posted
I’m just kind of wondering if there’s anyone on this board who believes in abstinence. I do. I mean, I don’t see why a person couldn’t just wait until they actually loved each other, and dedicated themselves to each other, and got married before having sex? If a person really loves you, I don’t think they would have sex before marriage to prove it.
Posts: 10 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, what it basically comes down to is that it's a matter of personal choice. try to keep in mind, in having this discussion, that it's not really anyone's job to be judging others for their sexual practices. (i'm not saying you have. just trying to avoid future probs)
em
Posts: 786 | From: Washington, DC | Registered: Dec 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by emsily0: well, what it basically comes down to is that it's a matter of personal choice. try to keep in mind, in having this discussion, that it's not really anyone's job to be judging others for their sexual practices. (i'm not saying you have. just trying to avoid future probs)
em
I agree that it's personal choice. Thanks for saying I'm not judging.
posted
Celibacy, you mean? I abstain from cigarettes, meat, and System of a Down; the word doesn't specifically apply to sexual behaviour.
Personally, I don't see why anyone should have to love a sexual partner, or marry them; if you're comfortable with it, and responsible about what you're doing, I have no problem with the idea that people have casual sex, or sex outside of marriage, or homosexual sex. Do remember not everyone can marry, or wants to, or wants to have only one sexual partner (some people have multiple partners at once. If everyone involved in the situation is fine with it, that is a valid option too.).
posted
It's weird how sex is seen through culture. All through middle school, they tell you to go with abstinence, but in some high schools, they literally hand out condoms.
Some people do not get to choose when they have their "first time."
Virginity has many different meanings for different people, and some people disregard the notion altogether: Magical Cups & Bloody Brides
These are just some of the reasons we tend to think it's best that everyone know how to take steps for safer sex (like here: Safe, Sound & Sexy – A Safer Sex How-To), even if they aren't planning on having sex until they're married.
posted
I think abstinance is a great idea if one doubts in any way that they are unready to be sexually active or if they simply desire to do so.
And by doubts, I do mean any sort of doubts at all. You don't understand how reproduction or STD transmission work? You don't feel emotionally ready? You have religious or moral convictions that do not permit you to be sexually active at the time? You feel like you need some sort of committment from your partner? Have some other doubt or issue? Then abstaining is clearly the way to go. I certainly don't advocate doing anything that you don't feel comfortable doing. And I think that if you aren't ready or don't want to be sexually active and you choose to abstain (or practice celebacy), then good for you. You're clearly doing what you believe is right and what you feel is good for you at that particular time in your life.
As to abstinance only sex-ed and handing out condoms...well, frankly abstinance only sex ed doesn't work. Yes, abstinance is an option, and it's a good option. But not telling people the truth about sex just makes it more mysterious. And by making it all more mysterious, you end up with kids participating in a variaty of incredibly unsafe sexual behaviors...and many of the ones participating in some of these behaviors truly BELIEVE that they are being abstinant (because they're not having intercourse or "real sex") and therefore are perfectly safe. The real deal is that they aren't safe though. There are still huge risks. However, many of those risks aren't detailed because of the abstinance only cirriculum. As far as handing out condoms goes...if that's the only way to get teens to use them, then I'm in favor of making them avaliable. 1 in 4 teens has an STD, that's a pretty high rate of infection. And giving someone a condom doesn't make them have sex. They're still in control of what they do with that condom (or they can simply choose not to take one if they desire).
quote:Originally posted by Milke: Celibacy, you mean? I abstain from cigarettes, meat, and System of a Down; the word doesn't specifically apply to sexual behaviour.
Personally, I don't see why anyone should have to love a sexual partner, or marry them; if you're comfortable with it, and responsible about what you're doing, I have no problem with the idea that people have casual sex, or sex outside of marriage, or homosexual sex. Do remember not everyone can marry, or wants to, or wants to have only one sexual partner (some people have multiple partners at once. If everyone involved in the situation is fine with it, that is a valid option too.).
But still, even if you take the uttermost precautions, where a girl would still have the chance of getting pregnant, or still have a chance of catching a STD, it still doesn’t seem all that safe. Even if neither had AIDS or anything, there’s still the chance of pregnancy. Not only is abstinence is focusing on the risk of pregnancy or a STD, if can help stop a lot of emotional damage. There’s more of a chance of a person not becoming very depressed if they’re uncomfortable having sex with their boyfriend, or not sure if they were ready to have a sexual relationship.
