One of the brightest young minds in my women’s studies class is a woman who, for the sake of anonymity, I will call Louisa. Louisa is, among other things, active in her Catholic parish, and recently came to see me to tell me that she had been asked by the youth director at her church to develop and teach an “abstinence” program for high school students. She was thrilled. But when I got back from Austin, I found this email from her. With her permission, I’m posting an edited version:
Dear Hugo,
I can’t do the abstinence program…i just can’t. and it’s not because I have little faith in myself. I literally can’t do the abstinence program anymore. I had talked to C (our youth director) about it last thursday, and I said “yes.” Of course, he was extremely esctatic, and so was I. i couldn’t wait to get started — I had all of these ideas and plans for the organization. he told me all I needed was to prepare an outline of exactly what I would be teaching, he’ll present it to the priests, and I should have the program running by next week….
But on Sunday, something happened… I was talking to some people from my choir about it, and a lot of them thought it was so great that I would be starting this. One of the girls my age, S, even offered to help me out with a couple of things. But then after mass, she approached me, and told me about this rally she wanted me to go to at CSU Fullerton, against homosexuals. I interrupted, and said, “wait, S —I’m not teaching the kids about homosexuality, why do we have to go to this rally?” S said: “But you must! You’re going to be talking about love and marriage, and you need to tell these kids how important it is that we ban these gay marriages.” Well…my mouth got me into a lot of trouble, because, I didn’t know that I was talking to a future nun. and I exclaimed, “well, I’m not against gay marriages!” sequoia looked at me as if I were the devil. She asked, “How can you call yourself a catholic, if you believe in gay marriages?”
I would call myself a pretty devoted Catholic. So of course, when S asked me this, I was hurt, angry and shocked that she would question my faith.
By this time, our youth director had overheard the conversation. We were in still in the church, and i guess we were pretty loud. I was getting extremely frustrated. So he approached us, and before I could even get a word out of my mouth, S starts accusing me of being incapable of teaching this course, because I believe this, and I believe that! He asked me if it was true-and what could I say? iI didn’t want to lie. The youth director and I talked, and he feels (for the church’s safety), that I should really reconsider taking this position.
I guess I’m too liberal for catholicism. I’m not saying I’m leaving my religion-I would never do that. My religion is one of the most important things in my life. But (though I believe in abstinence until marriage), I can’t escape the fact that i’m pro-gay marriage, and pro-contraception (after marriage).
So I’ve been thinking a lot, since it happened…and I’ve decided to hand the reins over to somebody else. I guess I was so excited about this being my first teaching experience, that I pushed the obstacles I knew I would face, out of the way… Ihope that the abstinence program will still happen, though. Maybe I could even convince C to make me a teacher’s aide, and then we can find another teacher, who would be willing to do this…
The bold emphasis is Hugo’s.
(Louisa’s letter reminds me of why I left the Catholic Church, of course, and why, despite occasional pangs of affection for Rome, I’m much happier with Canterbury!)
Because I know that Louisa will see this post, I’d ask folks to direct their criticisms towards me and away from her. The reason I wanted to post about this is because I think that Louisa’s views on sexuality are representative of a remarkable number of young people. I also don’t think that folks like her get acknowledged as often as they should. How often do we hear from the pro-abstinence, pro-gay marriage crowd in the media? It’s easy to dismiss young people like Louisa as being poorly informed theologically, but that would be profoundly inaccurate and unfair. Rather, Louisa’s thoughtful position represents a marvelous balancing of fidelity and Christian love.
I have many problems with most abstinence programs myself. It’s not that I think abstinence is always unrealistic (I have friends who did “wait” until marriage, and I honor their sacrifice and their faithfulness), it’s that abstinence programs frequently build up post-marital sex to undue proportions. The message seems to be “the less experienced both partners are on their wedding night, the better married sex will be”. I have a number of friends who waited until marriage, and the results, to put it mildly, are mixed. Some say they have ecstatic sex lives — but others report the same frustrations and difficulties that those who chose more secular sexual lifestyles struggle with. Virginity until marriage is not a panacea, nor is it a guarantee of marital bliss. Obviously, it prevents a variety of problems — and to the extent that a young person wishes to avoid those problems, I think abstinence is a valid and commendable option.
But Louisa’s commitment to abstinence is rooted in a valuing of herself and a valuing of other young people’s bodies and lives. For her and others like her, abstinence is not just rigid adherence to church teaching — it is a loving, self-and God-honoring act. Indeed, one could make a feminist case for abstinence: in a society where the bodies of young women are highly sexualized commodities for male “consumption”, remaining chaste is radically counter-cultural and perhaps even subversive. Being proudly and publicly abstinent is a way of demanding attention for one’s mind rather than for one’s potential sexual favors. In that sense, abstinence can be seen as a tool for building young women’s intellectual, emotional and physical autonomy — all worthy goals for the feminist movement.
In order to be compelling, however, an abstinence message must be rooted as much in a desire to honor the self as in obedience to church teaching. And here is where it is intellectually consistent to teach abstinence and support gay marriage. If one believes, as Louisa seems to and as I certainly do, that same-sex attraction is usually a core part of our very identity, then it is sensible to long for those folks to find the fulfillment that they too are seeking. Gay marriage is an important civil rights issue because the desire to bond publicly and eternally with one other person is deeply ingrained in most of us. Though it may not always be so, one’s sexual desire is usually a fine indicator of one’s identity. (Oh, I know the theological conservatives will have conniptions with that one.) And it makes sense to want to honor the desires of those around us who are longing for lasting, monogamous, fulfillment. Waiting until marriage is right for Louisa because it is what Louisa wants, not merely what her family or her church wants for her. In this context, an “ethics of desire” can support both gay marriage and abstinence education.
