What Vicky Beeching means to me

Oh look, it's time for my annual blog post! Also, high time I moved that last one down a page, it was getting a little embarrassing stuck there as the first thing people see.

Plus, I have something new to comment on! But we'll get to that soon. First: Vicky Beeching, and what she means to me.

Part of me would like to say that she played a pivotal part in my conversion experience, but this story isn't quite that exciting. Her music, though, has been very popular in the church I have attended for the last four years - and I am pleased to say, continues to be. Many of her lyrics strike deep chords with me; one of her songs even played at our wedding, as we were signing the vows.

More recently, she has been vocal in her support of women bishops, and a subject I have visited a number of occasions here, that of same-sex marriage, and the acceptance of gay Christians within the church. before, one way or another. So, she doesn't know this (and why should she?) but Vicky Beeching is something of a role model to me as I find myself as a Christian woman.

And so I was probably a little more surprised that perhaps I should have been when she was interviewed for the Independent a few weeks ago.

I have debated homosexuality and Christianity at some length - not least with myself - and while some things are less clear-cut than others, one thing I am sure of is that a lot of the gay-hating I've read from (especially American) Christians is not very... well, Christian. Which sort of puts me on the side of gay Christians everywhere by default. The fact that this is now being levelled at one of my favourite Christian musicians and someone who, let's face it, seems like an awesome woman of God not to mention an all-round nice person (at least based on her twittering), just doesn't sit well with me.

But, while I congratulate Vicky (yes, we are on first name terms, at least for the duration of this post) for having the cojones to come out, her doing so did confuse me somewhat.

You see, when I first became a Christian four years ago, God very clearly challenged me about my sexuality, and how I was using and abusing it in various ways. And one of those ways - one which I have not mentioned in this blog up to now - is that for a couple of years prior to that time, I only dated women.

Ok, you at the back, stop looking at me like that. And no, I'm not jumping on Vicky's bandwagon to be an out lesbian Christian because it's cool now; if anything I may be doing the opposite, and this is what slightly bothers me.

God said to me I should not be dating women. Not only that, He gave me the strength to do so (or rather, not to do so), and later gave me a man to love instead.

So why, I ask myself, would He not have given Vicky the ability to turn away from women when she, by her own admission, begged Him to do so? Was I wrong to think God told me that? After all I had no real idea who this God person was at the time, whereas Vicky Beeching... well, she wrote The Wonder Of The Cross, for goodness sake. She is clearly a woman of God.

So then... why? Why do we both get completely opposing answers to very similar questions from the same God?

Well, we didn't. Not really. Truth be told, I'm still attracted to women. If I had to define myself by my sexuality, I would have to say I am bisexual - but I generally choose not to. I'm a married woman, and that is all anyone needs to know about my sexuality. And that leads me to why God told me what He told me; I had to stop dating women in order to date the man who would later become my husband. Maybe as a baby Christian I wrongly took that to mean the homosexuality/bisexuality was always naughty in His sight.

I still know it is wrong for me. I try not to think about women that way; they can tempt me in ways no man can. But I am, and intend to remain, faithful to my husband, because he is the one God planned for me to be with.

I really hope, now that I've got all that off my chest, it doesn't read as if to suggest that somehow Vicky is wrong and can still be 'cured', or to belittle her experience in some way - except in the sense that I hope once the dust settles she doesn't forever get labelled 'gay Christian musician' or something equally lame and can get on with life.

So, what does Vicky Beeching mean to me? Everything she ever did, and then some. That a Godly woman can - and should - be ballsy at times. That not everyone is the same, but everyone is loved. That I still have a lot to learn about God. 

Masturbation and Sin

I started putting this together while Animal was driving us back from our holiday last week and I got into another twitter debate, this time over whether masturbation is sinful.

First, some background: when God picked me out of the crowd and asked me to follow Him 3 years ago, he challenged me very specifically on my attitudes towards sex and sexuality, and they have been evolving since then as I have prayed, studied and thought about various apsects of the subject. I don't claim to be an expert; just someone who has given a lot of thought to subjects like this and done her best to apply God's will in her life.

Before we begin, I am not writing an apologetic for masturbation; I don't seek to justify it or prove that it is OK. Please don't use my words to justify something to yourself if you think believe it is wrong. I believe sex and sexuality to be deeply personal matters - matters best kept between you, the person you choose to share them with, and God.

