This is opposite of what I was brought up with. A staple of “Don’t Have Sex” literature is the statistics: 99.987% of 16 year old girls are sexually active, blah, blah blah. And, as eloquently discussed on the “Defense of Lauren Winner” page, “recycled virgins” are offered forgiveness. This is somewhat of a practical necessity, I suppose, but even as a very idealistic home-schooled teenage boy, I realized that it was quite likely that girls I would meet in the future would have some sexual history. The only part of the “purity” discussion that I instantly saw past as foolish and impractical at the time was a sentence to the effect of “Want to be free of STD’s? Save for yourself for marriage and marry a virgin.”

I may have been inexperienced, but I knew even then that strangers do not discuss sexual histories early in a relationship. Therefore, I thought that (absent something truly shocking, like prostitution or a known incurable STD) by the time I knew a girl well enough to discuss this, that I’d be too emotionally invested in the relationship to really quibble over her past.

I also knew that, statistically speaking, if I eliminated all non-virgins, I’d have a pretty difficult time finding anyone. As a result of these, I held myself to a standard that I didn’t really fully expect from my future wife.

Perhaps this isn’t too much different than other areas, where a marathon runner might accept someone less devoted to exercise or whatever. But maybe it’s an interesting double standard (or at least further evidence that male sexuality is rarely “celebrated” in any context, especially conservative Christian circles).

Other random thoughts: There is a big gap between virginity and promiscuity. And the earlier discussion about virginal/near-virginal husbands and about retroactive jealousy has been interesting.

Lastly, and somewhat on-topic:
What is the huge moral difference between “wild oats” and serial monogamy? I really don’t understand the nature of many non-marital relationships. Some, obviously, are close, lasting, and even lead to marriage. Others seem to be obviously temporary, with the couple acknowledging some incompatibility (I guess). What sort of “commitment” do we mean? Simply being exclusive “until one of us feels like doing something [someone :)] else” doesn’t seem like too big a deal, since one always has the option of upgrading, and therefore doesn’t seem like worthy of too much respect.

I say this as someone who has had as much trouble with the romantic side of things as the sexual. Some of this is probably due to using my mind to see obvious incompatibilities instead of just following my heart, as apparently Hugo was doing with his date who wore a “Porn Star” cap to a family function, especially depending on where he was spiritually then. Maybe I’m thinking of using cheap sexual flings as inferior substitutes for the romantic relationship I really want…I don’t know. I recall thinking that the sex that my non-Christian friends who were long-term relationships were having didn’t seem as morally objectionable as some other activities, but, on the other hand, the difference between “married” and “not married” is pretty clear, but it seems that many people’s “relationships” may really be lighthearted flings with a veneer of seriousness for social convention’s sake. Like Lincoln’s story about a calling a dog’s tail a leg, does calling a short-term or medium-term sexual fling a “relationship” really make it better?

And the Old Testament does often seem to be concerned more with the legal details (that Jacob’s marriage to Leah was held to be valid, despite the fact that he didn’t want to marry her, and may not even have known her well is interesting, as are the concepts of concubines, polygamy, etc.) than care and love between people. Of course, those legal relationships did imply a degree of responsibility for the woman and offspring, even if they didn’t involve exclusivity or romance.

I’m sure some feminists will oppose this (as they do all forms of chivalry), but the point is that, in my conservative fundamental youth, men were restricted no less than the women, and probably MORESO. Kind of a softer version of the double-standard that Hugo agrees to posting from, where he urges himself and his male youth to purity, but encourages his female students to “celebrate their sexuality.”

This is a typical (current) quote in response to a guy who was intimidated with risking rejection. After telling him to be bold, the author continues:
“…more importantly, you need to be completely certain…Let me say this clearly. The ONLY reason you should begin (and continue) pursuing a female is because there is a good possibility you and she will marry.”
http://www.dyscletter.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=1

At least the author says positive things about men taking initiative. My generation was castrated with “wait on the Lord,” and “don’t make girls uncomfortable by coming on too strong; get to know each other in group settings / be ‘friends first.”