In our discussions about abstinence, Louisa has made it clear that she does not condemn those who do not choose to wait. Rather, she wants to reach young teens with a counter-cultural message that offers them a true choice as to when and how and where they first become sexual with another human being. She wants to offer real options. Knowing her and knowing youth groups, I can sense she would have done a terrific job with the kids in her church community. I honor Louisa’s commitment to God, to herself, and to justice. Prayerfully and thoughtfully, she has found a way to hold obedience, love, and justice in tension. I am proud of her and others like her.
I’m increasingly of the opinion that when this subject comes up, its best to define what sex is, because people assume different things. Are we talking about intercourse? Kissing? Holding hands? What are abstinent couples allowed to do?
I had this thought 2 weeks ago when you wrote a post that suggested kids who wait till they’re older to have sex never regret it. It occured to me that the women I knew who had the happiest first-sex stories were the ones who’d made-out quite a bit but postponed actual intercourse. But the activities they did engage in were hardly the kinds of things that would make most evangelicals very happy. I suspect that the pro-celibate crowd want something more celibate that simply no intercourse. Yet playing around without engaging in intercourse is, as I said, the course taken by those who have the happiest memories of their teen sex life (among people I know personally).
That’s a good point, Lawrence, and one where various abstinence programs disagree.
The most extreme say “no kissing” (on the mouth, with tongue, etc) until marriage.
More liberal programs say that “making out” with clothes on (and no direct genital contact) is permissable, though “dangerous”. Anecdotally, most of the folks I know who were virgins when they married had, like your friend, Lawrence, had many a hot n’ heavy makeout session. And some had, in the parlance of youth, done “everything but”.
Firstly, while I never intended to abstain until marriage, I did date a woman in college where we did ‘everything but’ for 8 months. She was a virgin. I was not, but still unexperienced. It was the best education in sex a young man could have! I highly recommend it.
Secondly, this post and the previous one really drive home the main reason why I am no longer a Catholic and have no intention of joining another Christian church. That is: “obedience to church teaching”. I don’t want any individual or instituion to tell me what to think and believe. I have no problem, in theory, with rules of behaviour. There are many good social reasons for regulating behaviours, but don’t tell me that what I think is wrong or a sin. You seem to be able to comparmentalize your disagreements with your church, which I admire. I cannot; it just ticks me off too much.
I assume then she’s also pro-birth control for those who don’t care a whit for “waiting”, then? ;)
I think the biggest mistake Christ made was showing people the way to salvation. When He stated, “come follow meâ€, He of course didn’t mean follow in his footsteps. What He really meant was, work out your own salvation, and take whatever direction you want — just use my name, and give me the credit. Wait I think that was someone else who said that.
Hugo, you should start your own flock with you as the shepherd. In fact, your flock could be like any one of the thousands of Christian sects out there that chooses their values, interpretations, ordinances etc. Of course, to maintain acceptable ties to some form of “legitimate†Christianity join a national or global organization. Hell, there is no such thing, forget the ties!
I don’t understand why people continually seek advice in the secular world about spiritual matters. But I sure can tell what becomes of it. For instance…THIS!
A Calvinist, Hugo, would term “everything but” as I was a virgin when I married, “on a technicality.”
Most of my friends probably 12 or 13 couples made it to their wedding night. In almost if not every case, if you ask “Did you make it?” They say, yes. “On a technicality?” Yes. Almost invariably.
We all seem to survive.
Just thought you’d enjoy the Calvinist cultural phenomena.
wonderful post!
Very interesting post and I want to comment on just a small portion. You mentioned how abstinence programs tend to build up post-marital intercourse. I’m not against abstinence, but I think a lot of the programs hyper-sexualize marriage. Sex is obviously part of marriage, but not the most important part.
I think the subtle message to kids is that the only that’s different after you get married is that you can have sex. The other message, as you mentioned, is that the aforementioned sex will be great. The problem is that message diminishes the importance of the other aspects of the marital relationship and creates an expectation for sexual ecstasy that is unrealistic.
My point isn’t that we should encourage kids to have sex. Rather, abstinence education should focus on emotional health and commitment, rather than on just postponing the act. I’m sure there are programs that do - I’ve just never seen them.
Ok, I’ll bite… I come from the “theological conservative” world. I always regarded statements like yours, that “one’s sexual desire is usually a fine indicator of one’s identity,” as a curious case of sexual idolatry. (And I think I’m relatively open, as far as conservatives go, towards gay marriage.)
I’d love to hear you make the case for that, or perhaps suggest some reading. Thanks!
I agree with you completely, Brian. And from what I saw when I lived in the part of the country where “waiting” was a common enough phenemenon, a lot of well-meaning people rushed into badly thought-out marriages, in no small part because “waiting” was taking its toll.
And if you divorce after “waiting”, I imagine it’s a double disappointment because the one-and-only that you saved it up for is going to be just your first after all.
Well, Hugo, I’m biting too. I honour Louisa and her integrity; if she cannot uphold what the Catholic Church teaches, she has done the honourable and integrous thing in standing aside. Many Protestants could indeed learn from her example. I can’t state how highly I admire the fact that she has stuck by her convictions while honouring the Church. I also agree that abstainence is about respecting yourself. Those things said, however, your argument is founded on the principle that, as you put it: “In order to be compelling, however, an abstinence message must be rooted as much in a desire to honor the self as in obedience to church teaching”. I reject this bit, because it seems to be code for a defence of relatively unfettered individual autonomy. I’m a good Wesleyan, I believe in free will, but if all morality, boundaries, and by implication, life, is about “honouring onesself”, I fail to see the point, since what counts as “honouring onesself” varies from person to person. If you were a secularist, I might let you away with that. But as a Christian, indeed as a Socialist, you ought to know better. Christian Sexual ethics are first and foremost about honouring God. We are bound by an external standard, that’s the whole point of submitting oneself to God to begin with. Then, they are about honouring each other. “Submit yourselves one to another”. Only lastly are you supposed to consider yourself. If I considered only “honouring myself”, I’d probably have had sex by now. But I considered the other two first, as both the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer call us to do. It’s all very well saying “To thine own self be true”, but 1. Teenagers are almost never sure what the self is, and 2. That philosophy tends to promote selfishness and greed. Not a good look for a Christian, or a Socialist, come to that. We are all interconnected. You should know that.
