Anyways, what the real problem is that it threatens the control of sex. With the control of sex, women can control men, and use their church to whip them into shape and keep them earning money and doing chores. It’s a horrific abuse. Likely, he’s not getting nearly as much sex as she is. With this, the church gets their idolatry and shallow love of God. The swollen coffers doesn’t hurt much either.

I think you have an agenda here, bud.

With the control of sex, women can control men, and use their church to whip them into shape and keep them earning money and doing chores.

Actually, I don’t have the verse (someone provide it), but each spouse is suppose to provide sex whenever the other one wants it.   No strings attached, as long as it is within the marriage.  The woman who holds this over her husband is actually committed a grave wrong according to the scriptures and Christianity, especially Catholicism.   Women are not meant nor allowed to have control over men in this regard or any other.

In regards to the prom, it is wrong.  My guess is that they do not want they children sexually active before marriage.  Prom might encourage this.  Hypocritically they say no sex but want to push the marriage off until the child is into their twenties.

Being married in one’s teens was actually quite common prior to modern time.  People often got married when they were old enough to be sexually active.

A lot of these protestants make stuff up on whim without respect to history/tradition/scripture/reason/etc.  You cannot hold all Christians accountable over one bizarre repressive sect. (Not saying you did.)

It’s really a Victorian attitude. I think Queen Victoria has a serious problem with sex but she was also disturbed by the upper class women who wore as little clothing as possible for their tops. They were topless and it was fashion. She reacted.

The Puritans were actually much more healthier.

Christianity has a bad reputation for being unhealthy with sexuality and much of it deserved. Christians tend to demonize sex too much. True Christian sexuality is passionate and salacious. It’s to be explored aggressively (within marriage). What goes on now is just sad. It’s really a Victorian attitude. I think Queen Victoria has a serious problem with sex but she was also disturbed by the upper class women who wore as little clothing as possible for their tops. They were topless and it was fashion. She reacted. The Puritans were actually much more healthier.

+1 Victorianism and Protestantism has cause a lot of sexually oppressive attitudes and sterotypes.  I am glad you brought that up, I thought I was the only one with that opinion.

And of course, prom night for many people is where they get a chick just so their dick could go into shooting out cum in overdrive. And many churches are aware of this, so while they preach that sex is to be avoided until marriage, it makes perfect sense about why they would think that prom is considered a great evil.

Me? I never went to my high school prom, or any school dance. Because I thought it was a f~~~ing waste of my time, that was why. Not on any spiritual, religious grounds of any kind. Renting a $150 tuxedo and a stretch limo, which costs another $150 at least, just to get a chick to put out on prom night or so that she could be slightly interested in me, it sounds like a waste of a good three hundred dollars that could’ve been put to better use instead of just trying to impress a bitch for five hours in a single evening.