Thanks RobbyH. Reasoned and reasonable. Reaction goes with public life, and many things are better. We should not throw out the baby with the bath water.
So lets not throw out love and counsel demonstrated by a man for his daughters because of word interpretation. Do you really think he meant that his daughters should be packaged “gifts” to men?
If there was ever a time when women have been a pre-packaged “gift” for men it is now!! Our culture tells little girls (and I mean little) that they need to look sexy because that is where their value is. Our culture tells sons you are a man when you can handle your piss and get laid.
The gift is not an “unblemished and holy vagina”. The gift is commitment to love-making rather than erotic appeal. It is a gift of character and commitment to wisdom, choosing counsel of time honoured wisdom against the wisdom of the age (slickly packaged and easily sold) .
This gift speaks of character, stability and commitment! Even laying “religious” or faith based motivations aside; exercising restraint is deciding that a relationship with good boundaries improves the relationship, and when they do make love (rather than have merely have sex) they are building on foundations of respect and friendship. A man and woman who can’t or don’t want to “wait” will spend the rest of their lives knowing they didn't want to or couldn’t then, so where is their reason for trust now. Those who build on sexual appeal will find it later lags as the rest of us sags. There must be more. The “gift” is wisdom not mere restraint. The “gift” is demonstrating respect and value for self and partner, knowing that what might “feel right” may not be right for the relationship.
A gift freely given with thought and effort does not devalue the giver but enhances them, and the incredible value the giver places on the person they are giving to is clearly demonstrated. Who wouldn’t want a gift like that?

Spok "will spend the rest of their lives knowing they didn't want to or couldn’t then, so where is their reason for trust now"

The reason for trust is in the character of the people involved in a relationsip and in the health of that relationship rather than in choices made while they were not part of that relationship.

If I've understood your comment correctly it appears to be a suggestion that those who have made the choice to have sexual activity prior to entering a specific relationship are somehow less trustworthy than those who made a different choice. Not a particularly credible view if that is what you are suggesting.

R0bert

Cornflower,
Don't try to put words in someone else's mouth. If you can not understand something just ask or keep your mouth shut, it will be better for everyone here.

Reading all your musings on this forum and attacking people that you do not know convinces me that you are not very bright, so I'll simply ignore you from now on.

Stan

Hi Robert (and all)
I believe you are right in suggesting the reason for trust lies in character and health of relationship, and that choices made prior to a current relationship shouldn’t impact TOO much on trust levels within a current one. I agree.
Trust is a choice that has an “amount” measure in it. We trust some more than others. It is foolishness to do otherwise. Everyone has been untrustworthy and everyone has been abused. We are more trustworthy in some areas than others.
The reality of being human challenges me to honestly love someone even with their untrustworthyness.
Visit an AA or similar meeting and you will find open admonition and confirmation of untrustworthyness by people who love each other. They essentially say “I am not strong. I have not been in the past. Though it is (so many) days since I last indulged, I need your help. Watch me, question me, and even disbelieve me at times. Probe beneath my facade. I know I am weak, so PLEASE, PLEASE don’t trust me 100%. Instead love me, support me … and I will do the same for you.”
Do I rate the sexual faithfulness of someone more highly if they have exercised restraint previously? I do. No apology. Just as I rate the honesty of someone who has turned down temptations to steal previously.
But we are all weak. We need to exercise caution with love. I have an increasing level of trust for someone who has turned and walked differently for a good season. Intentions come easy. Words are cheap. Demonstrated character is hard. As the season lengthens, trust increases.
It’s called being human. People need people. On that I expect we agree. It’s how we need people and what is healthy for people that we seem to differ in opinion.

stan_nesta

You intemperate response proves something does it not?

Spock I'd make a change
"Do I rate the sexual faithfulness of someone more highly if they have lived by their stated values previously? I do"

Those who believe that sex should stay within marriage yet act otherwise have shown a weakness, those who hold a different view have not done anything to compromise their integrity.

If you want to use theft as a comparitor then rape is a closer equivalent than consentual sex.

The rest gets down to what you believe about sex. In the context of believing that sex outside of marriage is wrong then a history of doing so may well cause problems.

On the other hand having had only one partner may cause a lot of frustration and speculation if the experience in that area is less than satisfactory. Look at how much time and effort one of our nastier fundy posters seems to spend speculating and commenting on the sex lives of unbelievers - clearly unhappy with his own lot and it's dealt with by endless specualtion about what others do.

The trust part should be based on how well people live the values they claim rather than how well those values match your's or my values.

R0bert