Lastly, boundaries set by God (I’ll leave Church teaching out of it for now) are there to protect, not squelch. I teach in the Youth Group committed to reasonably strict abstainence, and the reason we tell our young people not to get into kissing and heavy petting, or not to put yourself into the back of a car or in a room with the door shut is not because these things are bad, but because they lead to other things that are. I forbid my nephew to play on the footpath, because I don’t want him on the road. Put the boundary well back, and there isn’t a problem.
Hugo, how do many kids identify themselves as truly gay in a homophobic society, if they don’t actually get experience? Lots of kids hope they are straight, and dismiss fantasies. They then start “everything-but”, and figure out what they really feel and want. If they feel zip with an opposite sex partner, well, that’s a clue.
Public avowal of abstinence ideology is good camouflage for in-the-closet kids and adults.
I’m with Louisa.
I think abstinence before marriage is a good idea from a Christian perspective and a not-bad one from a feminist perspective (which is to say, it has disadvantages that I’m willing to accept, but also the advantages that Hugo mentioned). And that’s part of the reason why I favor gay marriage, actually. I see nothing wrong with gay relationships, and — as a Christian ideal, at least — I feel like abstinence before marriage is a good idea for gay people too, and they should have that option. Though I’m not under the illusion that many would avail themselves of that option.
Nonetheless I do think that “honoring oneself” is not quite the right way to look at it–it IS too vaguely individualistic. I’d rather say that gay relationships, too, can honor God.
Well, I don’t think one has to choose between honoring God and self in this instance. Using sexuality as God intended is honoring to Him and to the self — where liberals and conservatives disagree is over the definition of God’s intentions!
Emily, thanks for that. Do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions so I could understand what you are saying here? If you could gratify my curiousity, I should be most grateful.
When you say “I’d rather say that gay relationships, too, can honor God.”, how so? I mean, what is it about them that can honour God in the same way that heterosexual marriage can? If it’s love and commitment that makes a relationship Sacramental, can that not also be said of any number of other relationships not recognised by either Church or State? (Plain friendship, or siblings, for instance). Obviously these can honour God too. What do you think the difference is between these and non-celibate homosexual unions? Do you think that having sex with love and commitment introduces an especially Sacramental element? In that case, wouldn’t pre-marital heterosexual sex be in as well?
I’m thinking out loud here. I really can’t see how one can unbind Christian teaching on sexual ethics in one area, and then maintain it in another the way Hugo attempts to, unless you advance purely secular arguments for either area. Can you help me out, here?
Sorry, Hugo, can’t let you away with that either. You said: “In order to be compelling, however, an abstinence message must be rooted as much in a desire to honor the self as in obedience to church teaching” That puts honouring the self (Whatever that means) at least on a par with God’s intention and God’s will. That’s fundamentally individualistic, and flawed. I think you ought to consider, as I said, both God and other people ahead of yourself. You’re still bowling for the off-side wicket in defence of individual autonomy, which is a very secular thing to do. You can do that, but leave God out of it.
Which makes this all the more sad, NancyP. Alot of the kids volunteering for abstinence-only are probably in denial about being gay and working through the coming out process, which will be hindered by getting lectured on it by the people they go to for help.
Do you have any evidence of this, Amanda, or are you simply speculating?
Well, it’s common sense, John. Abstinence, like life-long celibacy in the Catholic world, allows gay folks to “hide out” from their true identity by avoiding the issue altogether.
I could be more charitable, and say, as some folks have, that same-sex attraction is evidence of one’s calling to holy abstinence…
My sexual ethics, John, are based on the Wesleyan Quadrilateral of Reason, Experience, Scripture, and Tradition. Tradition is the only one of these four that speaks decisively against same-sex sexuality being blessed — Scripture is more muted and subtle and complex. Reason and experience (especially the latter of that pair) speak in favor of same-sex marriage.
Hugo,
“Waiting until marriage is right for Louisa because it is what Louisa wants, not merely what her family or her church wants for her. In this context, an ‘ethics of desire’ can support both gay marriage and abstinence education.”
No, waiting until marriage is right for Louisa fundamentally because it is what God wants for her (and all of us). The “ethics of desire” you speak of places experience above Scripture, tradition, and even reason. (That’s not to say that our desires are to be casually dismissed, mind you! But we must always judge our desires and experiences in light of God’s revelation, not the other way around.)
Peace of Christ,
Chip
show me how you’ll twist the scriptures so i can understand your reasoning.
Darn it, Hugo, you say so many sensible things and then you just have to throw in a howler:
in a society where the bodies of young women are highly sexualized commodities for male “consumption”, remaining chaste is radically counter-cultural and perhaps even subversive.
Which is to say, women should still allow men’s interest and power to dictate and direct their choices. Sigh.
On another topic, I truly do not understand the “everything but” mentality. To me, that’s really cheapening abstinence; it’s loading all the guilt of premarital sex onto one act, so that one can still fool around while being self-congratulatory. (I should add that I’m not criticizing those who avoid certain sex acts out of concern for pregnancy.)
That last paragraph, to continue the cricket metaphor, was a wide, if not a no-ball. I was going to take a stick to you for your twisting of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, but Chip has been much kinder and more concise than I would have been, and has hit the nail on the head, as usual. The Wesleyan Quadrilateral is a Quadrilateral, not a sqaure. Even if I accepted your argument that reason and experience favour gay marriage (and if you believe that, I could give you an excellent price on the Tower Bridge), the two longest sides, Tradition and Scripture, oppose it. Nuance, squirm and play hop-scotch all you like, Scripture is uniform, and negative, and decidedly un-muted. I defy even Frank Griswold to describe “Abhomination” “Shameful” “un-natural lust” and “strange flesh” as muted. You have read Gagnon. You believe that the Scripture is nuanced because you want to, not because it is. I understand that, indeed I sometimes wish I could do the same. But not being a Postmodern Academic, my brain doesn’t stretch to that level of doublethink. Either stay bound by Christian sexual ethics, or untie the lot and make them optional. I can see no justification for remaining in the middle and calling some bits binding and others not.
