Well, first of all, if I were to buy a cow, I’d want to make sure I got one whose milk I enjoyed. It would be pretty unfortunate to purchase a cow with no prior knowledge of said cow’s milk, and end up dehydrated and unhappy.
But my thoughts on this whole issue aren’t quite as eloquent as Hugo’s, so check out his post, which is sex-positive from the view of a married heterosexual progressive Christian male. He does a great job of pointing out the inherent sexism to the “Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free” argument, and dismisses a lot of conservative claims (“Back in the day, people waited till they were married,” “Waitng until you’re married makes you less likely to divorce,” etc).
I have to say that as a Christian, a married person, and as a man, I find the notion that women ought to withhold sex in order to convince men to marry them to be profoundly objectionable. It certainly reflects a very limited view of men, women, and the nature of marriage! It also ignores what I think is the real reason for falling marriage rates: not sex, but economics. As more and more middle-class women become financially independent, more and more of us of both sexes can choose to be “picky” about whom we marry. We can make it on our own in a way that earlier generations could not; that means that marriages are more likely to be reflect our romantic and spiritual choices than our need and our dependence. On the whole, I tend to think that’s a good thing for both men and women.
and
I’d go so far as to suggest that for those of us raised in a more sexually tolerant and affluent culture, when we go to the altar with our college degrees and our IRAs and our own set of past physical experiences, we can offer our new spouse the radical assurance that we are truly marrying them for who they are, not for what we will finally be allowed to do!
Word.
If you want to get married, that is. Or as one commenter added, Why buy the pig when all you want is a little sausage? Ha.