When masturbation is wrong

There are certainly circumstances in which masturbation is wrong:

• If you believe masturbation to be sinful, then it probably is - for you.
• If you are likely to be led into lustful thoughts by it, you should try to avoid it - lust is a sin.
• If it becomes a compulsive or addictive behaviour pattern, this is unhealthy whether or not you consider it a sin; it is also more likely to lead you into lust or get in the way of your relationship with God.

If any of those apply to you, I urge you to try (or continue) to resist masturbation. The rest of this piece is not really for you.

You (girls especially) might like this article by Heather Lindsey which explains why she believes masturbation to be sinful, and gives some good advice on avoiding it.

However, if you are a Christian and do not fit into the categories above, or are undecided whether masturbation is right or not, I would like to offer you my perspective; a counter argument to 'masturbation is always sin', which I believe to be unBiblical and unhelpful.

Why do we do it?

OK, let's get right down to it. Sex is fun - God made it that way. Orgasms feel good - God made it that way. God made sex to be enjoyed, not just as a tool for procreation. God made me a sexual being - He made most of us that way, to varying degrees. And the vast majority of us begin to explore that as teenagers, through masturbation. It's a natural process of discovering what we like so that when the time comes to share our bodies with a partner, we can make the most of it.

Enjoying the gift of sex that God gave us - enjoying it fully with the person God has picked for us to spend our lives with - gives more glory to God. Nothing brings two people closer than the act of sex. Nothing. So why not enjoy it as much as possible? And how are we to do that if we don't know what we like?

Yes, ok, masturbation serves no useful purpose other than to make us feel good for a few minutes. Well so what? Neither does Red Dwarf or 'Walking on Sunshine' by Katrina and the Waves. That doesn't make it inherently wrong. For the Christian, I believe all things need a little thought and prayer, and to be done in a sensible, harmless way.

So that's what I think. What does God have to say on the matter?

What the Bible says

The Bible is quite clear that 'sexual immorality' is wrong; however it is far from clear exactly what consitutes sexual immorality. Pre-marital sex is almost universally accepted among Christians as being against God's wishes. A man sleeping with his stepmother is mentioned as a specific example of immorality. Adultery and looking at another with lust were said by Jesus to be equally sinful. There is no more specific advice on masturbation than that*.

Yes, our bodies are a temple, yes, we are called to self-control; as I have already said, if those things make you think you shouldn't be masturbating, then maybe God is calling you not to - perhaps he knows it will lead to an addictive behaviour or lustful thoughts. Listen to these thoughts.

Self-control

But self-control does not necessarily mean never letting yourself do a thing. The Message puts it as being 'able to marshal our thoughts and energies wisely'. There is no prohibition on moderation.

Take alcohol. Jesus not only drank wine, he bottled his own. Yet drunkenness is right up there next to sexual immorality.

Wine, like masturbation, serves no useful purpose beyond its own enjoyment. Both can lead to sinful behaviour if over-indulged, but with self-control - knowing your limits and sticking to them - I see no Biblical prohibition.

Galatians includes self-control in the fruit of the Spirit; something which will grow out of our relationship with God, not something on which that relationship depends. Allow God to guide you, to give you self-control when needed and keep you from over-indulging.

A warning though: as both wine and masturbation are pleasurable, both can be addictive. Addictive behaviours can become idols in our lives, taking more importance than time with God; put your 'God-time' ahead of your 'me-time'.

Lust

The key, I believe, is lust. Now, I know men and women are wired differently this way, but speaking personally, I can masturbate just for it's own sake, without lustful thoughts bothering me. Men generally find this harder, and with the abundance of porn and increasingly sexy videos on MTV, it's all too easy to find some visual aid to speed the process along.

Don't. This is clearly lust, and clearly a sin.

(Pornography is a bigger issue, and one which I have blogged about plenty already. My defence of masturbation is based on not using porn in the process.) 

Lust for your partner

Thinking about your partner can complicate things. If you're married, fantasising about your spouse while you pleasure yourself is fine. Animal does this, and I'm fine with that. You can't lust after what is already yours.

If you're not married though, it's less simple. First, as the person is not 'yours' as your spouse is, by strict interpretation this is lust. Second, from a personal perspective, I had to cut back on masturbation when we were engaged, because it made me want sex with my husband-to-be all the more. (I was not a virgin, I knew what I was missing; this may well not happen to virgins. No promises though, just my experience to share.)

