evidence of her virginity, and nothing was said about the man's virginal state.  There are many more traits in a partner than his or her virginity but it was the most valuable gift she could bring to the marriage (with an additional dowry) to the marriage.  Anyone willing to return to ALL of the biblical marriage conditions today, or is it merely selective choosing Bible texts to support one's position? 

The divorce rate in China, a land of atheists, is significantly lower than in western countries. One study, from 1998 said that the overall rate is less than 2/1000. Recent articles, easily found by searching "divorce China" suggest a rapidly rising rate, even a 20% surge in one year. These increasing rates are based on studies done in the most prosperous areas among the better educated people. Sociological studies in China are developing; however, it is suggested that the increasing rates are being seen primarily among the little "emperors/empresses" .

These are the first generation of the "one child policy" in China. Many of these kids are basically spoiled brats who don't know the meaning of the word "No" in any context. They have been smothered with attention, doted upon and indulged by two sets of grandparents and a set of parents.

The one child policy started in the late seventies, so these recent divorces are taking place among a group who have been married a short time, since most mariages take place at ~25 years of age.

Christianity has had  a toxic effect, in many respects, on various aspects of  western society. Consider the rise of Nazi Germany in the land of the Reformation, as a prime example. Regarding marriage, with adultery as a legitimate Christian reason for divorce, it would be expected for divorce rates to be higher in places which morally justify divorce for infidelity.

Adultery is relatively common in China. Young women are taught by their mothers to expect their husbands to be faithful for several years and then find other lovers. They are not taught or encouraged to divorce, however. "Men are men. That's the way they behave" is the general attitude. As long as they continue to provide for their family, women simply tolerate the situation. 

The art of adultery in China is  a social institution. Divorce still has a certain stigma attached to it, including many liabilities for the women.

There are multiple problems when one wishes to use the Bible as her only rule for current situations as has the author of this thread.

 Should we use the Bible patriarchs who were not considered at all to be adulterers when taking one or more wives?  

Or should we affirm that when the Israelites were told they could choose all the fair virgins from a conguered tribe as their wives?  It is highly unlikely they were not already married as marriage was de rigueur for Israelite males.

Exalting virginity is only another form of keeping women "in their place--in the home."  This was the custom in Bible times, and is still practiced in much of that part of the world today.  One cannot pluck certain practices from ancient times and plant them in an entirely different world where women are highly educated, are financially independent, IOW, there are far too many differences to return to the stone age in which these customs prevailed. where virginity in only women was highly prized; while for men, their virility was proven by their many conquests and marriages fulfilling the comman to be "fruitful and multiply."

Today, a woman's value is not based on her viriginity so much as her ability in the "dowry" which today is measured by her career and financial acumen, as well as her love and companionship. 

Although Abraham's life was not perfect, as a legalistic perfectionistic might define perfection, his life is repeatedly cited as a lesson for God's people in Christian times.

He sought a bride for his son, as any caring and wise father might do. He had his servant go on a long journey to seek a bride. However, he did not desire that she be compelled to return with his servant. When Rebecca was selected, her family offered her the choice. Did she want to return with Abraham's servant or not?  She was given valuable articles as a pledge of the sincerity of the offer. It was also made clear that there was great wealth awaiting her, should she return with Abraham's servant. Her family, however, still left the decision up to her.

57  "And they said, "We will call the girl and consult her wishes."
58  Then they called Rebekah and said to her, "Will you go with this man?" And she said, "I will go.""

Anyone who is interested in what the Bible actually says may read the story for themselves in Genesis 24.

I often tell people who denounce Christianity as a western religion that the culture of China is more closely related to the culture of the Bible than the Bible is related to western culture. In the matter of marriage, for example. In the case of Abraham, great riches were offered to Rebecca if she would become Issac's wife. There is no record, in the Bible, of a large dowry being paid by Rebecca's famly to Issac.

In China even today, responsible young men from good families pay a high price to their prospective bride. There are several reasons for this. They wish to demonstrate their ability to provide for the girl and any children she might produce. They demonstrate their interest in the girl as well. In addition to an actual cash payment, they will likely have a house. A sensible girl can actually do quite well if she chooses wisely.

Girls who have a "rep" for sleeping around, why would a sensible guy want to invest a lot of money in her as a prospective bride and mother? Getting married won't transform her morals. On the contrary, a girl with a history of intimate relationships is more likely to commit adultery with one of her former boyfriends after she is married. Few guys are interested in raising the progeny of an interloper as their own child, which is one of the reasons women are expected to behave themselves more circumspectly. The guy is not going to bring his "love child" into the home of his bride. The immoral woman might, however. She may not even be sure who the father is. There are practical reasons for the disparity in moral expectations.

Incidentally, the Bible expects chastity on the part of both genders. When Zimri brought a Midianite woman into his tent, both parties were killed by Phinehas,not just the woman. Zimri and Cozbi were both high ranking individuals, a prince and princess, yet they were swiftly executed for their immoral conduct. There is nothing in this account that would indicate that the man received a "pass" and the woman did not.

Scripture offers ideals and realism. Those who confuse the two scenarios end up with a very twisted and distorted view of God. Between those two ends, God's ideal and man's failing to reach that ideal, is the cross of Christ.