I still agree--if the person wants to have sex, whether they’re in love or not, they’re still making a serious decisions that may or may not effect their life. The thing is this: Would if really be a wise idea to have sex before being committed? Is the person ready to be responsible for whatever happens to them? Would they really want to take that risk if they’re not?
quote:Originally posted by lemming: Some things to consider in this topic:
Not everyone can get married.
Not everyone wants to get married.
Marriage doesn't protect you from STDs or STIs.
Some people do not get to choose when they have their "first time."
Virginity has many different meanings for different people, and some people disregard the notion altogether: Magical Cups & Bloody Brides
These are just some of the reasons we tend to think it's best that everyone know how to take steps for safer sex (like here: Safe, Sound & Sexy – A Safer Sex How-To), even if they aren't planning on having sex until they're married.
I never said a married couple shouldn't prepare for safer sex. I think that the article is a good one, and that all married couples should get checked for AIDS and such, and should have safe sex. STILL, if you truley loved a person, and was married, there's less of a chance of you breaking up with them, or divorce, fear of your partner leaving you, or suffering depression.
posted
I honestly don't see the correlation b/w sex only w/i marriage and decreased divorce rates. If there is a study on this, please enlighten me
Personally, i lost my virginity when i was 16. I was not married, and had only been in the relationship for a month. Following that, i had a one night stand w/ my best friend, and am now currently involved w/ my partner of almost two years. Does it mean any less to me b/c i'm not married? I don't think so. Marriage, to me, is just a piece of paper. It's the love, commitment, communication/honesty that holds a marriage (and any relationship) together that is the key. You can have all of that w/o getting married ...
I do believe in abstinence until you're ready (emotionally, financially ...)... but i don't really think you're automatically ready when you're married, nor is there any written rule that states you have to be married to be ready.
posted
A few of my friends are very much into waiting until marriage due to religious beliefs, and they're pretty level headed about why. One of them was in a four year relationship, and I very much admire her conviction and faith (as well as her boyfriend's, even though he is a dedicated atheist).
Personally though, I tend to agree with what Milke said: there's a whole slew of people who will never fit into the nice marriage slot (I didn't think I would, until recently) and it seems unfair to say that simply because these people don't have a certificate stating that they claimed to be committed in front of a religious or judicial officer doesn't mean they're any less responsible about sex. I know plenty of safe, loving people both inside and outside of marriages, and I know quite a few unsafe, unhappy people- again, both in and out of marriages.
So, I'd say sure, abstinence/celibacy is a fine thing... if it's the right thing for you. But it's very difficult to apply a blanket idea like celibacy to a diverse crowd of people, because it certainly won't be right for all of them.
Edited to add: what about common law marriages? I believe (in Ontario, at least) that a couple who has lived 3 months together is considered common law. Legally, they are married. Would that make any difference in their level of committment/readiness? Probably not.
[This message has been edited by wobblyheadedjane (edited 02-06-2003).]
Posts: 1679 | From: London, ON | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
:O!!! Oh dear. I was just watching a documentary on Michael Jackson, and I got distracted. Kind of shocked to see the past board locked. My misake. I have to go now, though. Bai!
Posts: 10 | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged |
But I would like to add just for now that even when couples can and do wish to get married, getting married is also a profoundly serious decision, and one that carries no less -- and in many ways far more -- risks, potential hardships and challenges, and no more guarantees, than sexual activity of any variety does. It gets even more iffy to automatically lump the two together all of the time, when they can often have nothing to do with one another.
There are also NO statistics to support that married couples split up with any less regularity than unmarried couples (or that those breakups, sexual issues within a marriage or unplanned pregnancies are any less emotionally difficult or painful). If there are, I sure haven't seen them, and they'd stand counter to pretty basic stats like census statistics spanning back over the last 20 years.
------------------ Heather Corinna Editor and Founder, Scarleteen
My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground." -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson
[This message has been edited by Miz Scarlet (edited 02-06-2003).]
Posts: 63428 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I stand corrected about common-law in Canada, it's after six months, not three months. My bad.
Posts: 1679 | From: London, ON | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by IIWafflekittyII: Anyone deeply believe in abstinence out there? ANYONE?