And yes, I did say back there that my husband still masturbates. This is not because I don't fulfill his desires! Girls, you know there are going to be a few days each month when you just don't want him touching you. Not that that has to be the only place for it in the marriage bed; masturbation can be part of fun, healthy sex between a married couple - the kind of sex that unites man and wife to the glory of God.

I certainly don't believe that sex is intended only for having babies; nor do I believe that the Bible sets out rules for what constitutes 'immoral' practices between man and wife. The only restrictions that exist between Animal and I are those that we have imposed on ourselves.

In conclusion...

Your sexual activities are your business - between you, your partner, and God. Nobody else has any place dictating to you what is right or wrong between two consenting adults.

As always, the comments are open for discussion. Keep it clean though, eh?


*Some may point to Onan, who was punished for 'spilling his semen on the ground'; in context, the punishment was for deliberately refusing to fulfil his cultural duty to continue his brother's line. Basically, he wasn't masturbating, he just pulled out early.

Almost ready to get off the fence

I've been following the whole equal marriage debate lately because, well, because it matters to me, but I'm still unsure where, as a Christian, I should fall on the matter. But I think I'm coming to a conclusion, having wavered for a long time.

I still have a couple of questions; I'm not entirely clear, despite the best efforts of others to put me straight (no pun intended), why civil partnerships are not good enough.

I do have reservations about the redefining of marriage; is this the first step towards legalising polygamy? Or, if Lord Tebbit is to be believed, incest? It's a valid concern, I think, although in honesty Tebbit all but persuaded me to vote in favour of equal marriage just because he was so fricking ham-fisted in his arguments. Moreover, how 'equal' is equal marriage if you still have to preface it with 'gay' or 'lesbian'? (And why do some people still refer to 'my lesbian partner'? I can see you're both girls, just call her your girlfriend, or partner, or whatever. And yes, I see that is an argument for being able to use the word 'wife', just don't call her your 'lesbian wife'.)

Anyway, Tebbit-factor aside, here is my latest reasoning:

I am pro-marriage and not anti-gay; that should make the call obvious.
I do believe that homosexual activity is against God's wishes; for that reason my issue has always been with the idea of churches being made to offer marriage to all orientations. This appears to have been addressed, so my main argument against it no longer stands.
My religious views, for want of a better expression, still stand, but if people want to get married other than in a church, my religious views don't really matter. I never intentionally hold non-believers to Biblical standards, and on sooooo many levels it's not my place to judge anyone!

I'm pro-marriage, and I have gay (non-Christian) friends - why would I want to deny them marriage (if that's what they want - my friends would have been quite happy with a civil partnership, hence my confusion).

So, yes, Ithink I've come round to a position of gay marriage outside the church is ok.
Inside the church is a different matter, of course; but again, we are all different, all called differently by God and all relate to him differently. That is a different argument, which I don't need to get involved in at the moment (thankfully!)

Looking back, looking forward

So, 2012 then. How was it for you?

I'd say it was a pretty awesome year. Wiggo winning le Tour and getting a knighthood for services to offending the French, soaking up the atmosphere of London 2012 (albeit at arms length), and just for a few days there the newspapers were full of positive role models for girls - Jessica Ennis, Victoria Pendleton, Ellie Simmonds, all totes amazeballs, to name but a few.

It didn't quite have the personal upheaval of the previous couple of years - which seems a slightly odd thing to say given the one significant life change the year did bring, but I probably went on about that enough at the time (spin back to March/April if you want to relive my thoughts!).

But now I'm settled... settled into the rhythm of living with a man (it is an acquired taste, but you get used to it), settled into the routine of my wifely duties, I even got the new signature down within a couple of months.

So what's next? Stuck in a rut and waiting for the seven year itch? Well, I'm not going to worry about that for at least six years, but I don't think I (sorry, we) will remain settled long enough to get bored. I think there are more changes going to happen in 2013.

It's been a couple of years since God recruited me to His team, and I don't think he did that just so I could keep Animal company (although, if that did turn out to be my main purpose in life, it wouldn't be so bad). No, I think God has another job in mind, either for me or for us both, together. There have already been a couple of interesting developments which may be related, but time will tell....