Look, I’m not the one advocating for abstinence until marriage — I do think, however, that an effective case can be made for abstinence on a variety of grounds.
I’ve read Gagnon. I’ve also read his critics, and like Griswold, I am willing to “live in the mystery.” Where you see certainty, I see ambiguity; where you see one path, I see many. I know 1 Corinthians 6:9 (and its numerous translations), I know Romans 1:25-27; I know Leviticus 18:22 and all the other so-called proof texts. For the umpteenth time, NONE of them talk about same sex sexuality in way that is relevant to committed, monogamous relationship.
Call me deluded if you will, but I’ve thought and prayed and read and prayed again on these issues, folks — and the path is simply not as clear as y’all make it out to be. It’s why I am glad to be back in the ECUSA. But at the same time, I truly, truly understand why some folks can’t “go there” — and I honor their reasons for not doing so.
An ethics of desire that is based on lust alone is of course a flawed ethic. An ethic of desire that balances our body’s wants with our heart’s wants and with the wants of our partners is closer to the mark. And an ethic of desire that is rooted in self-giving is, I think, particularly commendable.
I liked the comment about remaining chaste being a subversive act, even though as mythago points out, it still is giving men power over women’s sexuality.
The reason I like this comment is because of my mentor student. She is a gorgeous young lady, and many guys want what she has. She has the attitude that she is simply too good for them to touch. Its origin is in arrogance, not Christian values, but it works. She’s 16, and not letting guys near her. Whatever works.
Well, I guess no one has done a long-term survey of people who swear to wait for marriage, actually succeed, and then divorce to see how they feel about that. But it’s something that I’ve noticed, yes, and not just with people who marry first. Some people wait for the person they think they’re going to marry and then are crushed even more when the relationship ends.
Since I don’t agree with “abstinence only” education I don’t pay too much attention to how it’s delivered, but any sex ed that implies that marriage = girlfriend/boyfriend + S.E.X. is seriously distorting marriage and not in a way that’s likely to have positive consequences. Marriage is an experience unto itself that goes way beyond sexual relations.
I have long puzzled over the anachronistic value placed on virginity per se (as opposed to declining to engage in destructive or abusive sexual behavior, which is always a healthy instinct). I think that most people who never even tried to make it to the wedding night intact have figured out that it is possible to experience sexual pleasure before marriage and still see marriage as an ideal worth striving for, and to be faithful within their marriage. Obviously, it’s also possible to get stuck in the rut of an unsatisfying sexual relationship where long-term expecations regarding marriage and family don’t match. But that’s partly because (in my very humble opinion) many women are taught to see their sexuality as acceptable only if it is expressed in the context of a “loving committed” relationship — and so, unfortunately, they are wont to pretend that’s what they’re part of even when they’re not — or at least, not the kind of committed relationship that they really crave. The answer isn’t to forego sex, or at least not necessarily, it’s to become realistic about relationships and move on so that your expectations don’t become a permanent fantasy.
To mythago: On another topic, I truly do not understand the “everything but” mentality. To me, that’s really cheapening abstinence; it’s loading all the guilt of premarital sex onto one act, so that one can still fool around while being self-congratulatory.
I think it really depends on when you are doing the “everything but.” I don’t see any contradiction in reserving sexual expression for serious relationships, and, say, doing “everything but” with someone you’re contemplating marrying, while saving the “but” for the wedding day (though, admittedly, going as far as “everything but” is open to criticism in Christian terms). But if it means “everything but” basically any time you like, even fairly casually, while saving intercourse for marriage, then it would seem odd to me.
(I should add that I’m not criticizing those who avoid certain sex acts out of concern for pregnancy.)
But thank you, thank you, for this. I sometimes hear people talk as if there were no reason at all to avoid intercourse if you’re willing to do other things, and I can see lots of reasons, even purely secular ones, especially if you consider both pregnancy and abortion unacceptable (which I did, for myself, pre-marriage - and I want to make it clear that I mean that by unacceptable I mean that I wasn’t willing to take that on, not that I wanted to cast single mothers into the outer darkness or anything like that).
To John: Do you think that having sex with love and commitment introduces an especially Sacramental element? In that case, wouldn’t pre-marital heterosexual sex be in as well?
I don’t get it. Marriage is commitment, so why would pre-marital heterosexual sex by just the same, in terms of the sacramental value of commitment, as marital sex? I mean, I know that some people who don’t believe in marriage at all have marriage-like commitments without it, but surely that’s not the norm for pre-marital heterosexual sex? And, if it’s commitment that’s sacramental, then that’s as much as saying that pre-marital sex is relatively good to the extent that it’s really, after all, in a relationship that’s nearly the same as marriage. Thoroughly approving pre-marital sex as it’s actually lived would have to mean saying commitment (and maybe even love) is optional, where sex is concerned.
In any case, I don’t think it’s sex that makes marriage sacramental so much as the absence of reserve, not needing to hold any of yourself back. Which could mean letting your love show sexually as well as in other ways, but could also mean years of fidelity when illness precludes sex. Either thing, sex or abstinence, whichever comes your way, can be part of sharing a life together.
To Barbara: Since I don’t agree with “abstinence only” education I don’t pay too much attention to how it’s delivered,
I don’t agree with “abstinence only” education in a public school, where half the kids may already not be virgins, most of them are probably not intending to be virgins till marriage, and where “abstinence only” education deprives them of concrete knowledge about protecting themselves from pregnancy and disease. I’m just fine with abstinence education in a Catholic (or other) church, such as the class Louisa was going to teach.
