[tlj009]

Yeah tlj009, you are talking about the difference between 90% sexual peak and 100%. It's negligible. The man goes from 100% to 90% from age 20 to 30, and the woman goes from 90% to 100% from 20 to 30.

I don't think that it is 90% or 100%. I think that the difference is more like 100% several times a month and 100% constantly for several years.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Yes. And I said no when I was younger too. But I am talking about a constant temptation for several years, instead of individual instances. But I am a long way from being an expert, so if you say that I am wrong, then so be it.

I know for me there were instances of continually saying no, and I could point you to a few threads which illustrate my points, and I know 2 of my guys in youth group are at a continual bombard.

I am not assuming that women "ain't horny before 30". I am assuming that level of horny isn't constant for several years in a row. Also, I would suggest that other issues factor in to a girls predatory behavior other than just sexual desire.

Maybe, but in what I have seen, a sexual peak is just the point when horny is at its theoretical strongest biological urge. Sexual desire and rabbidly so, can be seen in young teens who are female. And I know, just growing up, that with some girls I knew quite well it was consistent from around age 14 on for some of them.

It appears to me, that it is pretty constant from youth work, and that it doesn't have to reach a peak for you to be far up the slope and well into temptation a decade before the peak. Heck, a decade and a half before the peak.

Which makes me think that the peak is far less relevant.

I wasn't really suggesting which would be proper to marry at. I was suggesting one possible reason for why the age that people get married at is getting pushed back. It really has more to do with the secular society but that in turn affects the Church since we are living in it.

I say that if that were actually the case, you would have a lot of 30 year old virgins. I just don't see it.

[tlj009]

This is an excellent point, well-stated.

My parents' argument (and many like them) to the "Let God provide" argument is, what if God's provision for your family is for the breadwinner to pursue an education and secure a job with benefits and high enough pay to provide for the family? In other words, that is no less miraculous provision than an anonymous envelope for the exact amount of rent on your doorstep. And in today's economy, a job with high pay and benefits might be even more miraculous than ever before .

It could certainly be God's will. But if you are forcing the issue, then it is your will and not God's. And when Paul addressed the issue of marriage, he didn't address the financial aspect. He addressed sex. He addressed the responsibilities to love. We are told to provide for our families. But not to seek "financial stability". The reason is because there is no such thing. The Lord gives and the Lord takes away. You can't do it yourself. If you want to get married, then pray about it. We must seek God's will in everything. But there is nothing keeping you from providing for your wife and seeking an education. It is just a lot of work and sacrifice. Which is also probably very beneficial to a Christian.

[tlj009]

I say that if that were actually the case, you would have a lot of 30 year old virgins. I just don't see it.

Not in secular society you wouldn't because sex isn't dependent on marriage. You would see women getting a man when she wants one until such a time as marriage becomes beneficial to them.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Not in secular society you wouldn't because sex isn't dependent on marriage. You would see women getting a man when she wants one until such a time as marriage becomes beneficial to them.

Which would not be sexual peak. It would be when a woman was starting to have trouble getting a man when she wanted one. Which would have to do with societal perception of beauty more than sex.

[tlj009]

Which would not be sexual peek. It would be when a woman was starting to have trouble getting a man when she wanted one. Which would have to do with societal perception of beauty more than sex.

Or was wanting a man more often, or was ready to have a family before it was too late or ....

But 30 year old virgins aren't a necessity in either case.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Or was wanting a man more often, or was ready to have a family before it was too late or ....

But 30 year old virgins aren't a necessity in either case.

But if this were the case you would see a spike in sexual activity to correlate with a sexual peak. You generally see that far earlier in society, largely centered on college.

But I really think all of this is utterly irrelevant to the command to stay pure. Its hard for guys and girls, and you cannot expect society at large to engage in a tough struggle for no reason.

[Nomes]

Originally Posted by tlj009

Women on the other hand would reach their sexual peak around 30. Right around the same time that we are supporting marriage.

Now with the women's rights movement, women became far more independent. They have careers, etc. There is desire for companionship, sex, family, etc. but why not wait? There will be time for that later. Yes, there are more pressures involved and it gets more complicated. But the point is that all other things being equal, women don't have the incentive that men do to find some sexual relief. And the only valid recourse according to the Church is to get married.

This has already been covered but I'll just say anyway - Women have exactly the same incentive to find "sexual relief". Just because they peak later doesn't mean their sexual drives don't exist until their 30th birthday. In the same way, sex drive exists in men after their "peak" at 18-20 yo.

It is such a myth that men like/want sex more than women!

Originally Posted by DaGeek

If I can take this off on a tiny tangent, could you expound on that? Not for argumentation purposes --- I'm actually interested.

I just meant general reasons not to get married to a certain person. The couple might not be "good" for eachother, an unbalanced relationship, codependence, parental objections, no plans for a means to financially support one another (eg: if you don't have the money to move out of home and you have to be married and living with your parents, I wouldn't call that a marriage, as you haven't left your father and mother to cleave only to your spouse), incompatible callings, etc.

There are exceptions to all these. And most of them can be gotten around, so it some cases it's just a matter of time anyway... so... yeah...

Now I'm just rambling

BTW, when I was talking about money - I don't believe you have to be totally in-the-money in order to get married. But both parties need to be responsible enough to have plans for how they will support themselves and implement them.

[tlj009]

This has already been covered but I'll just say anyway - Women have exactly the same incentive to find "sexual relief". Just because they peak later doesn't mean their sexual drives don't exist until their 30th birthday. In the same way, sex drive exists in men after their "peak" at 18-20 yo.

I never said that they didn't.

It is such a myth that men like/want sex more than women!

And I never argued this.

[tlj009]

But I really think all of this is utterly irrelevant to the command to stay pure. Its hard for guys and girls, and you cannot expect society at large to engage in a tough struggle for no reason.

No, I don't expect society at large to even worry about Christian values.

[tlj009]

Here is a chart showing the Median Age of First Marriage from 1890-2007.

I find it interesting that the age remains about the same for women but drops for men until around the 1950s. I suspect that this could be because war. But then it rebounds. In 1890 it was 26.1 and in 2007 it was 27.7.

The trend among women is a little different. It remains low until after the 60s. During which time we had the women's rights movement, the sexual revolutions, and the pill. From there the age among women goes steadily up until it reaches an all time high today.


So whatever a woman's sexual desire, I suspect that the woman's rights movement and sexual revolution has a tremendous effect on the later age of marrying. And in turn, society affects the Church. Now I could very well have been wrong early and marriage is simply being postponed and correlation to women's sexual peak is merely a coincidence. That was just a thought on the subject anyway.

Another interesting thing is that it shows that men have had to wait for marriage until their late 20's for a long time and nothing has changed in that regard. It is the women that have just recently had to wait until their late 20's.

Median Age at First Marriage, 1890–2007 — Infoplease.com