quote:

---

I know that if I was married, I wouldn't want my husband to have close friendships with any woman who wasn't his blood relative. And I'm sure he wouldn't want me to have any close friendships with guys who aren't my blood relatives. To me it would be emotional adultery if another woman was emotionally close to him like I as his wife should be.

---

quote:

---

And if that's the case, then a lot of single Christians out there are headed for marital trouble because there are lots of single Christian men and women in close friendships with each other, not realizing how hurtful that really is toward their future spouse. Their future spouse is the only person who should have such intimate access to them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eli

You want fair? Play checkers.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Maybe the question you should be asking is "Has a previous male-female (Christian) friendship ever negatively affected anyone's marriage? If so, were you able to get past it and how? Does it still cause problems? etc etc".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by might-be-don

Tigress,

Unless there is a clearcut understanding that the relationship you are about to enter into will lead to marriage, how could one ever even begin to explore if he/she might "be the one" ?

It sounds like if the distance placed between someone and 'friends' remains great , it will also keep the mates away.

peace, don

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shell

Tigress,

I'm trying to understand a couple of things. So if we are just talking about platonic friendships here, is your main concern that the relationship would continue on after marriage and create problems because of the prior intimacy? And secondly, are you against dating (which is much more intimate than a friendship) prior to marriage? You gave the expample of group dates.

I would say that having friends of the opposite sex and dating really help prepare you for marriage. I think in cultures where marriages are arranged do work because it IS their culture. They have been surrounded with it their entire lives. We have friends who are from India and their marriage was arranged. They have a beautiful marriage. That is not our culture, and expectations are different on both sides. I feel that had I not dated or had male friendships, I would have been at a disadvantage when I got married.
We learn so much in intimate relationships and friendships. I think it would be rare to find someone that has never been intimate with anyone before, and the question is, would it be a benefit?

I can't relate to feeling cheated of something because my husband had a previous emotionally intimate relationship. My husband not only dated other women, which involved emotional intimacy, but his closest friend (prior to meeting me) was a woman. She knew everything about him. I also know the input she had in his life, and I think he is a better husband because of the honesty in their relationship. She helped him understand women(at least a little better). All friendships change after marriage. His friendship with her became much more distant while we were dating, and then after we were married, she also married, and he rarely has contact with her now. I am not at all threatened by the fact that someone else was emotionally intimate with him, because he is mine now, and I know him even better .

---

quote:

---

I just don't think that any other woman should be so intimate with a man except for his wife, and vise versa for a woman and her husband. Something about a single man and woman having such a close friendship seems wrong to me. It just doesn't seem to be in God's order. There are no examples in the Bible of a man and woman being intimate friends. Granted, that could be just the cultural mores at the time, but I tend to doubt that. It's too easy to rationalize these relationships as being somehow okay because nothing sexual is going on, but emotional ties bind even tighter than sexual ones, so I think it's unwise to get too close to the opposite sex at any stage of life during and after puberty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fyodor

[quote]

I agree. I'm glad you pointed out the emotional ties Tigress. Often times we only think of the sexual aspect, but the emotional aspect is huge. Thanks.

One of my favorite stories related to this matter is about Paul Wellstone. After he died, this woman who was an acquaintenc of Paul's called in to MPR to tell her story and it went like this....

This woman and Paul had been on a flight from Washington to Minneapolis together and had gotten into some heated debate on the plane. And they continued the conversation in the cab ride back to Paul's house. When they were walking up to the door, Paul stopped her at the door and went in to see if his wife Sheila was home. When he found that she wasn't home, Paul came out on to the steps and told the woman that they would have to continue their conversation at another time because Sheila wasn't home and he wouldn't allow himself to entertain another woman in the house without his wife being home. The woman was quite taken aback....

I think it really makes sense in terms of maintaining a marriage that is void of foreign elements...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress

It seems like people are misunderstanding me here. What I'm saying is that married people can have emotional affairs just as much as they can have sexual affairs. So, it stands to reason that just as single people shouldn't have premarital sex, they also shouldn't have premarital emotional relationships. The arguments that a few of you are using are the same arguments people use to rationalize having sex before marriage. They say that you need to find out if you're sexually compatible with a person you're considering marrying. But that of course is a lie of Satan.

