Why Are Almost All Pleasures Considered Sins?

[Achronos]

The first two facts which a healthy boy or girl feels about sex are these: first that it is beautiful and then that it is dangerous.

Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure. I do not mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean something with a violent happiness in it--an almost painful happiness. A man may have, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love, or a moment of victory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment, but precisely not for the moment's sake. He enjoys it for the woman's sake, or his own sake. The warrior enjoys the moment, but not for the sake of the moment; he enjoys it for the sake of the flag. The cause which the flag stands for may be foolish and fleeting; the love may be calf-love, and last a week. But the patriot thinks of the flag as eternal; the lover thinks of his love as something that cannot end. These moments are filled with eternity; these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary. Man cannot love mortal things. He can only love immortal things for an instant.

But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/heret12.txt

[Davin]

http://www.leaderu.com/critical/cohabitation-socio.html
Scroll about 3/4 of the way down.
The best sex is found in the marriage relationship. It is reported that if a couple abstains from sex before marriage, they are 29 to 47 percent more likely to enjoy sex afterward. In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis, evidence was found that premarital sex was not as satisfying.

A study by Linda Waite, Ph.D., a sociologist at the University of Chicago and reported in "Psychology Today," found the frequency of satisfaction rose considerably after couples adapted during marriage. Married people lead more active sex lives. While cohabiting couples have similarly high levels of sex, married men and women have more satisfaction in the bedroom. That's because married people know the tastes of their partner better and can safely cater to them, while the emotional investment in the relationship boosts the thrill.

A recent Michigan study, found that individuals who have never cohabited outside of marriage were more likely to rate their relationships stronger than those who have cohabited (49% of non-cohabitors rated their relationship a "10," compared to 36% of those who have cohabited) (Michigan Family Forum 1998).

A quick search brings up this sentence a few times "In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis", however never a citing of the actual study. After quite a bit of searching, I've found these articles: Evelyn M. Duvall, Family Development, New York: Lippincott, 1957, p. 355; Evelyn M. Duvall and Reuben Hill, When You Marry, New York: D.C. Heath, 1953, pp. 22-23; Judson T. Landis and Mary G. Landis, Building a Successful Marriage, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1958 p. 166-169; Judson T. Landis and Mary G. Landis, eds. Readings In Marriage and Family Relations, Harrisburg: Stackpole, 1953; Still no studies.

After some more searching I've found this book: Evelyn M. Duvall Why Wait Till Marriage? (New York: Association Press, 1965). After hours of searching, I've yet to find anything that Evelyn Duvall and Judson Landis have worked on together, let alone anything done after the 60's except the 2nd Edition of this book printed in 1970.

You've just wasted hours of my time on something that you could have easily provided a source for. For civility, when someone asks you for some data, provide the actual data. If someone is willing to provide actual data that shows any conception I may have had to be in error, I will honestly check it out to make sure I have as accurate a depiction of reality as I can, however when someone wastes my time, I consider that to be one of the most rude, dishonest and contemptible things a person can do. So do you have this data or not?

[Sophus]

Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure. I do not mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean something with a violent happiness in it--an almost painful happiness. A man may have, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love, or a moment of victory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment, but precisely not for the moment's sake. He enjoys it for the woman's sake, or his own sake. The warrior enjoys the moment, but not for the sake of the moment; he enjoys it for the sake of the flag. The cause which the flag stands for may be foolish and fleeting; the love may be calf-love, and last a week. But the patriot thinks of the flag as eternal; the lover thinks of his love as something that cannot end. These moments are filled with eternity; these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary. Man cannot love mortal things. He can only love immortal things for an instant.

From a book called Heretics by Gilbert K. Chesterton. And you accused my quoting of Hitler attributed to Hitler of being plagiarism?

[Davin]

From a book called Heretics by Gilbert K. Chesterton. And you accused my quoting of Hitler attributed to Hitler of being plagiarism?

This is very bad, at least you made sure that people knew where the source came from, this has no indication that Achronos is not the original author.

[DJAkuma]

As far as sex goes there are perfectly reasonable explanations for our apprehension and caution toward it. For males if you were to try and mate with a female that's spoken for by the tribal leader him or one of his friends would likely bash your head in with a rock, this shows itself to be hardwired in our brains and manifests itself in a sense of anxiety when approaching an attractive woman. For females it's much different, sex was dangerous in that if you mated with someone it could result in pregnancy and if that male didn't stick around you and the child could die of starvation. This manifests itself in modern women as well, when you come to the realization that sex is imminent (with a new person) you get a similar feeling that you'd get when you've got $5,000 on black and the wheel is spinning.

The whole time those things are going on our brains are also rewarding us for trying to procreate by giving us all kinds of chemicals that make us happy so it's easy to see why sex can be so confusing. The body is telling you to do it at the same time it's warning you of danger.

[Achronos]

Suppose a man experiences a really splendid moment of pleasure. I do not mean something connected with a bit of enamel, I mean something with a violent happiness in it--an almost painful happiness. A man may have, for instance, a moment of ecstasy in first love, or a moment of victory in battle. The lover enjoys the moment, but precisely not for the moment's sake. He enjoys it for the woman's sake, or his own sake. The warrior enjoys the moment, but not for the sake of the moment; he enjoys it for the sake of the flag. The cause which the flag stands for may be foolish and fleeting; the love may be calf-love, and last a week. But the patriot thinks of the flag as eternal; the lover thinks of his love as something that cannot end. These moments are filled with eternity; these moments are joyful because they do not seem momentary. Man cannot love mortal things. He can only love immortal things for an instant.