Also, as far as the “broader culture,” I didn’t read Playboy and other things celebrating promiscuity , but got messages from CNN and the Wall Street journal. The defining discussion of sex centered around the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill saga, hardly a sex-positive story even though Thomas (narrowly) squeaked through. Teen pregnancy, welfare reform, AIDS, abortion, and “defining deviancy down” were popular editorial topics also. So I rarely heard “sex” except as part of “sexual harassment.” I never heard “I’m so glad my boyfriend/husband asked me out,” only “sexual harassment,” “sexual harassment,” “sexual harassment.” When I entered (secular) college, they did talk a little about condoms, but also about the recently revised Sexual Harassment Policy, and how “unwanted sexual advances” would be punished. Being a bit innocent about such things, I was a little worried about what would happen if I asked a classmate on a date and she didn’t like me. Yes, part of me realized this was absurd, but the point is I got a steady stream of 100% negative discussions of sex (and, usually, dating, especially if it didn’t lead to marriage) from family, church, academia, and the press beginning at about age 10.

But, anyway, a TLW girl will possibly find herself with a sexually active man at some point. She can say “I gave in,” “I just couldn’t resist,” or “it just happened” and put most moral culpability on the man. But a purity-focused man is unlikely to “make a move” even toward kissing.

There’s also a strong bias (which Hugo admitted in an old post about a discussion in his youth group) toward the popular, attractive, and precocious. The focus seems to be on “How can we help the homecoming queens and football captains keep their hands off each other’s pinup-quality bodies?” These people are so sexy that they can survive pretty much any obstacles placed in their way, and generally have no trouble finding desirable mates in even the most repressed context. But for the geeky guys, the one pretty girl in church that we liked usually rejected us…so what next?

Also, we were supposed to be “mature,” “serious,” “responsible,” and “good providers.” This doesn’t lead a guy to spend much on flashy clothes, go into massive debt to buy a sexy car, and engage in steroid-fueled bodybuilding, so my peers and I weren’t the most attractive guys around. In contrast, though a few girls were taught to wear ankle-length floral dresses, many others engaged in social shopping and keeping up with fashion, which were encouraged as appropriate interests for young women.

In the same vein, I remember several of the girls from my fundy church going to secular universities and joining sororities. Perhaps this is because girls were seen as inherently pure…this puzzled me, because I saw fraternities as “dens of iniquity.” At the time, I thought “Why would a sincere Christian guy pay thousands of dollars per year to join a group dedicated to drinking and fornication?” So the double standard on that was actually more permissive for girls.

Here are some good descriptions of the purity that men are taught in fundy circles, which I, unlike the cartoonists, am not quite willing to abandon:
http://www.whichcircle.com/episodes/04.html
http://www.whichcircle.com/episodes/04_commentary.html

http://www.whichcircle.com/episodes/07.html
http://www.whichcircle.com/episodes/07_commentary.html
“I also like the fact that the Christian men are very uptight about dating (sex?) while the women are totally comfortable with the topic.”

http://www.whichcircle.com/archive/ur_menstopics.html

In fairness, the one chapter of Crusade that I know about is actually pro-dating now, apparently after seeing the damage done by past legalism. They’re still anti-fornication, but they encourage dating and many people get married near college graduation, which I think is good.

But the runaway popularity of the “Every Man’s Battle” series should be all the proof that anyone needs about the sexual restrictions placed on men. Of course, the authors are hypocrites who, at one point in “Every Young Man’s Battle” even shame young men for having nocturnal emissions, implying that wet dreams are the result of having “bad thoughts” throughout the day, as opposed to the natural, healthy innocent physical consequence of actually following purity by avoiding sex and masturbation (something I doubt the authors has actualy done since puberty, given the experiences they “share” (really, “brag about”?)).

I strongly doubt that “Every Woman’s Battle” tells women to be ashamed of mensturation or imply that menstration is the result of a woman’s “bad thoughts.”

On a related note, TIME magazine reports that teen boys generally are more romantic and idealistic than teen girls:
http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376235-1,00.html

My experience growing up was the same THERE WAS NO DOUBLE-STANDARD. I had the same shame in my sexuality as my female peers - those in my sect, anyway. I am now in awe of the courage of the preacher’s-daughter who tried to initiate a sexual exploration with me when we were maybe 12 or 13 - I balked because my little sister was in the front seat of the car at the time. I shamed her, I am sure, but only because *I was ashamed. I ran away from her.

“Wild oats” are a metaphor for mistakes-with-consequences, nothing more. The metaphor has been abused, I’ll grant you, but it is still valid. Would you punish a 16-year-old and a 45-year-old the same for the same behavior?