Think about the contradiction in your statements that you can have close friendships with the opposite sex before marriage but not after. Logically, this is a rationalization and nothing more. By being emotionally intimate with someone other than your future spouse, you're not saving that aspect of yourself for him/her only. Marriage is not all about just sex as everyone who's married will tell you. So, there's a lot more in the marital relationship that's sacred than just the sex - it's also the emotional intimacy itself which never should have been shared with anyone prior to your spouse.

Even if something feels good, doesn't mean that it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laplace

Tigress,

I think perhaps you may be overstating the case for "emotional adultery", or it could be a simple misunderstanding.

From your subsequent responses, you say that to become emotionally "attached" with someone is on the same plane as sexual intimacy. I can understand this position as I've read that to many woman, the emotional aspects of a relationship are quite important. Unlike men, who can be turned on my mere appearance and treat sex as mechanical, women desire a much more emotional involvement as well.

However, you state that becoming "emotionally involved" with someone other than your spouse equates to a violation of God's laws. I agree that this MAY be the case, but I believe it cannot be compared analogously to sexual sins.

For example, we can get emotionally attached to parents, children, relatives, friends of the same gender, etc. without much criticism (such may even be appropriate or encouraged). However, substituting the words "have sex with" any of the above and red lights start flashing.

Secondly, we both admit that many people may be married under circumstances where there is a void of any emotional intimacy. Arranged marriages, marriages gone sour, etc. The Bible gives no hints that the covenant is defined by emotional attachment. It is defined by a public confession before God and man, and consumated in a sexual relationship. Lack of feelings towards another does not negate the legal status of marriage in any way. Therefore, it can be further argued that emotional and sexual intimacy are in fact different.

However, the Bible does say there is not to be even a "hint of sexual immorality". I think this may be the angle you are approaching. For example, many view cohabitation between boy/girl friends is wrong because although the 2 people may not be sexually active, the "hint" is there.

The question now is, what defines "hints"? To be honest, the answers probably vary widely. Some like yourself seem to take a very liberal definition where emotional attachment equates to such. I agree, that it CAN be dangerous, especially to someone already married. You are correct, that it SHOULD be the case where one spouse has all desire for the other. And the Bible does speak that what's in the heart, whether lust or envy, is sin. However, emotions alone don't constitute sin. Choices do. It is certainly natural for a married man to be aroused by model in a swimsuit or feel closer to another woman at his job who shares similar interests, but what he does is with those feelings are what truly matters. IF he chooses In that respect, the warnings for those married, especially in our culture today, is certainly warranted.

For the unmarried though, you run into a catch 22. Since we are set up in a system where marriage is forced upon most, and people select mates based upon things such as chemistry and compatibility, you are left with a couple of options with your criteria. One, you marry the first person in which you have that click so you don't commit fornication with other people you date. This has logical problems even in a courtship-based system (say things don't work out, what then? How far is "too far" emotionally?) Again, as noted feelings people have toward each other can change, and that it's the sexual involvement that counts. Or option #2, you remain perpetually single and hope something magically happens where you wake up suddenly married, and only develop emotional ties with that one person. This is probably why many prefer the "friends first" approach to dating relationships, either in a group or exclusively.

I do not say these things Tigress to belittle the impact emotional attachments have on people. I myself have hurt/been hurt through showing such love before. And I agree the bonds of the romantic type are particularly painful. However, we should not call all suffering sin, and it often does take risks, even emotional ones to find true love. And isn't that what we are searching for in a marriage partner? As one of my favorite author's once wrote:

"There is no safe investment. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable. To love is to be vulnerable..."

"If our hearts need to be broken, and if He chooses this as a
way in which they should break, so be it." - C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tigress



I don't think what I'm describing is like your example #2 at all. A man and a woman can be friends and/or date without crossing the emotional boundaries I've described above. I think maybe I haven't made what I'm talking about clear enough. I don't think it's ever right for a single guy and a single woman to be best friends with each other. It might be alright to have a close opposite sex friend in a limited capacity such as only within the confines of a group of friends.

---