Gay Marriage: A Rant

So, I posted a few months back about how I didn't really care whether people wanted to be gay, bi or metrosexual, but I was beginning to think that gay marriage was a bad idea.

And, as the nation awaits the government's new plans for the introduction of gay marriage, I find myself leaning even more this way. I am, however, somewhat conflicted.

You see, in theory, the protection of religious freedom should allow gay couples to get married in a church which is happy with that, whilst not forcing other churches to carry out gay weddings if they believe this to be in contradiction with their beliefs, should come as a sensible compromise position. I should be applauding this proposal.

However... I can't help thinking that, somewhere along the line, the only gay couple in the village are going to find they can't get married in their quaint local chapel, and, fuelled by righteous outrage, they will mount a legal challenge and force the church to marry them, regardless of the curch's position on homosexual relationships.

But what really ticked me off was seeing a gay couple on the news recently, saying 'Neither of us are religious, but...' And as a Christian, that's what worries me. This whole debate is going to lead to a place where people can say 'I'm not religious, but I want churches to do things my way'. It's about government trying to push a secular agenda into the church. It's about non-believers telling the church what it should believe, and what is should practice. And surely that can't be right?

Horrible Histories

So, I bumped into an ex at the weekend. Thankfully it's not like I've got hundreds of them, and certainly not many still in the same area, but meeting this person again kinda threw me. We were only together for one summer a few years ago, but if you'd asked me at the time, I might well have said it was for keeps. Such deep feelings don't go away easily, and I realise now that those feelings are sealed in a very deep and possibly permanent way by sexual intimacy.

Having a history... complicates things. I mean there was the awkward moment when I realised my mother-in-law had assumed I was a virgin, but really that's the least of them. Um, well, I think she got over that...

For me, the worst thing about having a history is this: I think about it.

I don't mean in the sense of comparing Animal to any of my previous lovers; it's a matter of blogosphere record that Animal is the best sex I've ever had, and I stand by that assessment absolutely. But still, the fact is that I have a sexual past, and there are things in that past that I enjoyed, but which I have to leave in the past. And that's hard. Thoughts about someone I cared about hugely and had great sex with, but who is not my husband, are awkward for me. They are hard to dismiss, because they are good thoughts, but to dwell on them would be to fantasise about someone else, and that would be wrong.

So what am I to do with these feelings? Well ultimately, I think, nothing. It's just a temptation, and there is nothing wrong with being tempted. I think rambling about it here is my way of getting it all out, so I can let those temptations go and move on from them.

But at the same time, all experience has a lesson to teach us; and this has been a very real reminder to me that what I've heard so much since moving in Christian circles - that sex brings with it an emotional bond that goes far deeper than the physical act itself - is true. If I search my feelings, I know this to be true; I have given pieces of myself to several people before I met Animal - the ex I met the other day was a recent and local one, which made the whole thing so hard, but it could have been one of a number of people. Which complicates things, but it also saddens me, because I got all of Animal, and will never be able to give him those bits of me that I gave away earlier.

That's one of the reasons I now believe that sex is intended to be shared with one person, for life. Unfortunately I figured that out several people too late, but maybe, just maybe, I'll get the chance to pass that figuring on to someone else before it's too late for them :)

Dressing like a wife

It's not like me to jump on a bandwagon (or even to blog, lately), but when I heard about Kate Moss and her flippant comment about 'dressing like a wife', I thought I'd try and climb on, what with being a new wife and all.

Because, I tried to do that. Just before the wedding I went and looked for the 'Wife' department in Top Shop and Dotty P's, but I couldn't find it. There's not even a Wifeswear department in Debenhams, as far as I could make out.

So what is a girl to do? Is it, Ms Moss, even possible to dress 'like a wife' in this country? Or do we have to be on a supermodel salary and go to those posh Wife Boutiques they have in London Village?

So, of course, I resigned myself to dressing exactly as I had before I got married, much to the consternation of my husband, who wants me to dress like a wife and not a rock chick. Which makes no sense to me, because it was, after all, the rock chick he fell in love with and agreed (indeed, asked) to marry, without explaining the 'dress like a wife' rules in detail. Still, I did promise to love, honour and obey, so I will continue to try and dress in a suitably wifely manner.

In all seriousness though, Kate Moss did make one good point: maybe women (and men) should cover up a little more. I used to be guilty of this myself - the sun would come out, my hemline would go up. It seemed normal. And, yes, partly it was to look good, to look sexy.