The only way to learn sometimes is by doing.

And heaven help the man or woman who at 45 is trying to do what s/he ought to have done at 17…

(please?)

Hugo’s speculation about abuse from a father figure strikes me as the type of reflex characteristic of much feminist “thought.” Anything we say is pretty baseless speculation, but the two alternative propositions (which are pretty similar) #1: that his discussion of consequences, future, childrearing, and family would cause her to realize that her lifestyle wasn’t leading her toward marriage/motherhood and #2: that she was being slut-shamed are less likely to suffer from Occam’s razor than speculation on her childhood.

The charge of “commitment phobia” must be analyzed as to whether it is developmentally and appropriate, as to whether commitment-worthy relationships are available.

I agree with many of the criticisms of the phrase of “wild oats.” But doesn’t Hugo’s experience demonstrate some validity to the theory? It doesn’t sound like he wants to go out and have casual sex these days.

I agree that promiscuity is a bad habit for someone who wants to become monogamous. But I was also told that the serial monogamy of typical “dating” is training for divorce. All I’ve done is sit on the sexual sidelines in the 16 years since I hit puberty, but I don’t know that I would have been completely damaged by either a few long term relationships (but how is this possible with someone I don’t like enough to consider marrying?) or even a few casual hookups.

Anyway, I do agree the phrase is flawed, but think that maybe there’s a middle ground of just following one’s whims for a while between aggressive promiscuity and commitment.

Hm, that wasn’t obvious to me at all. I would’ve guessed she was reflecting on her own behaviour and hopes for the future.

And my interpretation was completely different than both of these. I thought she reacted viscerally because she thought Hugo was slut-shaming her.

On the other hand, I do wonder what you’re proposing as an alternative; would you suggest that teenagers and young adults approach every relationship with an eye toward long-term monogamous committment? If so, I can’t agree; while I don’t condone behavior that is actively dangerous or inconsiderate of others’ feelings, I do think there’s some validity in the idea that it’s best to try new things and get some experience (I don’t necessarily mean sexually– dating experience, relationship experience, meeting-new-people experience, etc) before “settling down.” And while the guy in your initial anecdote handled the situation badly and should not have cheated, I find it difficult to be too harsh on a nineteen-year-old who decides he’s not ready for a long-term exclusive relationship. As someone who’s been there, I can say with a fair amount of confidence that the alternative– staying in the relationship as is, growing more and more resentful each day at the opportunities you’re missing and the fun you’ll never get to have, feeling trapped and stifled and projecting that frustration onto your partner– is not at all preferable.

I won’t say that young people shouldn’t commit– after all, I did it and was very happy with it for a while, and if anyone had tried to tell me it was a bad idea I would have seriously bristled– but I will say that I think talking up monogamous committment as an ideal for teenagers and young adults has the potential to do nearly as much harm as encouraging them to participate in “random hookups” does. There are ways to enjoy one’s freedom, to pursue variety and excitement, to explore new experiences and people, without being reckless or cruel; if we’re going to promote anything as a universal ideal of healthy behavior for youth, it should be that.

(Also, Sara, I found your comment about giving up the “interesting narrative” extremely insightful. That’s something I’ve struggled with as well, although I think I ended up coming to a different conclusion than you did, and that line summed it up perfectly.)

It seems to me that this is important — sowing domesticates plants, and one should only sow when one is ready to harvest what one has sown, which is to say, when one has settled into domesticated living. The “oats” one sows before that are not wild in themselves, but in that they will bear harvests outside of the domestic sphere, which is to say, harvests that become someone else’s burden to reap. All this farming lingo is really getting to me, so let me put it in plainspeak: any pregnancies that result from the “wild oats” phase aren’t a young man’s problem, they’re the *woman’s* problem. This used to be enshrined in law — it’s why some children were “bastards”. This kind of legal structure authorized, for example, relationships between masters and their slaves, because any offspring would be illegitimate (and doubly delegitimated by inheriting their mothers’ blackness) and thus barred from displacing the “pure” white wife’s children from their rightful inheritance.

This is why women don’t “have oats” — I suppose we could say (following the farming metaphors) that they go through a “fallow fields” period, but that implies an expectancy of pregnancy, and pregnancy is subject to all those social controls — hence the shaming of women who allow themselves to be “plowed” by men “sowing wild oats”.