I have long puzzled over the anachronistic value placed on virginity per se (as opposed to declining to engage in destructive or abusive sexual behavior, which is always a healthy instinct)
I sometimes think Christian preaching about chastity is too oriented towards that wedding day moment, and not enough toward sexual integrity as a whole.
I sometimes think Christian preaching about chastity is too oriented towards that wedding day moment, and not enough toward sexual integrity as a whole.
Exactly, Lynn.
I guess I have more understanding for those who say that a certain level of sexual intimacy–the “but”, as it were–is something they want to save for their spouse. But that only makes sense if you consider all the rest of “everything” to be non-intimate, or at least casual compared to vaginal intercourse, which seems bizarre to me. Clintonian, even. ;)
“I liked the comment about remaining chaste being a subversive act, even though as mythago points out, it still is giving men power over women’s sexuality. ”
Yeah, though as you say, intention is everything. If a woman is chaste just to protect herself from male sexuality, then that chastity is a step toward empowerment but a rather small one. On the other hand, when a young couple decides they will take their time about getting to intercourse and will, instead, play around a bit, I agree with Hugo that that can be an empowering act. If nothing else, its huge fun and it lets both people escape from any nervousness they may have because of their inexperience.
Hugo,
By “ethics of desire” I did not assume you were talking about the body vs. the heart. The problem is that, in our natural state, our sinful nature influences all of our desires (whether physical, emotional, or what have you). That’s not to say that we’re so fallen that we can never desire good; it’s not that we’re as bad as we could be, but that sin influences all parts of our being.
It’s only as we grow into the image of Christ that our desires become more trustworthy. Even then, we’re still simultaneously saint and sinner, and so we have to submit our desires to God’s will for our lives.
Peace of Christ,
Chip
“I have long puzzled over the anachronistic value placed on virginity per se (as opposed to declining to engage in destructive or abusive sexual behavior, which is always a healthy instinct). I think that most people who never even tried to make it to the wedding night intact have figured out that it is possible to experience sexual pleasure before marriage and still see marriage as an ideal worth striving for, and to be faithful within their marriage.”
Ah, it is an anachronism–I think people like the drama of consumating a marriage with blood and pain. Really sets the tone, dontcha think?
Seriously, a woman’s virginity was prized because “taking” it sealed the deal between her and her husband and made her officially his. In these days where we strive for equality, men will have to forsake a bloody demonstration of their new rights on their wedding night.
Proudly and publicly abstinent?
Who, exactly, do you think should know about my abstinence??
I think the conversation about honoring yourself versus honoring God is very interesting…
here is a Jewish proverb thingy
You should keep a slip of paper in each of your pockets, to take out when you need them. One should say, “It was for my sake that God created the world” and the other should say, “I am but dust and ashes and to dust and ashes I will return.”
If you really believe that God created you in God’s image, how can you treat yourself with any other way but with honor??
Hugo - I don’t like the term “subversive”, but I think mthyago is only looking at your comment through one lens.
“in a society where the bodies of young women are highly sexualized commodities for male “consumption”, remaining chaste is radically counter-cultural and perhaps even subversive”
Which is to say, women should still allow men’s interest and power to dictate and direct their choices. Sigh.
At the strategic level, the military considers the effects of certain operations in contributing to dissuading, deterring, or assuring the behaviors of other states and organizations - in other words, to shape the geopolitical environment. Instead of looking at remaining chaste as a “subversive reaction” to male behavior, one could view it as a strategic choice to shape such behavior. In that lens, women have the power to dictate the choices of men. Imagine the choices young men would make if all young women waited until marriage (or pick your idea of a “committed” relationship) to have sexual intercourse. If you believe as I do that young men’s attention might substantially become more focused on other areas than the potential sexual possibilities with their partners, then that’s hardly a subversive course of action or one even rooted in arrogance - but simply smart strategic thinking.
John - yes, the Bible is not mute, but consider Leviticus also adds ‘If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. I’m not sure you also support maintaining the traditional biblical penalty in today’s society?
Hugo - the one area I would offer an additional perspective is your comment:
“it’s that abstinence programs frequently build up post-marital sex to undue proportions”…considering the messages and ideas young people get from popular culture, I believe sex, albeit pre or post-marital, is already built up with “great expectations” in their minds. In fact, one of the attributes of a good (imho)program is to interject some balance against those other messages prevalent in the environment within which these young people live.
What if young women don’t want to be responsible for young men? What if we prefer them to be be responsible for themselves?
Hugo,
“Indeed, one could make a feminist case for abstinence: in a society where the bodies of young women are highly sexualized commodities for male “consumption”, remaining chaste is radically counter-cultural and perhaps even subversive. Being proudly and publicly abstinent is a way of demanding attention for one’s mind rather than for one’s potential sexual favors.”
Frighteningly, in a way that’s what the arch-conservative Straussian in my department here at Harvard says. Take a look: http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=356620
“Mansfield said he stressed during his speech that both positive and negative changes have occurred in undergraduate love lives.
“[The speech] was an assessment of the sexual scene at Harvard today by comparison to what I lived through fifty years ago,†said Mansfield. “Women and men see each other each day, study together and eat together. These things are improvements.â€
He criticized, however, the increase in recreational sex.
Through recreational sex, he said, women were giving out “free samples.â€
“I expect there is a lot of recreational sex and so the sexual scene is more favorable to men than it used to be,†Mansfield said in an interview yesterday. “It’s a men’s game they’re playing.â€
Mansfield included this remark, which some called offensive, in his speech Tuesday.”
There are two messages I see all the time in popular dating advice.
1) Here’s what men want: don’t be too clingy. If you want to please men, understand that, after all, they don’t want to be rushed into commitment, that the first roll in the hay (and probably a whole bunch of rolls in the hay after that) is just for fun, that you shouldn’t crowd him by, for example, expecting him to actually look into your eyes or anything like that, and certainly don’t ask him where the relationship is going, even if you’d really like to know.