Not I. Then again, I don't really know if I ever want to get married.
As of now, I am obstaining from sexual activity because I don't feel prepared enough for consequences, if there were to be any. So you could say that I believe in it, for myself, now... But in general, I think people should go with what they want.
-miss hive
Posts: 28 | From: San Francisco, CA | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, as much as it may seem like it, it is *not* the case that you have to choose between the two options of either having sex during your teens, or waiting until you're married.
(Nobody here has explicitly presented the choice as such, I realize, but I've seen it implied lots of places, especially in propaganda or articles about the so-called abstinence movement.)
I'm 25, and I've never had partnered sex. And yet, I feel pretty strongly that if I ever do want to get married, I would not feel comfortable doing so *without* having sex with the person first. (I'm not saying that that's the best choice for everybody - just what I feel is right for me.)
So, if you really are committed to being celibate until you're married, for whatever reason, that's fine. If you want to have sex while you're a teenager (and you're really ready, and can do so safely), that's fine. But if you just want to hold off on sexual activity for *now*, without making any big commitments for what you will or will not do in the future, that's fine too.
------------------ Question authority, but realize that authority is often right.
posted
...and Waffle, if you look around the boards, you'll discover we've a good number of members in the position Laura is, and many others who are holding off on some or all sexual activity for any number of reasons.
However, those doing so simply may not wish to lob on to the "abstinence" moniker, and/or everything that seems to go along with it, including some often very limiting and incorrect assumptions about orientation, love, partnership, religion, marriage and child-rearing.
I'm not sure why you're being quite so intense about this: whatever your choices are, if they're the right ones for you, even if no one else in the world shared them (which certainly isn't so), it wouldn't make a bit of difference because they're right for you.
Personally? I was sexually assaulted at 12. The prototypical virginity mold was never open to me, which is just as well because I find it a load of misogynistic bullocks. I came of age queer, and had numerous experiences with both genders before I opted to engage in intercourse at 15. I had numerous sexual partners after than and until now, and nearly all of those experiences -- whether intercourse was involved or not, again, when you're not heterosexual, intercourse becomes more of a nonissue -- were positive and great for me: some in very casual relationships, others in very comitted ones. I never planned to be married, and marriage isn't something in my spiritual tradition, but was around 30, and separated from that partner/spouse last year. I did not find sex to be any more "sacred" in marriage than it was outside of it -- I find it all to be pretty sacred. I, personally, would very much not have wanted to "wait" for one type of sexual activity until marriage (or to be sexually active with the person I did marry, someone I was involved with on many levels for a good decade), and cannot see where there would have been a benefit in that for me -- I would not be who I am now without the partnerships I had, and over the last two decades have not found that intercourse is really any different or more intimate than other forms of sex are. I also personally found that if one insists on comparing the two or lumping them together that marriage is infinitely more complex than sex is, and am very uncomfortable with marriage being pushed, especially merely for the purpose of making it "okay" to be sexually active. As well, I've counseled an awful lot of married couples over the past few years, and while there may be benefits to "waiting" for some people, for others engaging in sex only after marriage can also have a lot of pitfalls that create their own emotional hardships.
...and everyone is going to have their own story like that (though obviously it takes having some years on to have the hindsight to look back and see if what you chose was right for you or not), and they're going to differ pretty radically because as people, WE differ pretty radically. But in years of living and doing this work, I've found that there are many, many different models and choices than can be right for a given person, not just one.
------------------ Heather Corinna Editor and Founder, Scarleteen
My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground." -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Posts: 63428 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's also worth remembering that there's a big difference between deciding that something is right for you, and thinking that the same thing will be right for everyone.
For example, perhaps you feel that you personally don't want to have sex until you are married. You feel marriage is part of what's necessary in order for sex to feel right and comfortable for you.
Fine; that's your choice (and I have a lot of respect for people who know what they personally need to feel ready for sex).
But that's very different from saying that it's somehow "best" for everyone to wait until they are married (if they are even able to marry legally) before having sex.
Marriage doesn't magically protect people against STDs, unwanted pregnancies, or emotional hurt - plenty of people experience those things within marriage.
And incidentally, there is no reputable evidence whatsoever that pre-marital sex makes people any more likely to break up, get divorced, experience "fear of your partner leaving you", or get depressed (although I know that a number of "abstinence-only" curricula in the US makes these claims).