I have toned down the way I dress over the last few years, but not because my husband expected me to. And not because, having found a husband, I don't need to look good any more! (Maybe that's what Kate thinks dressing like a wife means - not caring what you look like?)

No, I toned my dress down because I came to realise that dressing to be 'sexy' - showing some leg and/or cleavage, depending where God blessed you - was kind of self-defeating. Yes, those short skirts attracted attention from the opposite sex, but not always the attention I wanted. It is possible to get to a point, with all this skin on show, where you're saying 'look at me!', and beyond that, implying 'come and get me!'. I am a person, not a plaything to be looked at and pawed. It took a while to realise that I could get attention other ways, and really, anyone who was just interested in what I looked like was not likely to give me the right kind of attention - attention which is given respectfully.

So I started to dress in a way that showed I respect myself, but still looked good. Sexy, but not slutty. Yes, it is possible girls!

The other point to note - and this I have learned from my husband - not all guys like having their attention drawn to a pair of legs or breasts that don't belong to their own significant other. I hadn't really thought of that, but by dressing 'sexily' I may be tempting some other husband to look away from his wife. That's not what I want, so I don't intentionally dress to be sexy.

Well, except for my husband ;)

Gay Marriage: For better or for worse?

I've been hearing and reading a lot just lately, on the internet and in real life, about gay marriage and whether or not it's evil. And that sort of follows nicely from my rant the other week about intolerance.

So I figured it would be timely to set out my stand on such matters, and my stand is this:
I don't care. I don't give a dingo's kidney who is sleeping with who and in what position. It's none of my business, and I'd like to keep it that way, and I'm sure most of my friends would be fairly happy with me keeping my nose out of their bedrooms.

That said, I do know some people who identify as gay or bisexual (we don't have many in these rural parts, but I know them both) and they're perfectly nice people. They don't 'identify' by wearing rainbows or gay pride t-shirts; they don't force their sexuality on innocent bystanders, they are merely true to themselves. I don't think they would want to be primarily identified for who they have sex with anyway, they would rather be identified as funny or kind or good at her job or whatever else it might be. Except by virtue of being married, I don't identify myself as 'straight', and to me making a point of the fact that you're not 'straight' is to highlight the difference and scupper the equality you probably claim to want. Just shut up about which gender you find attractive and get back to the business of being a well-rounded human being, then maybe you'll be treated the way you would like.

Which brings me back to the start, and gay marriage. Now, I can see the argument that whether or not same-sex marriage is allowed doesn't affect my marriage, but I have to admit that I'm coming round to the view that actually, it kinda does.

That's not because I'm anti-gay; far from it. You want to be gay, knock yourself out. I do believe that homosexual sex is biblically wrong, but if you don't subscribe to my religious values, it would be unfair of me to judge you by them. If you are claiming to be a gay Christian, then maybe that's a different matter, but I'll leave that between you and God unless you ask my opinion.

No, I'm not anti-gay, but I am pro-marriage. Gay couples can already get the bit of paper; they can enter a civil partnership which gives at least some of the legal benefits of marriage. Why do you need more? I needed more because I wanted my union with Animal to be blessed by God; for me, the bit of paper, the legal stuff, wasn't as important as the Christian ceremony. Similarly I know straight, non-religious couples who would be just as happy with a civil partnership as with a marriage.

Anyway, I came across this blog post recently which sums up the way I am thinking much more eloquently than I ever could. Here are the highlights, as far as my view on gay marriage is concerned:

The fact that we need the qualifer, “same-sex,” shows that in the minds of those discussing marriage, there’s a distinction between marriage and same-sex marriage.

If a societal institution like marriage can be redefined once, why not twice, three times, or as many times as we want? So in five years (or sooner), someone will want marriage to include a man and multiple wives or a woman and multiple husbands. Why not a man and his dog? Or how about a man or woman and a consenting child? Who is to say that these can’t also be considered marriage if marriage becomes a fluid term?

I hadn't actually thought of that argument, but it's an interesting point! Looked at that way, same-sex marriage, polygamous marriage, or any other variation of marriage, devalues the model that God intended for us, of one man and one woman.

If I've offended or angered anyone in the process of writing this, go ahead and tell me why, that's what the comments are for. There's much more I could say to defend my point of view, but I'm sure I've said enough by now!