Now, I say, screw that. If you want your sex with love, hold out for sex with love. If you get attached (called “clingy”) with the person you have sex with, hold out for the person who’s happy with “clingy.” If you want some level of commitment with your sex, hold out for some level of commitment. Just like you get to hold out for the guy who thinks you get to have an orgasm, too, or, if the two of you haven’t been waiting for wedlock and saving it for one person, hold out for the guy who cares enough about your and his health to wear a condom. And, of course, if you believe sex belongs within marriage, you should absolutely be holding out for marriage.
On the other hand, then there’s:
2) Women should absolutely wait to have sex - for however long the advicegiver thinks appropriate (which usually isn’t, unless you’re reading very explicitly Christian stuff, anywhere near until marriage) - to send a message that they aren’t too easy. Before X number of dates = bad idea, after X number of dates = good idea. However, this same set of advicegivers have a whole other set of thing women aren’t supposed to do: like call men up, ever mention marriage first if you get to the point that you’re thinking about it, or, in fact, make the first move of any kind. It’s neither chastity nor empowerment that’s being sold in this style of Rulesy advice, but game playing.
Empowerment would involve, yes, being able to set boundaries and say no, but also being able to positively state what, yes, you do want. Which women following this kind of advice are, apparently, never supposed to do.
Being chaste and abstinent, as publically or privately as you feel appropriate, can be a “subversive” act, if it also involves getting to say what you are saying “yes” to, not quietly wait for someone else to come up with the idea on his own.
Amanda - It’s not an issue of one gender taking responsibility for the other, but a recognition that the actions of each side shape and influence those of the other side.
In general, people must be able to interact with their environment and those within it appropriately. One must be able to observe and orient in such a way that he/she can indeed survive and prosper by shaping the environment where possible to one’s own ends, by adapting to it where one must. Doing so requires a complex set of relationships that involve both isolation and interaction. Knowing when each is appropriate is critical to success. I think a good abstinence program should be one method to help young folks develop that knowledge.
Still, I think focusing on young women to make young men behave is far too roundabout a way to do it. Take the message to young men directly, and if they reject it, too bad. Young women should not be held responsible if young men think it’s cool to philander.
Looks like someone left in an unmatched HTML code for italics.
Regarding the “abstinence until marriage” silliness, ignoring the fact that it is a bad policy (more on that later), nobody is going to fall for that unless a reason is given for the abstinence. Is unwanted pregnancy a reason? That can be largely alleviated by use of birth control pills (isn’t modern science wonderful?) or other birth control measures such as condoms and use of other orifices (yup, I’m referring to oral and anal sex). Is wishing to avoid sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) a reason? Well, that can also be largely alleviated by use of condoms–as well as by use of techniques that don’t include exchange of bodily fluids. The fact, that “abstinence until marriage” yahoos wish to avoid, is that people–and that includes kids–aren’t stupid. Their reasons are empty.
Why is “abstinence until marriage” a bad policy? Because it leads to early marriage, and, quite often, early divorce. As has been shown in areas of the US in which conservative–mostly Protestant–Christians predominate.
It’s not clear what the “abstinence until marriage” silliness has to do with gay marriage, but, let’s get something–uh–straight. Gay kids aren’t going to buy the “abstinence until marriage” silliness, certainly not as long as the proponents of the “abstinence until marriage” silliness oppose marriage between gay people, that is, gay marriage. That would mean that they are supposed to never have sex with their chosen partners, and, I hate to break it to you, but that is dumb. Gay people are going to have sex with each other, whether or not they are married, and whether or not you approve. So trying to bring gay marriage and gay sex into a discussion of “abstinence until marriage” is somewhat silly.
BTW, for the fellow who brought portions of the Wholly Babble into the gay sex discussion, let’s get something else, uh, straight. I’ll let you know when I give credence to the ravings of a bunch of ignorant goat-herders from a few thousand years ago. Intelligent people have moved on. Even most of the descendants of those ignorant goat-herders.
There, hope that fixed it.
Imagine the choices young men would make if all young women waited until marriage (or pick your idea of a “committed” relationship) to have sexual intercourse.
We’ve already been there, done that, haven’t we? It didn’t work so well, and it presumes that young women don’t want sex so much. Driving choice in a marriage parter through horniness doesn’t make for wise choices in a mate.
raj: plenty of us descendants are happy to embrace what our ancestors had to say, because we look at it critically, not unthinkingly. I recommend you try the same.
Strange…
Yeah, I tried closing the italics myself, but it looks as if they can only be fixed in the comment where they first went astray. Odd, that.
“Regarding the “abstinence until marriage” silliness, ignoring the fact that it is a bad policy (more on that later), nobody is going to fall for that unless a reason is given for the abstinence.” (And raj goes on to discuss the pragmatic reasons of pregnancy and STDs, and why they’re not strong enough.) That would be true, in the case of an abstinence education program within the public schools - and raj is of course right that the chances that the risks of sex will convince all teenagers to stick to total abstinence are vanishingly small.
However, the abstinence education that Louisa was going to be teaching was sponsored by the Catholic Church, and any reasons it gives for abstinence would be grounded in Catholic teaching about the inherent meaning of sex, not in pragmatic considerations of risk mitigation. And the reasons are quite adequate for a reasonable number of heterosexual, Mass attending Catholics to “fall for it.” They get to be a tougher sell with gay Catholics, since never getting to have sex with your chosen partner is harder than having to wait, and they get to be a pretty tough sell with straight Catholics as well when you get to birth control. Still, the fact that people aren’t all going to follow Catholic teaching on sex doesn’t work all that well as a reason for Catholics to stop teaching Catholics that abstinence until marriage is the way to go. Any critique of abstinence till marriage as an value within the Christian tradition (as opposed to critiquing abstinence until marriage as the only thing taught in secular public schools) would have to rely on an entirely different set of arguments.