Actually, to me, these claims - like the old "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free?" saying - seem to involve a very demeaning view of sex and marriage.
Call me an old-fashioned romantic, but I do believe that if people do choose to enter into marriage or any other sort of committed relationship, it should be about love and commitment - not bargaining for access to sex.
These claims seem to assume that people wouldn't have much reason to want to stay with each other or make a commitment if they could get sex "for free" before marriage. That strikes me as a pretty cynical view of human nature.
I was talking to a friend last night, and I was trying to explain that while sex with love and sex with committment (or marriage, etc) can be important, most important to me was sex with safety, both emotionally and physically. And whether I was committed or not to someone, I'd have to feel that sex was a healthy choice for me (again, physically and for my emotional self) to go ahead with it.
And Laura said that plenty of people decide to wait on sex for an indeterminate length of time in the future, and until I met my current significant other (now fiance), that was what I was doing as well.
Posts: 1679 | From: London, ON | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are a lot of good reasons to abstain from sex for a certain period of time.
I've been sexually active in the past, and I'm at a point in my life where I can't handle the stress right now. When I'm done dealing with schools, work, bills, family, friends, etc... maybe I'll worry about convincing a guy to wear a condom during oral sex.
One of my friends is really bad at having safe, responsible sex, so she stopped, because it was easier for her to not have sex than stay sober or insist on condoms or remember that the rhythm method never works..
I mean, do what it takes to keep you happy and healthy, right?
But I think Mz S makes a very good point- Waiting for marriage is fine, if that's what you want to do, but marriage isn't an alternative to birth control and safe sex. Even if you never had sex except while you were married, the divorce rate is over 50% now in America, isn't it? And people usually get married again. And people have affairs. And people forget about that time 10 years before their marriage when they shot up heroin with a dirty needle. Marriage isn't something that magically solves all the problems involved with sex.
quote:Originally posted by IIWafflekittyII: I’m just kind of wondering if there’s anyone on this board who believes in abstinence. I do. I mean, I don’t see why a person couldn’t just wait until they actually loved each other, and dedicated themselves to each other, and got married before having sex? If a person really loves you, I don’t think they would have sex before marriage to prove it.
I agree that it would be really great if everyone thought about abstaining from sex until they were ready emotionally, and really cared about someone and trusted someone before they had sex. However, I totally disagree with the theory that love=marriage.
For a start, I along with many other people unless the law changes can't even get married. Does that mean that I should abstain from sex for the rest of my life? I also strongly dispute the theory that marriage works for everyone. For a start, look at the divorce rate. It does work for some people, but it is not the right choice for others.
Basically, what I am trying to say is that I think that everyone should abstain from sex until they are ready, not until they are married.
posted
I really do (or maybe did) believe in waiting until marriage. I see all the poitives and think its one of the best choices any one can make. My boyfriend and I, both weren't thinking to rush into sex, both had religious views on it all and so we both thought waiting was right. But as it turned out,7 months being together and having some of the best months together proved to a bit much for our feelings for each other and both after alot of thinking and talking with each other, about the whole thing. We both agreed that we both felt comfortable and ready to experience it. And i can say for sure we both dont regret it. I will always though recommend waiting for marriage.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just something to think about: Like Frenchy, MOST of the people advocating abstinence-until-marriage were NOT fully or partially abstinent until marriage (including most of the lawmakers like our president who sink billions of dollars into abstinence programs and refuse to fund comprehensive sex education or, say, in their promises to help with big bucks for HIV aid in Africa, don't intend to include condom use and education).
Why then would you -- if you do -- advocate that always, if you don't know what, if anything, it enhances or helps with and if it isn't what you yourself did?
------------------ Heather Corinna Editor and Founder, Scarleteen
My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground." -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Posts: 63428 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmm...abstinence... I have a problem with the way abstinence is usually dicussed, simply because the whole 'until marriage' piece is completetly heterosexist. Seeing as my boyfriend and I are both seen legally as females (we're legally a lesbian couple, and we identify as a gay male couple), and same-sex marriage is illegal, I can't wait until marriage. Sure, I might meet some cute bio-boy and fall in love, but a) I won't get married as a woman and b) I never want to get married, for political reasons, so it's really hypothetical anyway
I think that people should have sex when they are ready- whenever that is (within reason). Abstinence until marriage has always been about religion to me, rather than about personal choice and comfort. Why wait for marriage? Married couples can have bad, painful, nonconsensual, loveless sex too. Not all married couples are so madly in love.