From a book called Heretics by Gilbert K. Chesterton. And you accused my quoting of Hitler attributed to Hitler of being plagiarism?

I thought I added the source to my post, ah thanks for the correction.

[LegendarySandwich]

But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

...It being pleasurable? What more do you need?

[Achronos]

But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

...It being pleasurable? What more do you need?

I guess what I am trying to get out of the author of this thread is what exactly is a pleasure, because if almost all pleasures are sins...well I sin on a constant basis.

[LegendarySandwich]

But more to the point, what exactly would qualify a sin as pleasurable?

...It being pleasurable? What more do you need?

I guess what I am trying to get out of the author of this thread is what exactly is a pleasure, because if almost all pleasures are sins...well I sin on a constant basis.

I don't quite get what Klyssa meant in her first post, either. I mean, the only pleasure that Christians almost universally regard as a sin that I can think of is sex (unless under the right circumstances).

[Davin]

I thought I added the source to my post, ah thanks for the correction.

Then I retract my statement.

[Recusant]

A quick search brings up this sentence a few times "In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis", however never a citing of the actual study...

After some more searching I've found this book: Evelyn M. Duvall Why Wait Till Marriage? (New York: Association Press, 1965). After hours of searching, I've yet to find anything that Evelyn Duvall and Judson Landis have worked on together, let alone anything done after the 60's except the 2nd Edition of this book printed in 1970...

So do you have this data or not?

You know, Davin, I don't think that a single study by these two working together actually exists.  I think that this "citation" has made the rounds of Christian propagandists, and I think that it probably originated with something like this book, Before You Live Together by David R. Gudgel, which on page 45 mentions:

"Studies by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis resulted in the same conclusion: Premarital sex is not as satisfying as marital sex."
(Emphasis added)

Some busy Christian screed writer working late into the night putting together their latest masterwork misread this or a similar sentence, and the spurious "Duvall and Landis study" was born.  It was picked up and parroted through the mutually reinforcing network of Christian soul saving literature, which is the only place you'll find references to it.  I will be very surprised if Voter or anyone else can find the original "Duvall and Landis study," because as I said, I don't think it exists.

[LegendarySandwich]

A quick search brings up this sentence a few times "In a study by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis", however never a citing of the actual study...

After some more searching I've found this book: Evelyn M. Duvall Why Wait Till Marriage? (New York: Association Press, 1965). After hours of searching, I've yet to find anything that Evelyn Duvall and Judson Landis have worked on together, let alone anything done after the 60's except the 2nd Edition of this book printed in 1970...

So do you have this data or not?

You know, Davin, I don't think that a single study by these two working together actually exists.  I think that this "citation" has made the rounds of Christian propagandists, and I think that it probably originated with something like this book, Before You Live Together by David R. Gudgel, which on page 45 mentions, "Studies by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis resulted in the same conclusion: Premarital sex is not as satisfying as marital sex." (Emphasis added)  Some busy Christian screed writer working late into the night putting together their latest masterwork misread this or a similar sentence, and the spurious "Duvall and Landis study" was born.  It was picked up and parroted through the mutually reinforcing network of Christian soul saving literature, which is the only place you'll find references to it.  I will be very surprised if Voter or anyone else can find the original "Duvall and Landis study," because as I said, I don't think it exists.

I knew there was a reason I asked for the actual study.

[DJAkuma]

Studies by Dr. Evelyn Duvall and Dr. Judson Landis resulted in the same conclusion: Premarital sex is not as satisfying as marital sex."

I think anyone who's had a threesome with a pair of 19 year old strippers after being married for a few years would disagree. I'm not so sure marriage is really to blame though, in my own tests the quality and frequency of sex dropped significantly upon simply presenting jewelry associated with entering a contract to enter a state of matrimony.

I would agree that marital sex can be equally satisfying as premarital sex, it depends on if you're having sex with the person you're married to or not.

[Achronos]

So how would you all view premarital sex versus martial sex? (I'm curious on the opinion from a married person)

[Davin]

So how would you all view premarital sex versus martial sex? (I'm curious on the opinion from a married person)

In my personal unfounded opinion based off of personal experience: there is something to be said for the excitement and exploring the unknown with a willing partner. So the first few times with a new person may not be as sexually satisfying, however they are highly enjoyable. As time goes on with a partner, I think it's important that both wish to please and explore desires and when done the enjoyment and satisfaction can escalate very much. However when the one of those begins to go too long without caring to seek out the enjoyment of their partner then it becomes very drab, and when contrasted to how awesome it was when both people were seeking to please their partner, the disappointment can crush a relationship.

The important factors to great sex (for me) are that both of us (I'm a monogamist) are actively seeking to pleasure the other, learning what each other likes and a little more than just physical attraction. Whether I'm married or not plays no factor as it's unimportant, just that a sex partner is willing to learn and desires to please as well as allowing me to please.

I've had a relationship where the woman I was dating was very eager to please, but hardly gave me a chance for me to please her. To me that made the sexual relationship very boring. I find myself very fortunate that I found that out without having signed a legal contract.