“Why is “abstinence until marriage” a bad policy? Because it leads to early marriage, and, quite often, early divorce. As has been shown in areas of the US in which conservative–mostly Protestant–Christians predominate.” I see this as an example of the problem I talked about earlier (and here I am addressing internal Christian teaching, as a Christian, and not purely promotion of abstinence education in a secular context), of Christian preaching about chastity being too oriented towards that wedding day moment, and not enough toward sexual integrity as a whole. When I hear of the high divorce rate in the Bible belt, I have to wonder - what kind of premarital counseling are churches actually providing? Are they really helping couples discern whether they should get married, or are they simply happily approving anyone who manages to get married before having sex? Is their teaching on sex and marriage geared toward helping people navigate the actual difficulties of marriage? What are they doing to sustain marriage?
And, of course, those of us who aren’t in the Bible belt aren’t exempt from asking ourselves these questions, either.
Okay, I went back in and fixed it.
Good point, myth. To make the “women are gatekeepers” argument with a straight face you have to assume that women don’t like sex and that men do.
That or that women suffer the consequences more than men do. Which, if conservatives have their way, they will.
No, you just have to assume - correctly - that many men like commitment-free sex with as many marginally attractive members as possible, and relatively few women do. That’s why the few women who do - or at least don’t mind - can make money as prostitutes. The idea of being paid by a stranger for sex is something horny men can only fantasize about.
mythago | October 23, 2004 08:32 AM
>raj: plenty of us descendants are happy to embrace what our ancestors had to say, because we look at it critically, not unthinkingly. I recommend you try the same.
Some of us aren’t dumb, mythago. If you wish to embrace what your ancestors had to say, regardless of whether they had imbibed the sacred mushroom when they were saying it, query why you are using an appliance–a/k/a a “computer”–that your sacred ancesters had no access to. Just because your ancestors held to certain mantras, is that any reason for you to? Or me? Give be a frigging break. Grow up and think for yourself.
Lynn Gazis-Sax | October 23, 2004 09:50 AM
>Are they really helping couples discern whether they should get married, or are they simply happily approving anyone who manages to get married before having sex?
Oh, Lynn, give me a break. It should be clear to anyone paying attention that these establishments of religion are trying to regulate who has sex with whom, and when. They are very sick.
Give be a frigging break. Grow up and think for yourself. Um, raj, she’s saying that she is thinking for herself, and is choosing, after doing so, to accept some of what her ancestors have to say, and reject others.
I’m reminded of a story in the Talmud about children growing up …
That and the Zen koan, “First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.” (Of course, unlike raj, I’ve actually read the work in question. It’s easier to critique that way, I think.)
That’s why the few women who do - or at least don’t mind - can make money as prostitutes.
You’re assuming that prostitutes choose their work because they like commitment-free sex with lots of strangers. That’s kind of a bizarre argument–isn’t the point of the money to compensate the woman for having sex? Otherwise she’d be giving it away. Prostitution is a temporary and concrete form of the traditional exchange, whereby the man provides financial support and the woman puts out.
As for horny men, I assure you that men talk a much bigger game than they walk. It’s not considered many to say that one prefers sex to accompany love, or that one doesn’t really want to get laid all the time. Speaking not just from my personal experience, an astonishing number of those men suddenly have a passel of excuses when that opportunity for commitment-free sex is a reality.
And where there is disparity between men’s and women’s desires or not-desires for commitment-free sex, there’s no real way to know if it’s that men naturally want that, or if they just have more access to it than women and are under greater social pressure to act like they are hornier than women. Also, women are under extreme social pressure to hide their sexual desires, excepting of course the desire to have a baby.
Good discussion, but raj, please mind your language a bit; calling other folks “sick” doesn’t work on my blog. There are plenty of other places where one can engage in pathologizing people of faith. Not here, thanks.
Mythago, you missed my point. I’m not arguing that prostitutes necessarily like commitment-free sex, only that they are willing to tolerate it in order to fill a commercial niche that wouldn’t exist if most other women were nearly as promiscuous as the average man is.
Amanda, I disagree. Ever since the late 1960s, the social pressures on women to remain celibate have been essentially nil. And your suggestion that men have more access than women to commitment free sex doesn’t pass the laugh test. How many women do you know who have gone to a bar wondering if they’ll be able to get an easy, commitment-free lay, or if they’ll have to pay a man good money to provide one?
“Prostitution is a temporary and concrete form of the traditional exchange, whereby the man provides financial support and the woman puts out.”
There was an old line by Karl Marx: “The difference between a wife and a prostitute is that the one sells herself wholesale whereas the other sells herself retail.”
The charge must have been uncomfortably close to the truth because ever since then couples have been, more and more with each generation, emphasizing the elements of friendship and companionship that go along with their marriage, and eventually the law, too, was adjusted to allow for more equal partnerships. Women have long wanted, and have now largely won, changes that put more difference between the practice of marriage and the practice of prostitution.
Ever since the late 1960s, the social pressures on women to remain celibate have been essentially nil.
Not hardly. There’s the whole virginity movement and the born-again virginity movement. Perhaps among adult women your statement is true, insofar as it concerns celibacy. Pressure for adults to remain celibate may be nil, but there is a whole lot of pressure not to be promiscuous. Don’t sleep with him on the first date, even if you want to; he’ll think you’re easy. And we wouldn’t want to be thought of as easy. Don’t admit to multiple partners. Don’t admit that sometimes you just want a roll in the hay.
We saw this in the furor over the Kobe Bryant case. She was a slut! She asked for it! My god, she had another man’s semen in her panties!
It happens all the time. Pressure is everywhere not to be “promiscuous,” even though “promiscuity” is loosely defined and applied largely to women.
A woman who likes sex is called a nymphomaniac. What’s the equivalent pejorative for a man who likes sex? There isn’t one, because they’re supposed to like sex and go out and get it.
The pressure is very much there, even if it’s let up a bit. You’d know that if you were the one it was directed toward.