Using the abstinence before marriage logic, if I'm queer, I can never have sex. If I think marriage is dumb, I can never have sex. If I don't want to be monogamous, I can never have sex. No thanks. I'll have sex when I feel comfortable doing so.
posted
Marriages that are preceded by living together and or sex before before marriage have a 50% higher disruption rates (divorce or separation) than marriages without premarital cohabitation according to the National Survey of Families and Households. Of 100 couples who begin a trial marriage (living together / sex before marriage) 40 dont marry. Of 60 couples who do wed, there are 45 divorces after 10 years. Thats an 85% failure rate. Of course it is a personal choice, but studies do show that the odds of a lasting relationship improve if couples wait until marriage to have any type of a sexual relationship.
Posts: 4 | From: Jasper, Indiana USA | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
hmmm, possibly not that simple. it could be that the people in that research who co-habited/had sex before marriage had different views on marriage (hence cohabiting/having pre-marital sex) and therefore also might be more open to divorce if things started to go wrong. The reseach never said that those that didn't divorce were in a happy marriage. perhaps, just as they disagreed with cohabiting/having sex before marriage they disagreed with divorce (or thought it was okly OK in extreme situations) and thats why they have lower divorce rates, not because they have healthier relationships
[This message has been edited by UKgirl (edited 03-16-2003).]
Posts: 166 | From: London, England | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The National Survey of Families and Households had 13,000 participants and was conducted ONLY within a five year period for the data avilable at this point. As well, some of the figures Tom is citing are iffy. Interested folks can find the data and abstracts for themselves here: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/nsfh/home.htm
For instance, the data shows that of not that 13,000, but out of only 3,300 families, married couples who had lived together first were judged to be 46 percent more likely to get divorced. It also shows that after those five years, 21 percent of most cohabitating couples were still doing just that -- cohabitating, without getting married. Perhaps that's an issue for those who feel marriage is the penultimate goal, but it's a pretty realistic and hardly depressing assesment as human relationships go.
Again, Tom, please in your arguments and discussions understand that not all people can marry, not all people want TO marry, and not all people's sexual lives are about marital life, be they married or unmarried.
------------------ Heather Corinna Editor and Founder, Scarleteen
My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground." -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Posts: 63428 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Waffle, it's nice to know I'm not alone. I believe in abstinence. I'm waiting till I'm married. I know many people think "easier said than done" when I say this, but I've waited 18 years so far. And I haven't just abstained from intercourse. I've avoided anything sexual involving body parts I can't show in public, without it being indecent exposure. And it will remain this way until I'm married. If this was just for my own reasoning, I might not be so sure I could wait, but there's a higher power I answer to. Waiting is somewhat romantic in my mind. To think that, on a couple's wedding note, each one is giving his/her purity, that he/she saved for their partner, to their partner. Like someone else said, marriage is a BIG commitment. I think once you've made ur pledge to one person for the rest of ur life, it shows more dedication than mere engagement. I know people who have been engaged and then broken up. I hope to some day marry my boyfriend, but I'm just gonna take it day-by-day and not rush anything. If I'm not meant to marry, and some are, then I'll die a virgin. Sex isn't my life.
And on the issue of virginity, and those who lose/lost it not by their own choice, I still see people in this situation as virgins (until they willfully have sex). You didn't give yourself away, some stole it. That's a totally different situation than just having sex with someone.
I help teach a program called PSI to 7th graders at my school. It stands for Postponing Sexual Involvement. We promote abstinence, but I've been careful not to inject my religious views while teaching. When I first signed up to train for the program, one of my friends was kind of teasing me about it. He said, "You're so good at this virgin thing that you're teaching it to little kids!" Just thought I'd end this post on a lighter note.
Posts: 81 | From: MO, USA | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:To think that, on a couple's wedding note, each one is giving his/her purity, that he/she saved for their partner, to their partner.
Hmm ... so do you think that people who've had consensual sex outside of marriage have lost their "purity"? What is "purity", anyway?
And what about people (such as gay and lesbian couples) who can't marry at all, or who don't believe in marriage? Do you think they should abstain from sex altogether?