This is not a sex blog, but...

...I do like to throw the subject in now and then, for the ratings, you know.

Plus, of course, it would be terribly remiss of me not to extol the virtues of marital sex at this point.

Married sex is AWESOME!!!!!

Ok, I guess we can move on now... What? No? You want more? You want details? Tough :p

Well, as it happens, I sort of wanted to write something about it, because that first time - the wedding night sex - was quite possibly the best sex I've ever had. No kidding. I mean, technically speaking, it was terrible. Possibly the most clumsy and awkward sex I've had in... well, possibly ever. But it totally blew my mind.

Obviously there was the anticipation; I'd been waiting to get naked with Animal for almost 18 months, so finally being able to was a great release, apart from anything else. On the other hand, the anticipation, the sense of expectation of this great life-changing moment, probably made Animal rather more nervous than was strictly necessary, adding to the clumsy awkwardness...


Moreover, there was the raw emotion of the thing. I don't think I've ever been as emotionally connected with a person before without having a similar physical intimacy. In fact, I think the lack of physical intimacy allowed us to concentrate on the emotional and spiritual sides of our relationship... I expect that's why God would have us do it that way round.

Clumsy sex aside, it was a hugely emotional experience - more so for Animal, who (don't tell anyone this) cried after giving up his virginity. For that moment alone, the sharing of a literally once in a lifetime event with the person I love most in the world, I'm glad we waited. It would have taken something special from the day if we hadn't.

Being a submissive wife

Of course I didn't phrase that title for google's benefit! Although if you did just surf on in having googled the confessions of a submissive wife, feel free to stay a while. Sir. ;)

Seriously though, I wanted to add some clarification to last week's post.

Being submissive in marriage is not about blindly obeying what your husband wants or asks of you. It is about putting his needs before your own - basically, being selfless out of love.

For instance, if Animal got a high-flying job in London Village, or felt called to be a missionary to Peru, I would listen to his case and give the idea some careful consideration. And the chances are I would go; not blindly out of mindless obedience, but out of love and respect for his needs or his calling. And because I know that he has promised to love me selflessly, I know that he wouldn't force the issue; he wouldn't even ask if he thought it would actually harm our marriage.

Or (for those of you googling kinky submissive wives) if Animal should want to try some sex act that I'm not comfortable with, I certainly wouldn't let him have his way just because the Bible says I should submit to him. As with moving to Peru, I might well think about it, but at the end of the day there are some things that I'm just not going to do. And he will accept that - which, frankly, I would expect just out of simple respect anyway, but the point is that the husband's role of sacrificially loving his wife means that he will not make unreasonable demands and expect her to simply agree out of Biblical submissiveness.

And as a final note, a reminder that the submitting goes all ways. We are all, as Christians, called to

Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. (Ephesians 5:21)

And that doesn't mean we're all walking round being doormats, doing exactly as we're told by other 'well-meaning' 'Christians'; it just means we're not selfish, we treat each other with respect, and try to consider the needs of others before our own.

To love, honour and obey?

It seems to be the question on everybody’s lips: will you promise to obey Animal?

Well we haven’t finally agreed on the vows, but they’re going to be pretty traditional. And whether or not the word ‘obey’ is used, the gist of it will be….

Yes.

Wait, what? I hear you say. That’s right girlfriends, I’m gonna submit to my man. And I’m gonna stand up in front of these here witnesses (and God) and jolly well promise to do it too!

Have you lost your mind? I hear you say. They took the obey bit out in the 50s didn’t they? In the Episcopal Church it was 1922, according to Professor Wikipedia, but what the heck. They didn’t take it out of the Bible, and that’s what I’m basing my marriage on.

Actually, that’s not quite true. What the Bible says is:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)

It doesn’t actually say wives should obey their husbands anywhere in the Bible. So I guess the technical answer to the question at the top of the page is ‘no’, but that wouldn’t have been controversial enough to get you this far down.

So yes, I will be submitting to my husband. I believe this is the attitude God wants me to have towards my husband and our marriage; I also believe it is part of the way men in general are made, they need to be in a position of authority and honoured by others.

That does not mean, however, that it is a one-way street. I am not promising to be a doormat. Animal will be promising to love and cherish me – the Bible goes on to say:

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. (Ephesians 5:25)

Sure, I hope it won’t come to that, but I think giving your life up for someone is a little more extreme than letting them have their own way now and then.