What doesn’t pass the laugh test is the notion that the 60’s somehow evaporated the double standard. If it did, well, the word “slut” would have disappeared overnight. The double standard changed, yes. Now instead of a male non-virgin expecting a wife who is a virgin, we just have a situation where a man whose slept around can still expect a wife who has had sex before with 2 or 3 men.
Men generally feel comfortable bragging about their sex lives around each other, at least in some segments of society. Generally, this isn’t true of women. I catch myself succumbing to this double standard all the time–I hear men laughing over doing kinky stuff that I wouldn’t admit out loud to even knowing the existence of.
Raj is correct. We had a discussion on this previously. Nine out of the ten states with the highest divorce rates are in the so-called Bible belt, including Oklahoma. The lowest rates are found in the Northeast.
Religion may play a factor (there is a weak correlation between concentration of Catholics and lower divorce rate — Louisiana has a lower divorce rate than the rest of the South) but there is a very clear correlation between average age at first marriage and divorce rate: On average, the older the bride and groom are when they tie the knot, the less likely they will get divorced. It is also quite a bit less likely that they will be “inexperienced” and a lot more likely that they will have had messy “unmarried” unions that are the equivalent of first marriages (usually sans children, thankfully). So having been an elderly bride with a few messed up relationships under my belt, in my humble view, I won the real prize, which is a happy marriage, not virginity.
only that they are willing to tolerate it in order to fill a commercial niche that wouldn’t exist if most other women were nearly as promiscuous as the average man is.
Then one wonders why men are so contemptuous of promiscuous women–dudes, let up with the ’slut’ comments, we’ll put out more, and everybody wins!
Seriously, though, I’d argue prostitution has less to do with a purely free market than with issues of access and entitlement. Women have less money to spend on sex acts, more stigma if they do, less sense of entitlement (”if I want sex I should have it when I want it”). It’s the same way that in some Third World countries, most middle-class people have full-time housekeepers. It’s not that their need for a clean house is any greater than yours or mine, but there is a larger supply of cheap labor.
It would be interesting to see how much prostitution there would be in a society where women had as much disposable income as men, were believed as entitled to sex as men, and where it was considered more or less acceptable for a woman to go pay $50 for cunnilingus from a stranger. (And let’s not forget the issue of safety. I doubt many men worry that a prostitute is going to force them to do a sex act they don’t want. Women do need to worry about that from men.)
Barbara -
Statistics can point in other areas:
A research study by Denver University psychologist Howard Markman shows that the average divorce rate in cities that have a major league baseball team is 28 percent
lower than in cities that lack a major league franchise.
We just need expansion, not contraction there Bud Selig!
The NIHR offers support for your weak religious correlation:
“In truth, the National Institute for Healthcare Research says weekly
churchgoers throughout the U.S. are less apt to divorce than people who claim
“no religion” and those who attend religious services less than once a week.
Devout Catholics have especially low divorce rates - apparently because
Catholic parishes often take the responsibility of marriage preparation and
enrichment more seriously than Protestant churches do. ” (The author’s reasoning, not mine)
“Thus, one of the reasons for the relatively low divorce rates in the Northeast and Midwest is because these regions tend to have a higher concentration of Catholics than do other geographic areas.”
You cite age. Other factors correlated or affecting age of marriage could be in play -
University of Texas sociologist Norval Glenn says another factor affecting
regional differences in divorce is “social rootedness.” His research shows
that people who live in stable communities are less apt to divorce because
they are more likely to be enmeshed in an inter-generational social network
that helps them evaluate potential mates, offers them marital advice and
support, and expects them to work through any domestic problems that may
arise. Thus, the Sun Belt’s higher divorce rates are due, in part, to the fact
that this region has more social instability than less-transient areas in the
Northeast and Midwest.
I’m not aware of any statistical support though for Raj’s claim “Why is “abstinence until marriage” a bad policy? Because it leads to early marriage, and, quite often, early divorce.” It seems he is making a poor casual connection given the evidence.
I would be curious to know how many people are both abstinent until marriage and marry after age 24 (college graduate plus one or two years work experience). My guess is, pretty darn few. And the kicker is, those that might make it out that far without Doing It, may well be repressed gays/lesbians who really don’t WANT to Do It but feel they should to please the family or God. These late marrying abstinent lgbt may be contributing to the divorce rate years later on coming out. So it may be a wash - older abstinent folks who have really thought marriage through and have a commitment, cancelled out by other abstinent older folk who are totally closeted lgbt. Do I have stats on this tiny group of older virgins? Not on your life, I am talking out of the side of my hat.
Very young marriages, where education / vocational training are foreclosed and where the individuals neither are mature nor have extensive family support on both sides, are naturally going to be less stable and more prone to effects of poverty as well.
Steve, having lived in the South for the better part of 25 years, let me say that “social rootedness” is a heck of a lot more speculative than age in trying to evaluate the reasons for divorce. I will spend some effort looking for studies, but the inverse relationship between age at first marriage and likelihood of divorce has been well-studied and comes up over and over again. Of course, people who marry when they are older are also more likely to be more rooted in their community, wherever they live. But nonetheless, Raj’s point is a good one because we can’t do a whole lot about the overall social rootedness of the place where we move to find a job. We can control whether we marry at a point in our lives when we are more likely to be rooted in our community.
I have nothing against marrying young. Sometimes, maybe even often times, it will be the right thing for couples. I may be biased because the fellow that wanted to marry me when I graduated from college has been married and divorced twice (married first at age 23), and, believe me, he lives in a very stable community. And here I am, having married at 29, living in the “transient capital” of America, with one husband these 15 years.
At any rate, marrying young because it is the socially accepted thing to do and because you cannot otherwise obtain sexual satisfaction places too many burdens on marriage. Since this thread is about abstinence and marriage, that was my real point: Pre-marital abstinence has little to do with the likelihood of stable marriage, and may actually be the product of social conditions that lead to unstable marriage because it causes couples to make marriages when, all other things being equal, they would not have married. It is definitely not to say that other factors can’t also lead to less stable marriages.