I'm not trying to attack your personal choice to wait until marriage in any way (actually, I have great respect for anyone who sticks by what they feel is right for them), but I'm interested in how your reasoning applies to other people's choices, especially since these issues have already been mentioned in the thread.
posted
I'm just gonna warn you, this will probably sound rather religious (if that's the right term) to some of you. Okay, I believe that those who have had consexual sex outside of marriage have lost their purity. Of course, when a married couple consummates the marriage, they're giving up their purity, too. To me, sexual purity just means to remain sexually pure. A version of pure (source: dictionary.com) is chaste; virgin. Another means free of defilement. Basically, that you have not "defiled" your body, by giving to someone other than your spouse. And I don't define it simply by intercourse. Basically, at least for me, anything involving parts of my body that I can't show in public, is off-limits. I know some people mess up. But there's always room to change. Of course, one can never get back his/her virginity, but after screwing up (no pun intended), he/she can pledge to remain pure. One of the guys in my youth group had sex with his last girlfriend. He thought they were going to spend the rest of their lives together, but after over 1 1/2 years together, she broke up with him the night he was going to propose. He's now in love with a really cool girl from my youth group. And he said it breaks his heart to think that she "waited" for him, but he couldn't do the same. And after the way his last relationship unexpectedly ended, he's decided to wait until he's married before crossing that line again, physically. As far as gay and lesbian couples, who in many states cannot marry at all, I think that you can probably conclude what I think of that from my "religious" (I hate that word, but I can't think of a better one) views. I'm not going to get into that though, because I don't want to start an argument. It would get us nowhere; no one's going to change my mind and I'm almost certain I'm not going to change anyone else's mind either. So there's no use getting into it. By the way, thanx for being so nice with your questions. Some ppl can be rather condescending, and I appreciate the fact that you weren't.
Posts: 81 | From: MO, USA | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: . . .I'm not going to get into that though, because I don't want to start an argument. It would get us nowhere; no one's going to change my mind and I'm almost certain I'm not going to change anyone else's mind either. So there's no use getting into it. By the way, thanx for being so nice with your questions. Some ppl can be rather condescending, and I appreciate the fact that you weren't.
And thank you for presenting your views so wisely and maturely. There's no topic everyone's going to agree on, there's no way of changing someone's mind unless they desire that change, and yet trying to do so has led to countless wars and arguments. We really appreciate it when posters here have differing feelings on something and coexist peacefully, and you've just provided a great example of that.
------------------ Milke, with an L, SSBD, RATS, TMNTP
quote:I'm just gonna warn you, this will probably sound rather religious (if that's the right term) to some of you.
Hey, there's nothing wrong with having religious views, and with sticking by what you personally believe in!
But it's obviously worth bearing in mind that if your views are based on a particular religious belief (e.g. that consensual sex outside marriage "defiles" the body), then they aren't going to have the same force for people who don't share that particular religious belief.
A parallel example might be Jewish dietary law: the rules on what foods (and what combinations of foods) are kosher are also based on religious beliefs about purity and impurity (what is "kosher" is what is ritually "pure").
But people who believe very strongly in those laws (and not all Jews keep kosher - just as not all Christians hold the same beliefs about sexual behaviour) generally don't expect them to be shared by people who are not Jewish. Nor do they consider those people to be morally evil for, say, eating a bacon sandwich.
In some ways I am puzzled by your statement that:
quote:We promote abstinence, but I've been careful not to inject my religious views while teaching.
But all your comments about abstinence until marriage here have invoked beliefs about "purity" and "defilement" which are essentially religious beliefs.
If those are your personal religious beliefs, then fine - you have every right to hold whatever beliefs seem right to you. But since they seem pretty integral to your views about abstinence - and to be the primary reason why you believe people should be abstinent before marriage - I'd be interested to know how you go about promoting abstinence without involving your religious beliefs.
[This message has been edited by logic_grrl (edited 04-01-2003).]
posted
I think that before two people decide to get married they ought to know each other properly, and I think that knowing each other sexually is very neccessary.
Posts: 3 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, i'm not into abstinence. It's just not for me, and I'll say that to preface the rest of this.
My main problem with those people who promote abstinence as the right choice for everyone is that, rather than making sex less of an issue, it seems to give it more weight in a relationship. It's the forbidden fruit idea: if you're not allowed to do it, it must be something wonderful and amazing and huge.