Regarding David and Steve's debate above, I too used to spout the dogma that men use affection to get sex, and women use sex to get affection, etc. I got it from John Gray's Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, which though a bestseller, is not necessarily based on solid science.

I have come across different material recently which suggests otherwise, although I do read it very critically. They claim women have the potential to enjoy sex more than men, citing the far greater number of touch receptors on a woman's body, and mental stimulation for instance. (I think in reality, there are a lot of unsatisfied partners, both women and men).

Colin. GodInAll.org

Shayna - What exactly defines a "successful" relationship?  Is "success" equal to avoiding divorce?  I don't think avoiding divorce defines a successful marriage relationship any more than achieving orgasm defines a successful sexual relationship - and perhaps this is partly your point.

As wonderful as the possible existence of a "G-Spot" may or may not be, having one and finding it would likely only constitute a part of fulfilling sex.  That being said, we should all consider it progress that the scientific community has taken on the task of helping us men become better partners through a more complete understanding of our female counterparts.  

I think DoctorF and Elaine also explore some very interesting issues as well.  Are atheists better at staying married than we Christians?  Perhaps, but they have as little use for our definition of "successful marriage" as we have with theirs.  As Christians, we would view even the most wonderful, longest-lasting of atheist marriages with, at best, bittersweet admiration - because we inherently, unequivocably believe that a joyous couple on earth is only experiencing a snippet of a preview of eternal life - the ultimate marriage success - spent together.   An atheist believes we are living in a fantasy land, and would scoff at the idea that God could be a wonderful, important component of a couple's relationship.  My point is simply that comparing Atheist and Christian marriages is comparing apples and oranges - one pretty much has very little in common with the other.  

Of course, Elaine, as usual, uses her keen insight and unique perspective to cast an interesting light on this subject.  Why use the Bible as a source for marriage wisdom?  I believe that the usefulness and relevance of Biblical principles have outlived the usefulness and relevance of many of the Bible practices, like plural wives, concubines, dowries, etc...  Unfortunately, we have such a short glimpse of Adam and Eve before the fall of mankind, which leaves us with very humanly frail biblical models for marriage.  We almost have more examples of what not to do, than what to do.  For every Joseph and Mary, we have ten Abraham and Sarah and Hagars.  But the basic principles of loving one another still ring true - take care of each other, forgive trespasses and shortcomings, work together to achieve your common goal, support each other, and make your loving home a place where God comes first, your partner comes second, and our natural tendency to put self first is overcome every day.  These principles, which are very much "Biblical" are, yes, rarely modeled by the people in the pages, but enough is revealed to us to live successfully and triumphantly.

I don't mean to speak for Shayna, but I seriously doubt that she is advocating polygamy, selling our women, or deflowering the virgin-daughters of those we defeat in warfare, boardroom battles, or scholastic competitions like spelling bees or football games.  As full as the Bible is of "what not to do"-type stories, I'll take it any day as my guide over Dr Phil (whose advice I mostly admire) and Dr Laura (whose advice I mostly don't...)

Statefarmsteve,

Why do we accept the absence of divorce infers happy marriage?  In most of the world's history divorce was either unaccepted or left women with no means of support, and it was only the man's prerogative for divorce.  Women have had no alernative to marriage and even an unhappy marriage was preferred to divorce.

Yes, women's choice of education  (which, BTW, is now besting men) and careers for fulfillment and marriage as a choice, not necessity. Women who look forward to marriage as the "be-all-and-end-all" may set themselves up for disappointment.  The most attractive women are confident, self-assured, and don't look to a man to give them happiness or a fulfilling life, but only for enriching life with the right one.

I will repeat:  virginity is not the most valuable gift for a future husband, but many other qualifications, as she will probably have dated for a number of years rather than being a very young girl, inexperienced in many things.  Any man than demands virginity should be given short shrift, as there will be a future of blame and recriminations for life.

"There is no record, in the Bible, of a large dowry being paid by Rebecca's famly to Issac. "

A dowry can either be paid to the husband's or wife's family in different traditions.  The Bible records that Rebecca was given "articles of silver and gold to Rebecca and to her brother and mother."  So a "dowry" was paid or given to her parents  for her to become Isaac's bride. 

Jacob, OTOH, had to work off his "dowry" to gain his bride, Rachel. 

In India, there are more marriageable women than men and the woman's family advertises her beauty, education, and must offer a large dowy to the future husband.  So, the dowy can either be paid to the bride's or husband's family.

 Today in China, there is an abundance of young men, called "bare branches" because there are far fewer women of marriageable age due to the abortions of females, resulting in a large disparity between the sexes.  With large groups of young men without families, and especially if not working, troubles are brewing. 

Shayna Bailey

Staff Blogger, Adventist Today 

Shayna,

We are in agreement that women have the choice to remain virgins.  Should one who has "lost" her virginity feel she is a sinner condemned by both God and fellow humans? 

 Another very relevant question  today when life expectancy is much longer:  how is one's virginity considered when many seniors are either marrying for the first time, or remarrying?  If there is no virginity to be "lost" what should be their choice; and many are today either postponing marriage or simply living together due to very important financial considerations?  I have known many of my senior acquaintances who have said they would never remarry but might consider living together.  Is the question of virginity of importance only to the young and unmarried?

 Is there not a danger in promoting virginity that many will feel guilty; just as in the past SDAs were made to feel guilty when attending movies or even wearing makeup?