Similarly though, this is what women want (are you paying attention boys?): we want to be loved with literally everything our man has to offer, right down to his life. We don’t want our man to die, obviously (PMT notwithstanding), but something in the heart of a woman wants to know her man is willing to, if called upon.

All of this, the submitting and the loving, it is one partner doing something difficult, to give the other what they need, deep down. And, of course, it goes both ways: I will (and do) love and cherish Animal, and he will also submit to me, because that's Biblical (Ephesians 5:21).

Maybe next week I'll think about how that will work practically for our marriage... or maybe I'll wait until we're married and get a more realistic view!

Valentine's Day

With apologies to my single friends, I like Valentine’s Day. Maybe it does help having a fiancé who wants to take me out for a romantic meal, and on our first Valentines together sent me flowers at work (this year he brought them to me at home in person – arguably less romantic, definitely less embarrassing!).

But this year I came across an entirely different phenomenon: The Conversation About V-Day Sex. Now it does take a certain kind of bluntness, or the anonymity of the internet, to start that conversation, yet I did find myself having it a couple of times yesterday. And you know what? That’s fine. It is, after all, the last time I’ll be able to have The Conversation, so why not go for it.

So how come, 5 weeks before getting married, I didn’t get any on Valentine’s Day? Well, if you just googled your way in here looking for Valentine’s Day sex, it’s probably 2013 by now. But what the heck, if you still want to know why I didn’t get any last year, despite having a gorgeous fiancé, feel free to ask. I’m not shy about having that conversation.

How the hell did that happen?

It's been sort of looming in the future for months now, something I've been simultaneously longing for and dreading, but then, all of a sudden, it hits me:

I'm getting married next month!!!!!!!!

 

Sex, marriage, purity and being a BarlowGirl

This is a question I ask myself more than other people ask me: why would a reasonably attractive, healthy woman in her 20s suddenly give up sex? It certainly wasn't because I didn't like it!

Neither is it because I believe sex is in some way evil, or sinful in itself. On the contrary, I believe God made sex to be fun, something for us to enjoy.

So, I ask myself, why not enjoy it? Why torture yourself with this born-again virgin stuff?

For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. (Gen 2:24)

'One flesh' is a symbol of the inseparable union God intended for husband and wife, and in the act of sex, it finds its physical expression. I believe God intended sex to be fun for one man, and one woman, within the confines of an inseparable union - marriage.

The same is clearly reiterated throughout the New Testament:

But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. (1Cor 7:2)

Precisely because sex is so much fun, us weak humans are often tempted to abuse it. Marriage is held repeatedly to God's ideal for sex, and the way to avoid that temptation.

But why marriage? You're as committed to Animal now as you will be in 66 days time, why wait for a bit of paper?

Well yes, I am as committed to him now as I ever will be, but I am not his wife. For us, marriage isn't about a bit of paper and a ring, it's about having a big party committing our relationship to God, and receiving his blessing. It's God that will seal the marriage, not a registrar.

But let's not forget that although sex is fun, it makes babies. It seems obvious to me that well-balanced children need the influence of a mother and a father. (I'm not judging single parents here; they're doing a tough job under imperfect circumstances, and the ones I know deserve nothing but respect for how well they do so.) God intended from the outset for us to go forth and multiply, and for children to be brought up within that family setting.

And let's not forget the other potential side-effects of extra-marital sex - after all, a baby is the nicest thing you can catch from having sex.

But what if he's rubbish at it? I'm trusting that we'll be compatible. He's my soulmate, a gift from God in every other way, so why would a loving God (who invented sex to be fun, remember!) leave me wanting in the bedroom? What I am certainly not going to do is take a test drive. We'll learn as we go along.

And what of purity? This may seem weird, but Animal's virginity means a whole lot to me - I wish I had treated my own with as much respect. I think this celibacy thing would be a whole lot harder if we both knew what we were missing, but more importantly, he's willing to share with me something he's never shared with anyone else. How can that not be special?

Final thoughts:

• It breaks my heart that the one thing I treasure most in my fiancé is the one thing I can never give him back.
• Although being a born-again virgin is not easy, it is possible with God's strength. And I have no doubt that it well be worth it in the end.

Confession time

Sometimes this celibacy gig really, really sucks. Something tells me this could be the longest 73 days of my life.