While i do think sex (and by sex i mean "all sexual activity") is an issue in a relationship, i don't think it's the defining characteristic it's often made out to be. For example, if my partner and i (who are sexually active) broke up tomorrow, i can guarantee that i would be rather devastated on many levels, but i think that our sexual relationship would be one of the least upsetting. do i enjoy our sex life? definitely, but i think that we share much, much more important things.
Hopefully, that all made sense.
(quick disclaimer: i'm also not saying sex should be taken lightly in terms of preparedness and safety, but... well, you probably get the gist by now. cheers.)
Posts: 475 | From: Back in Providence, RI | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sex is fun Sex in a loving commited trusting honest relationship is amazing! I am married. WE were together for 5 years before we got married. We did not wait! My brother is getting married to his GF of 13 years this december. They did not wait. My Best friend got married to her BF of ten years this weekend. They did not wait. My parents have been married for 39 years and they did not wait either. Marrage is a BIG deal. My fear is when you wait to be married you will rush into it before you are ready because you are ready for sex and not marriage. I am also a big believer of not getting married just because you are pregnant either. I will respect everyones decision regarding when they have sex for the first time. Be it a one night stand or on your wedding night. No one else can tell you when you are ready. Keep in mind though what is right for you at 15 may not be what is right for you at 25.
posted
(Just a reminder to posters here: please remember that "sex" meaning biological sexual intercourse is not a possiblity or desire for all couples, as is also the case with marriage. We're not all heterosexual, here or in the world.)
Posts: 63428 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This has proven to be a most interesting topic with a diverse range of opinion. I would like to comment on a few issues.
I agree with the idea of "whatever works for you". I congratulate anybody who has chosen abstinence and is able to maintain that lifestyle faithfully. I also congratulate those who have chosen to have sex in a responsible manner that promotes the health and wellbeing of both partners. Both choices are equally good.
Concerning the study that was mentioned above in regards to higher divorce/separation rates for those who co-habitate before marriage, it should be noted that this study has been roundly criticised for methodological problems and has been refuted in subsequent studies. Of course, groups such as Focus on the Family don't publicize these further findings.
Finally, I'd like to bring up abstinence and sex-ed. It has been mentioned that abstinence-only programs don't work. This conclusion may be somewhat premature. Research on teaching methods in sex-ed classes has shown that large numbers of teachers are uncomfortable with alternative teaching methods used in sex-ed curricula (both abstinence-only and comprehensive). This leads to topics being covered in a manner not intended by the curriculum or to be skipped altogether. When these programs are then reviewed they are deemed to have failed because the anticipated behavioral change has not occured. However, one must eye this result critically. What's being evaluated - the proper curriculum or the version with the flawed implementation?
Comprehensive programs have the same problem with the same outcome as noted in the 2002 DiCento et al. study. This is not to say that abstinence-only programs would be any more effective with proper implementation (my current research is showing that cultural compatability issues may undermine any sex-ed program regardless of how good the implementation is). I think that more research on the topic is badly needed and that government lobbying for more research funding is necessary whether the program promotes abstinence or is comprehensive in nature.
posted
True enough -- and I appreciate your view on diversity of choice -- but you can look at some of the curricula in their raw form and see the flaws (and blatant misinformation) BEFORE execution. Several of such prgrams, for instance, stand in direct violation of the medical accuracy bills and standards in several states. Not to mention, I don't know of a single ab-only program which addreses GLBT youth at all.
You'll note that they state that "abstinence is the only method to eliminate the risk of pregnancy and STDs," and they "do not advocate or demonstrate contraceptive methods for teens."
Some other curricula are even worse, citing things like that condoms have "holes" which HIV can pass through, etc.
Right now also isn't the first time in hostory we've tried chastity campaigns, nor is it the first time they have failed, in some cases reaping horrendous results (like the US soldiers being the ONLY country to bring back syphilis en masse from WWI, because all other countires provided condoms, while we pushed abstinence).
To boot, there is extensive research out there that has shown that the simple availbility of birth control methods -- and teaching about what they are and how to use them -- has caused the teen pregnancy rate to drastically decline over the last 40 years. And right now, we aren't going to see the efds lobbying for any sort of sex ed but that which meets the conservative morality agenda, regardless of it's success or failure.
------------------ Heather Corinna Editor and Founder, Scarleteen
My epitaph should read: "She worked herself into this ground." -- Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Posts: 63428 | From: An island near Seattle | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love my boyfriend very very much and we don't have sex to prove to each other that we love each other we have sex because we love each other and we are comfortable with the choice we have made.
Posts: 76 | From: NC, USA | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Cupcake, I read that article and I have to agree, it was scary. Americans often worry about Muslim Fundamentalists threatening their way of life. Far more dangerous and yet acceptable to our eyes is the Christian Fundamentalist. This isn't an attack on Christianity or Islam, rather one on Fundamentalism.
The best combat against this kind of Fundamentalism is itself. I always find it amazing that this brand of theologian will claim that God is infinite and beyond our understanding, yet they make pronouncements that claim they know the mind of God... funny, indeed.
Celibacy and Marriage are ideals - for some people. Many are either never prepared to make the sacrifices necessary for a marriage to work, while others who have been married in the past are never prepared to be married again. Is celibacy the only option? In light of the fact that VERY few people can maintain a celibate lifestyle faithfully, I would suggest that trying to impose such a lifestyle is morally harmful.
Basing such an imposition on a biblical claim made 2-4000 years ago ignores the realities of modern society. In biblical times, maintaining a celibate lifestyle was far easier when many were married even before they had exited puberty. The time gap was quite small.
Today, when one considers that many do not finish their education until they are 25+ and may still be a few years away from being ready to support a wife and family (if they ever are) and they reach sexual maturity (physical) at age 12-14, asking a sexual being to deny and suppress their urges and feelings is quite a different undertaking than it was in biblical times.
This isn't to say though, that we should abandon all moral considerations when talking about sexuality. It's just time to start considering other options. If interest permits, I'll discuss some of these in another post.
posted
I advocate that everyone make their own choices when it comes to sex. If someone wants to wait until they are married then who am I to tell them that they're wrong? The same thing goes for someone who does not want to wait. Sex is a personal issue first and foremost. Its political nature stems from the fact that some people think it is their duty to pry into the personal affairs of others.
The only condition I have is that people make informed choices, and unfortunately the "information" that is provided by the sex education programs in public schools today is BS and propaganda. Comprehensive sex education in this country is something that the left wing has long advocated and dispite my general distaste for the left I do agree with them on this point. An understanding of sex is something that everyone should have, not just people over the magical age of 18. That is not to say that toddlers should be taught EVERYTHING, but neither should sex be something that is hidden away from them. Sex is an ordinary part of life, and it is time that our culture treat it as such. Like many things it is something that should be handled responsibly, and it is hard to handle something responsibly when someone has been lied to, misled, deceived, and generally kept in the dark about it all their life.
Lee
Posts: 175 | From: Tempe, AZ USA | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with much of what has already been posted - that celibacy until marriage is great if it's your thing, but shouldn't be imposed on someone who doesn't want to follow that path. One thing that I don't think anyone brought up that has been a reason for me not to wait is this: While sex life certainly shouldn't be the deciding factor in marrying someone, I think it would be good to know whether that is something you have to work on a lot as a couple. I get the impression that some people think sex will happen instantly and wonderfully as soon as they hit their wedding night...and if it does, great. But I'd personally have felt really disappointed if my first time had been after waiting until we were married. Marriage has its own slue of problems, and initial sexual incompatablility really doesn't need to be thrown in there.
Posts: 105 | From: Bryn Mawr, PA, USA | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
it feels good. no offence to anyone who doesnt wanna have sex but I wouldnt wanna leave myself out of it if I dont even know if it feels good or if it doesn't. what if. I support u if u dont.
Posts: 4 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, some people enjoy partnered sex, others prefer masturbation, yet others want none of it. What we do is up to us as individuals, and no blanket statement applies to everyone, so don't be statin' personal opinions as facts.
------------------ Milke, with an L, SSBD, RATS, TMNTP, MF
Copyright 1998, 2013 Heather Corinna/Scarleteen
Scarleteen.com: Providing comprehensive sex education online to teens and young adults worldwide since 1998
Information on this site is provided for educational purposes. It is not meant to and cannot substitute for advice or care provided by an in-person medical professional. The information contained herein is not meant to be used to diagnose or treat a health problem or disease, or for prescribing any medication. You should always consult your own healthcare provider if you have a health problem or medical condition.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic